Gamestop: "pre-owend business good for industry"

  • 65 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for free_milk
free_milk

3903

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#1 free_milk
Member since 2011 • 3903 Posts

http://www.latestnewsexplorer.com/gamestop-pre-owned-business-good-for-the-industry/

heres the soruce copy and pasted

"

Gamestoprevealedthat they are worth $1.8 billion a year and still remainsadamant that usedsales dont impact new.

In aninterviewwithGamasutra,GameStop CEOPaul Rainespoints out that 70%of the income gamers receive from turning in their used games is spent on new gaming products. Yet many developers andpublishers believe thatthe used sale methods of retailersis actually killing the industry.

Most Pre-Owned Ghost Recon Future Soldier

My answer to developers is that we are driving growth in acategorythat needs to grow, he said. We think theres a real lack of awareness as far as how its good for the industry. The transparency youre seeing from us is because we want people to know about it,helping peopleunderstand what were trying to do for the industry.

Many gamers see the trade-in model ascurrency, a means to purchase a new title they couldnt afford with straight-upcash. And its not justthegameseither: used consoles can betradedin towards a newer version, to purchase a batch of used titles or the latest AAA shooter on the market. Either way,the moneyis usually dumped back into the games industry.

Raines says, The knowledge of how this model helps drive sales really resides at the publisher level. We have not been successful in communicating to developers how thisbusinessreally helps. Now, if Im a developer, I know that [used games] give me heartburn, to see a game He tails off, aware perhaps that saying the words to see a game I poured myheart and soulinto selling at close toretail priceswithout yielding up a cent in royalties.

Were really not cannibalizing new game sales, Raines proceeded, Thats a common misconception. So my answer to developers is that we are driving growth in acategorythat needs to grow.

Most Pre-Owned The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Raines concluded, We think theres a real lack of awareness as far as how its good for the industry. The transparency youre seeing from us is because we want people to know about it,helping peopleunderstand what were trying to do for the industry.

As Raines points out,Its going to get picked up, there are a lot of people [on the internet] who tend to be very developer-centric, they love the developers. Anyone who is perceived as doing anything whatsoever to detract from the developer is going to catch some vitriol from the [internet] folks.

He makes one last point, the pre-ownedbusinessis not going to go away overnight. No matter what happens, there will be people who want a $9.99 Madden 07. They dont have $59 to pay for the new game. Weve got a ton of customers still playing PS2 games. I mean, where do you buy PS2 games anymore except GameStop? Theres a consumer for that.

So do you think pre-ownedbusinessimpacts the developers andpublishers?"

Avatar image for lundy86_4
lundy86_4

59816

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#2 lundy86_4
Member since 2003 • 59816 Posts

I agree and disagree.

Everything has positives and negatives.

Pre-owned allows the use of trading in toward newer titles, with a subsidized cost. However, you also now have the option between a relatively new game at $55 or the same game, new, at $60. People, naturally, are going to want the lower price.

I would maybe agree if their pricing was structured to better reflect that you are buying a used product, rather than trying to take the sale from the same copy (new) in order to make a much larger profit on the used sale.

Avatar image for WilliamRLBaker
WilliamRLBaker

28915

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 WilliamRLBaker
Member since 2006 • 28915 Posts

pre owned buisness in mom and pop stores is good for the industry.

Pre owned buisness by a world wide monopoly where often people don't even buy the games for full price but trade in thus no money changes hands except for that company and that company shafts the customer at every opportunity so as to make massive profits of which they never share with the developers...etc is not good for the industry.

Avatar image for mccoyca112
mccoyca112

5434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#4 mccoyca112
Member since 2007 • 5434 Posts

Good and bad. trade in's can not only go towards new games, but also lure gamers in to buy new the next time around. If someone buys a used copy of a game, and love it, you can almost bet on them getting it new for the second installment. On the other hand, gamestop takes the whole piece of the pie when someone buys used. That wouldn't be a problem, but they are a major establishment, not some local shop.

They're pretty much saving their own skin, but they do have a point.

Avatar image for cainetao11
cainetao11

37669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 77

User Lists: 1

#5 cainetao11
Member since 2006 • 37669 Posts
Good or bad is beyond my scope. I buy the games I really want new. I am always back logging so those I may buy used. In the end, in America at least, it should remain legal. Other countries govern as they see fit.
Avatar image for Gxgear
Gxgear

10425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Gxgear
Member since 2003 • 10425 Posts

That's 2 billion dollar out of developers' pockets and into Gamestops. Money gamers willingly shelled out to buy games, not trade-in credits.

Avatar image for bbkkristian
bbkkristian

14971

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 1

#7 bbkkristian
Member since 2008 • 14971 Posts

pre owned buisness in mom and pop stores is good for the industry.

Pre owned buisness by a world wide monopoly where often people don't even buy the games for full price but trade in thus no money changes hands except for that company and that company shafts the customer at every opportunity so as to make massive profits of which they never share with the developers...etc is not good for the industry.

WilliamRLBaker
I could agree with what you said :)
Avatar image for CanYouDiglt
CanYouDiglt

8442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 CanYouDiglt
Member since 2009 • 8442 Posts
Used games are the reason so many sequels sell better then the original game. A gamer tries a game they would otherwise not have paid $60 for and enjoys it enough to buy it new next time. Also gamers are able to try many more games because of the used game model.
Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#9 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts
you get rid of the second hand games market and you could potentially be pushing some of the poorest people out of gaming entirely, the irony is that the only publishers that are moaning about preowned games seem to be the ones that actually make significant Bank, Trading your games in has been around sinc e the ZX spectrum, it's fair to say it's a aprt of the culture of being a gamer, it would also set a rather dangerous precedent that could undermine a basic human right we have had for a very long time
Avatar image for Rocker6
Rocker6

13358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 Rocker6
Member since 2009 • 13358 Posts

you get rid of the second hand games market and you could potentially be pushing some of the poorest people out of gaming entirely, the irony is that the only publishers that are moaning about preowned games seem to be the ones that actually make significant Bank, Trading your games in has been around sinc e the ZX spectrum, it's fair to say it's a aprt of the culture of being a gamer, it would also set a rather dangerous precedent that could undermine a basic human right we have had for a very long timedelta3074

I'm PC only,but I like this post.Yeah,I fully agree that second hand bussiness on consoles is a positive thing for the consumer,and often for the developer too,helping to raise awareness of franchises that are less represented.As you said,it's a part of the console culture,and nothing wrong with it...

I'd really like if there was a used game market on the PC,where digital licenses like Steam ones are transferable...

Avatar image for RyanShazam
RyanShazam

6498

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 RyanShazam
Member since 2006 • 6498 Posts

The only time I buy used is if Im not sure about a game and its used for >$20. Im not going to buy a used game for $54.99 when I can get it new for $59.99.

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33779

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33779 Posts
This is probably one of the biggest double edge sword arguments ever,from the 100 they make give for used games 70% gos to new games,the problem is simple,gamestop for a new game gives you 25 dollars for a hot game,and sell it use for $55 so they make $30 dollars which not a single cent gos to developers. So if 70% of the total that gos out from gamestop go into new games,and is 1.8 billions imaging how much they actually make outside with the profits they make from each trade in game..
Avatar image for Zeviander
Zeviander

9503

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#14 Zeviander
Member since 2011 • 9503 Posts
That's 2 billion dollar out of developers' pockets and into Gamestops. Money gamers willingly shelled out to buy games, not trade-in credits.Gxgear
And a large portion of that revenue is put towards buying new product direct from the publisher. The money always filters back to the publisher. If it didn't, you think the gaming industry would still exist? Personally, I have never understood this "used game; industry dying" tripe.
Avatar image for Boddicker
Boddicker

4458

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#15 Boddicker
Member since 2012 • 4458 Posts

Used games are singlehandedly destroying console gaming IMHO. This gen has been complete shyte because devs are too afraid to take risks with the cost of game development being so high.

COD sells a bajillion copies? Let's make a modern day FPS.

I hate to say it but digital downloads, DRM, authentication codes, and overpriced DLC are inevitable for next gen.

Avatar image for superclocked
superclocked

5864

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 superclocked
Member since 2009 • 5864 Posts
Of course they're going to say that it's good for the industry. They charge many times more for used games than what they pay for them...
Avatar image for Cranler
Cranler

8809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 Cranler
Member since 2005 • 8809 Posts

The publishers are upset that they dont get anything for the 2nd sale while gamestop gets as much as $25 profit of each used sale which is much more than the profit anyone gets off the sale of a new game.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23717

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#18 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23717 Posts

[QUOTE="delta3074"]you get rid of the second hand games market and you could potentially be pushing some of the poorest people out of gaming entirely, the irony is that the only publishers that are moaning about preowned games seem to be the ones that actually make significant Bank, Trading your games in has been around sinc e the ZX spectrum, it's fair to say it's a aprt of the culture of being a gamer, it would also set a rather dangerous precedent that could undermine a basic human right we have had for a very long timeRocker6

I'm PC only,but I like this post.Yeah,I fully agree that second hand bussiness on consoles is a positive thing for the consumer,and often for the developer too,helping to raise awareness of franchises that are less represented.As you said,it's a part of the console culture,and nothing wrong with it...

I'd really like if there was a used game market on the PC,where digital licenses like Steam ones are transferable...

Problem is that developers do not get any money after the first sale of the game unless they do what EA does for MP pass's to get some money back. So its not a positive thing for developers, A resale is a real lost sale for them and if MS and or PS3 decides to implement some sort of anti used games structure by tying games to accounts depending on the developers choice. Will help developers get more money upfront vs Gamestop's reselling a new game for only $5-10 less. Gamespot profit from used games are over 80% of their business which is why they are throwing this article out there. With a $60 game a developer only gets $7-$8 while the rest goes to production/shipping , royalties , and other cuts of the pie to the consoler's owner and publisher.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23717

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#19 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23717 Posts

The publishers are upset that they dont get anything for the 2nd sale while gamestop gets as much as $25 profit of each used sale which is much more than the profit anyone gets off the sale of a new game.

Cranler
Its much more then a $25 with a recent/new $60 game that just released its 90% pure profit.
Avatar image for delta3074
delta3074

20003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#20 delta3074
Member since 2007 • 20003 Posts
[QUOTE="Cranler"]

The publishers are upset that they dont get anything for the 2nd sale while gamestop gets as much as $25 profit of each used sale which is much more than the profit anyone gets off the sale of a new game.

04dcarraher
Its much more then a $25 with a recent/new $60 game that just released its 90% pure profit.

The percentage profits would depend on the trade in value, take gamestation, they never offer less than 40% of RRP Trade in, so 40% of what they earn on the game preowned is what they effectively paid for it in the first place, places like gamestop may be making a killing but Game and Gamestation nearly went under this year so selling preowned games obviously isn't as lucrative as some would make you believe, people need to quit with the assumption that all specialised games retailers are as bad as gamestop and completely shaft there customers
Avatar image for navyguy21
navyguy21

16656

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#21 navyguy21
Member since 2003 • 16656 Posts
If they feel that way.......why wont they give devs their fair share?
Avatar image for Kickinurass
Kickinurass

3357

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 Kickinurass
Member since 2005 • 3357 Posts

Problem is that developers do not get any money after the first sale of the game unless they do what EA does for MP pass's to get some money back. So its not a positive thing for developers, A resale is a real lost sale for them and if MS and or PS3 decides to implement some sort of anti used games structure by tying games to accounts depending on the developers choice. Will help developers get more money upfront vs Gamestop's reselling a new game for only $5-10 less. Gamespot profit from used games are over 80% of their business which is why they are throwing this article out there. With a $60 game a developer only gets $7-$8 while the rest goes to production/shipping , royalties , and other cuts of the pie to the consoler's owner and publisher.

04dcarraher

Could also negatively impact their bottom line. There seems to be the idea that used game sales will immediately flock to new sales if the used game industry were to die. I don't doubt that some would, but it's a huge gamble. Could easily swing to a majority buying new games, as you said, or swing to a majority passing up any game that isn't from an established series.

To me, the better solution would be to work with Gamespot to see developers get some kickback from used sales (unlikely) or stop this $60 per game and have the industry adopt a new pricing model that doesn't have games such as Fable/KoA fighting with Skyrim in the $60 price bracket.

Avatar image for heretrix
heretrix

37881

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#23 heretrix
Member since 2004 • 37881 Posts

F@ck Gamestop.

Avatar image for Gxgear
Gxgear

10425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 Gxgear
Member since 2003 • 10425 Posts

[QUOTE="Gxgear"]That's 2 billion dollar out of developers' pockets and into Gamestops. Money gamers willingly shelled out to buy games, not trade-in credits.Zeviander
And a large portion of that revenue is put towards buying new product direct from the publisher. The money always filters back to the publisher. If it didn't, you think the gaming industry would still exist? Personally, I have never understood this "used game; industry dying" tripe.

You think people comfortable dealing in pre-owned games wouldn't buy new releases from the pre-owned pile?:?

By the way, Gamestop isn't worth 1.8 billion because they rain trade-in credits and sell new games. They're worth that much because of revenue generated from dealing and selling used games- money that publishers and developers alike won't see a penny of.

Avatar image for xxxLUGZxxx
xxxLUGZxxx

511

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 xxxLUGZxxx
Member since 2011 • 511 Posts

The developers are only entitled to money generated from the initial purchase...after that it's none of their god damn business what happens to the game. They've made their money from the game before it's even sold to a single customer. If a particular game has a ton of used game sales, then it must have first had a ton of retail sales, which again is all the developer is entitled to.

And do you guys really think that all this supposed money that the developers are losing would really go into making better games? No, it goes into the corporate coffers never to see the light of day again.

The brainwashing will end up forcing gamers to buy $70, $80, and $90 games with no other options. Does that sound like a better gaming industry to you? Do you really think that game prices will go down if used games magically disappear? Silly children.

Avatar image for navyguy21
navyguy21

16656

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#26 navyguy21
Member since 2003 • 16656 Posts

The developers are only entitled to money generated from the initial purchase...after that it's none of their god damn business what happens to the game. They've made their money from the game before it's even sold to a single customer. If a particular game has a ton of used game sales, then it must have first had a ton of retail sales, which again is all the developer is entitled to.

And do you guys really think that all this supposed money that the developers are losing would really go into making better games? No, it goes into the corporate coffers never to see the light of day again.

The brainwashing will end up forcing gamers to buy $70, $80, and $90 games with no other options. Does that sound like a better gaming industry to you? Do you really think that game prices will go down if used games magically disappear? Silly children.

xxxLUGZxxx
Your argument is valid.......after the fact. But you have to consider those used games that are on shelves within the month of release. Those used sales are what hurt the developer. No one is arguing that used games are BAD..............in fact they are good for the industry. But you have to admit that selling used copies of new games within that month hurt new game sales.
Avatar image for spiderluck
spiderluck

2405

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 spiderluck
Member since 2012 • 2405 Posts
[QUOTE="xxxLUGZxxx"]

The developers are only entitled to money generated from the initial purchase...after that it's none of their god damn business what happens to the game. They've made their money from the game before it's even sold to a single customer. If a particular game has a ton of used game sales, then it must have first had a ton of retail sales, which again is all the developer is entitled to.

And do you guys really think that all this supposed money that the developers are losing would really go into making better games? No, it goes into the corporate coffers never to see the light of day again.

The brainwashing will end up forcing gamers to buy $70, $80, and $90 games with no other options. Does that sound like a better gaming industry to you? Do you really think that game prices will go down if used games magically disappear? Silly children.

navyguy21
Your argument is valid.......after the fact. But you have to consider those used games that are on shelves within the month of release. Those used sales are what hurt the developer. No one is arguing that used games are BAD..............in fact they are good for the industry. But you have to admit that selling used copies of new games within that month hurt new game sales.

You hit the nail right on it's proverbial head
Avatar image for xxxLUGZxxx
xxxLUGZxxx

511

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 xxxLUGZxxx
Member since 2011 • 511 Posts

[QUOTE="xxxLUGZxxx"]

The developers are only entitled to money generated from the initial purchase...after that it's none of their god damn business what happens to the game. They've made their money from the game before it's even sold to a single customer. If a particular game has a ton of used game sales, then it must have first had a ton of retail sales, which again is all the developer is entitled to.

And do you guys really think that all this supposed money that the developers are losing would really go into making better games? No, it goes into the corporate coffers never to see the light of day again.

The brainwashing will end up forcing gamers to buy $70, $80, and $90 games with no other options. Does that sound like a better gaming industry to you? Do you really think that game prices will go down if used games magically disappear? Silly children.

navyguy21

Your argument is valid.......after the fact. But you have to consider those used games that are on shelves within the month of release. Those used sales are what hurt the developer. No one is arguing that used games are BAD..............in fact they are good for the industry. But you have to admit that selling used copies of new games within that month hurt new game sales.

It's possible that the developers were "hurt" by a used game sale within the first month or so, but there's no empirical evidence to suggest that a new game sale would have occurred without a used game option.

And if developers are upset by Gamestop selling used games for $55, then why do they just have new games sell for $55? Or $50? I mean, if someone is willing to buy a used game for $55, it stands to reason that they would buy a new one for the same price.

And I just want to emphasis the fact that all this supposed lost revenue to used games, if the developers/publishers are able to find a way to claim this unknown quantity, as consumers and gamers we will see NOTHING of this. Games will remain the same price, development will stay the same, but we're left with one less option for buying games. Sounds awesome huh?

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23717

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#30 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23717 Posts
[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="xxxLUGZxxx"]

The developers are only entitled to money generated from the initial purchase...after that it's none of their god damn business what happens to the game. They've made their money from the game before it's even sold to a single customer. If a particular game has a ton of used game sales, then it must have first had a ton of retail sales, which again is all the developer is entitled to.

And do you guys really think that all this supposed money that the developers are losing would really go into making better games? No, it goes into the corporate coffers never to see the light of day again.

The brainwashing will end up forcing gamers to buy $70, $80, and $90 games with no other options. Does that sound like a better gaming industry to you? Do you really think that game prices will go down if used games magically disappear? Silly children.

spiderluck
Your argument is valid.......after the fact. But you have to consider those used games that are on shelves within the month of release. Those used sales are what hurt the developer. No one is arguing that used games are BAD..............in fact they are good for the industry. But you have to admit that selling used copies of new games within that month hurt new game sales.

You hit the nail right on it's proverbial head

Which is why they hype and advertize the crap out of games to get people to rush in and buy it within the first week because after that and people return the game/s. This is where GS makes most of their money. Why would someone pay $64 after tax for a *new* release when they can buy a semi new copy for under $60.
Avatar image for lamprey263
lamprey263

41924

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#31 lamprey263
Member since 2006 • 41924 Posts
as a consumer who prefers new games the used game industry has made it difficult for me to actually find new copies of games since retails like GameStop and EB Games now only carry new copies of games for a few weeks and don't stock up on new inventory so they can just sell the used copies
Avatar image for 04dcarraher
04dcarraher

23717

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#32 04dcarraher
Member since 2004 • 23717 Posts

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="xxxLUGZxxx"]

The developers are only entitled to money generated from the initial purchase...after that it's none of their god damn business what happens to the game. They've made their money from the game before it's even sold to a single customer. If a particular game has a ton of used game sales, then it must have first had a ton of retail sales, which again is all the developer is entitled to.

And do you guys really think that all this supposed money that the developers are losing would really go into making better games? No, it goes into the corporate coffers never to see the light of day again.

The brainwashing will end up forcing gamers to buy $70, $80, and $90 games with no other options. Does that sound like a better gaming industry to you? Do you really think that game prices will go down if used games magically disappear? Silly children.

xxxLUGZxxx

Your argument is valid.......after the fact. But you have to consider those used games that are on shelves within the month of release. Those used sales are what hurt the developer. No one is arguing that used games are BAD..............in fact they are good for the industry. But you have to admit that selling used copies of new games within that month hurt new game sales.

It's possible that the developers were "hurt" by a used game sale within the first month or so, but there's no empirical evidence to suggest that a new game sale would have occurred without a used game option.

And if developers are upset by Gamestop selling used games for $55, then why do they just have new games sell for $55? Or $50? I mean, if someone is willing to buy a used game for $55, it stands to reason that they would buy a new one for the same price.

And I just want to emphasis the fact that all this supposed lost revenue to used games, if the developers/publishers are able to find a way to claim this unknown quantity, as consumers and gamers we will see NOTHING of this. Games will remain the same price, development will stay the same, but we're left with one less option for buying games. Sounds awesome huh?

Then GS would sell the used copy for less and the developer still wont see any money. Why would someone pay $64 after tax for a *new* release when they can buy a semi new copy for under $60 and none of that money goes to them. You know that over 80% of GS's profits come from used game sales. For them to buy back a new game with in store credit they make a killing. Because now it only costs them to print a price sticker and resell the game more then what they paid for it to begin with.
Avatar image for whiskeystrike
whiskeystrike

12213

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 whiskeystrike
Member since 2011 • 12213 Posts

In some ways I'm sure it is. A used or borrowed game may lead to a new fan which could further lead to new sales in later installments.

Never really can know for sure.

Anyways, I buy everything new to support devs as much as I can (outside of preordering games, don't buy 60 dollar games) but if people want to borrow or buy used, more power to them.

Avatar image for navyguy21
navyguy21

16656

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#34 navyguy21
Member since 2003 • 16656 Posts

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="xxxLUGZxxx"]

The developers are only entitled to money generated from the initial purchase...after that it's none of their god damn business what happens to the game. They've made their money from the game before it's even sold to a single customer. If a particular game has a ton of used game sales, then it must have first had a ton of retail sales, which again is all the developer is entitled to.

And do you guys really think that all this supposed money that the developers are losing would really go into making better games? No, it goes into the corporate coffers never to see the light of day again.

The brainwashing will end up forcing gamers to buy $70, $80, and $90 games with no other options. Does that sound like a better gaming industry to you? Do you really think that game prices will go down if used games magically disappear? Silly children.

xxxLUGZxxx

Your argument is valid.......after the fact. But you have to consider those used games that are on shelves within the month of release. Those used sales are what hurt the developer. No one is arguing that used games are BAD..............in fact they are good for the industry. But you have to admit that selling used copies of new games within that month hurt new game sales.

It's possible that the developers were "hurt" by a used game sale within the first month or so, but there's no empirical evidence to suggest that a new game sale would have occurred without a used game option.

And if developers are upset by Gamestop selling used games for $55, then why do they just have new games sell for $55? Or $50? I mean, if someone is willing to buy a used game for $55, it stands to reason that they would buy a new one for the same price.

And I just want to emphasis the fact that all this supposed lost revenue to used games, if the developers/publishers are able to find a way to claim this unknown quantity, as consumers and gamers we will see NOTHING of this. Games will remain the same price, development will stay the same, but we're left with one less option for buying games. Sounds awesome huh?

I think you are talking yourself in circles. To you first point - There is CLEAR evidence that a purchase would have happened......the customer bought a used copy. I think thats evidence enough. Clearly the customer wanted the game right? Second point - If devs/publishers charged 55 for games, then used games would simple be 50, and so on. You cant top the undercutting because Gamestop doesnt have the same risk as the developer. Lastly, console games cost more because of the royalty fee, and the high cost of next gen, hd development. Devs are losing money within that first month, and thats when it matters most. IF devs made more money, they they would take more risks. As it stands how, they dont SELL enough..............as in NEW copies. They dont make a dime on used. Even if i buy a game 6mos from now, and i bought it for 29 bucks new, all that goes to the publisher/dev. That doesnt happen if there are used games on the shelf. I think that the problem devs have. I have always said that used games were great, but i have enough economic education to know that it DOES effect the video game industry.
Avatar image for Mario1331
Mario1331

8929

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#35 Mario1331
Member since 2005 • 8929 Posts

of course they will say that because thats where majority of there money come from

Avatar image for HaloPimp978
HaloPimp978

7329

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 1

#36 HaloPimp978
Member since 2005 • 7329 Posts

Devs should be getting at least a 50% cut of used game sales. GS should not have it all for themselves.

Avatar image for Kickinurass
Kickinurass

3357

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 Kickinurass
Member since 2005 • 3357 Posts

I think you are talking yourself in circles. To you first point - There is CLEAR evidence that a purchase would have happened......the customer bought a used copy. I think thats evidence enough. Clearly the customer wanted the game right?

Second point - If devs/publishers charged 55 for games, then used games would simple be 50, and so on. You cant top the undercutting because Gamestop doesnt have the same risk as the developer. Lastly, console games cost more because of the royalty fee, and the high cost of next gen, hd development. Devs are losing money within that first month, and thats when it matters most.

IF devs made more money, they they would take more risks. As it stands how, they dont SELL enough..............as in NEW copies. They dont make a dime on used. Even if i buy a game 6mos from now, and i bought it for 29 bucks new, all that goes to the publisher/dev. That doesnt happen if there are used games on the shelf. I think that the problem devs have. I have always said that used games were great, but i have enough economic education to know that it DOES effect the video game industry.navyguy21

To your first point, that it hardly empirical proof. Sure, there is an undeniable market of gamers that waits for the $55 used game to crop up, but what of used game buyers that wait until the price is slashed to $40 while the new copy is still $60? Unless you claim to know the buying habits of millions of people, you can't rightfully say that each used purchase would result in a new purchase. Many people have a hard priceline they do not cross - entire point of supply-and-demand. Not to mention any possible extra details - did the person who bought the game for $55 trade in an older game perhaps? Does that person have previous credit from used game sales etc.

Agreed fully on the second point. But that's a problem with the console makers themselves and the current market.

Do you have any evidence that suggests that killing the used game market would increase first month sales? If not, the entire third paragraph is mere conjecture. And of course it affects the game industry (positively, on the whole I might add) - the discussion is whether or not the cost to developers is worth the growth in other sectors. Also, all the $29 does not go directly the publisher/dev, There's still the console maker's royalty and retailer cut off the top of my head.

Avatar image for wis3boi
wis3boi

32507

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#38 wis3boi
Member since 2005 • 32507 Posts

Of course they would say that, they are rolling in dough from used game sales. Kid buys halo 4 for $60, finishes it, returns it for store credit, buys a new game with it, gamestop restickers the game and someone else buys it, now GS made double prfit on the game, the devs saw the money from one copy, etc. etc.

Avatar image for Mario1331
Mario1331

8929

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#39 Mario1331
Member since 2005 • 8929 Posts

Devs should be getting at least a 50% cut of used game sales. GS should not have it all for themselves.

HaloPimp978

that wouldnt make any sense and that will be impossible to do.

thats why devsput online codes on games now though

Avatar image for navyguy21
navyguy21

16656

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#40 navyguy21
Member since 2003 • 16656 Posts

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]I think you are talking yourself in circles. To you first point - There is CLEAR evidence that a purchase would have happened......the customer bought a used copy. I think thats evidence enough. Clearly the customer wanted the game right?

Second point - If devs/publishers charged 55 for games, then used games would simple be 50, and so on. You cant top the undercutting because Gamestop doesnt have the same risk as the developer. Lastly, console games cost more because of the royalty fee, and the high cost of next gen, hd development. Devs are losing money within that first month, and thats when it matters most.

IF devs made more money, they they would take more risks. As it stands how, they dont SELL enough..............as in NEW copies. They dont make a dime on used. Even if i buy a game 6mos from now, and i bought it for 29 bucks new, all that goes to the publisher/dev. That doesnt happen if there are used games on the shelf. I think that the problem devs have. I have always said that used games were great, but i have enough economic education to know that it DOES effect the video game industry.Kickinurass

To your first point, that it hardly empirical proof. Sure, there is an undeniable market of gamers that waits for the $55 used game to crop up, but what of used game buyers that wait until the price is slashed to $40 while the new copy is still $60? Unless you claim to know the buying habits of millions of people, you can't rightfully say that each used purchase would result in a new purchase. Many people have a hard priceline they do not cross - entire point of supply-and-demand. Not to mention any possible extra details - did the person who bought the game for $55 trade in an older game perhaps? Does that person have previous credit from used game sales etc.

Agreed fully on the second point. But that's a problem with the console makers themselves and the current market.

Do you have any evidence that suggests that killing the used game market would increase first month sales? If not, the entire third paragraph is mere conjecture. And of course it affects the game industry (positively, on the whole I might add) - the discussion is whether or not the cost to developers is worth the growth in other sectors. Also, all the $29 does not go directly the publisher/dev, There's still the console maker's royalty and retailer cut off the top of my head.

Isnt all off just speculation and opinion? Why are you wanting people to provide proof when you have none either? I could provide anecdotal evidence like "if a gamer waits until a game is cheaper to buy, when they DO go buy, they still have a choice of used vs new". It doesnt matter WHEN, doesnt matter HOW CHEAP, there would still be an option........an option that wouldnt exist without used games. Again, you keep going on, asking to proof as to why used games are BAD, even though i keep saying that i believe they are GOOD. And as far as evidence that it hurts the industry or devs? Answer: Sequels, DLC, online passes, safe bets (FPSs), less innovation and risk taking. Hard proof? hardly, but at least my suggestions make you think...
Avatar image for spiderluck
spiderluck

2405

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 spiderluck
Member since 2012 • 2405 Posts

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]I think you are talking yourself in circles. To you first point - There is CLEAR evidence that a purchase would have happened......the customer bought a used copy. I think thats evidence enough. Clearly the customer wanted the game right?

Second point - If devs/publishers charged 55 for games, then used games would simple be 50, and so on. You cant top the undercutting because Gamestop doesnt have the same risk as the developer. Lastly, console games cost more because of the royalty fee, and the high cost of next gen, hd development. Devs are losing money within that first month, and thats when it matters most.

IF devs made more money, they they would take more risks. As it stands how, they dont SELL enough..............as in NEW copies. They dont make a dime on used. Even if i buy a game 6mos from now, and i bought it for 29 bucks new, all that goes to the publisher/dev. That doesnt happen if there are used games on the shelf. I think that the problem devs have. I have always said that used games were great, but i have enough economic education to know that it DOES effect the video game industry.Kickinurass

To your first point, that it hardly empirical proof. Sure, there is an undeniable market of gamers that waits for the $55 used game to crop up, but what of used game buyers that wait until the price is slashed to $40 while the new copy is still $60? Unless you claim to know the buying habits of millions of people, you can't rightfully say that each used purchase would result in a new purchase. Many people have a hard priceline they do not cross - entire point of supply-and-demand. Not to mention any possible extra details - did the person who bought the game for $55 trade in an older game perhaps? Does that person have previous credit from used game sales etc.

Agreed fully on the second point. But that's a problem with the console makers themselves and the current market.

Do you have any evidence that suggests that killing the used game market would increase first month sales? If not, the entire third paragraph is mere conjecture. And of course it affects the game industry (positively, on the whole I might add) - the discussion is whether or not the cost to developers is worth the growth in other sectors. Also, all the $29 does not go directly the publisher/dev, There's still the console maker's royalty and retailer cut off the top of my head.

Killing the used game market would be a huge mistake and i really believe that this is no one's intention, but much like movies where blu-rays or dvd's are released after the box office has taken it's rightful share , then maybe a similar model could be implemented where no copies of new releases would be sold as used for an [ arbitrary ] amount of time...2 months from release would probably be a huge benefit to devs

Avatar image for Bigboi500
Bigboi500

35550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#42 Bigboi500
Member since 2007 • 35550 Posts

Devs should be getting at least a 50% cut of used game sales. GS should not have it all for themselves.

HaloPimp978

Devs should make better games if they want more money near the launching window of new games.

Avatar image for dxmcat
dxmcat

3385

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 dxmcat
Member since 2007 • 3385 Posts

Yea gamestop thats great and all but, seriously do you have to give so little for trade-ins? Making hand over fist on those, of course they're gonna say its "good for the industry"

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33779

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33779 Posts
The percentage profits would depend on the trade in value, take gamestation, they never offer less than 40% of RRP Trade in, so 40% of what they earn on the game preowned is what they effectively paid for it in the first place, places like gamestop may be making a killing but Game and Gamestation nearly went under this year so selling preowned games obviously isn't as lucrative as some would make you believe, people need to quit with the assumption that all specialised games retailers are as bad as gamestop and completely shaft there customersdelta3074
Yep gamestop is the problem because it is a monopoly in US. When it use to be Babages and Electronic Boutique both have different trade in prices,and both had a ton of peripherals from 3rd parties,and you could almost always find a better deal in one of them than in the other. Once the merge took place all went to hell,3rd party peripherals basically drop in favor of gamestop own crappy and cheap stuff,one price only trade in,as well as other sales tactics that were basically dirty,like selling display games as new even that they have been use for display and played by a ton of people,and many other practices.
Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33779

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33779 Posts
Killing the used game market would be a huge mistake and i really believe that this is no one's intention, but much like movies where blu-rays or dvd's are released after the box office has taken it's rightful share , then maybe a similar model could be implemented where no copies of new releases would be sold as used for an [ arbitrary ] amount of time...2 months from release would probably be a huge benefit to devsspiderluck
Gamestop is a horrible company with horrible tactics,that say killing the used game market is impossible,no one can take away your rights to sell something that is yours..
Avatar image for InfinityMugen
InfinityMugen

3905

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#46 InfinityMugen
Member since 2007 • 3905 Posts

Developers, make games people want to keep. Simple right?

Avatar image for Cranler
Cranler

8809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 Cranler
Member since 2005 • 8809 Posts
[QUOTE="Cranler"]

The publishers are upset that they dont get anything for the 2nd sale while gamestop gets as much as $25 profit of each used sale which is much more than the profit anyone gets off the sale of a new game.

04dcarraher
Its much more then a $25 with a recent/new $60 game that just released its 90% pure profit.

Gamestop buys recently released game for $30 and sells it for $55. Think before replying in the future.
Avatar image for Cranler
Cranler

8809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 Cranler
Member since 2005 • 8809 Posts

[QUOTE="HaloPimp978"]

Devs should be getting at least a 50% cut of used game sales. GS should not have it all for themselves.

Bigboi500

Devs should make better games if they want more money near the launching window of new games.

The demand for the used game market is there. No reason Gamestop should reap all the rewards. Gamestop is biting the hand that feeds.
Avatar image for Bigboi500
Bigboi500

35550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#49 Bigboi500
Member since 2007 • 35550 Posts

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="HaloPimp978"]

Devs should be getting at least a 50% cut of used game sales. GS should not have it all for themselves.

Cranler

Devs should make better games if they want more money near the launching window of new games.

The demand for the used game market is there. No reason Gamestop should reap all the rewards. Gamestop is biting the hand that feeds.

I agree that Gamestop is awful. They've exploited the used game market and they are the reason that it gets demonized by so many now.

I can't really say I blame them though, for taking advantage of idiots, since we live in a capitolistic society.

Avatar image for Kickinurass
Kickinurass

3357

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 Kickinurass
Member since 2005 • 3357 Posts

Isnt all off just speculation and opinion? Why are you wanting people to provide proof when you have none either? I could provide anecdotal evidence like "if a gamer waits until a game is cheaper to buy, when they DO go buy, they still have a choice of used vs new". It doesnt matter WHEN, doesnt matter HOW CHEAP, there would still be an option........an option that wouldnt exist without used games. Again, you keep going on, asking to proof as to why used games are BAD, even though i keep saying that i believe they are GOOD. And as far as evidence that it hurts the industry or devs? Answer: Sequels, DLC, online passes, safe bets (FPSs), less innovation and risk taking. Hard proof? hardly, but at least my suggestions make you think...navyguy21

I didn't provide any evidence because I wasn't arguing a specific point - simply that more data is needed before any conclusion is reached. The only point I believe would deserve proof would be the fact that used games positively impact the industry - which I can find but it's pretty easy with a short Google search for any credible economic/finance website.

Except for online passes, none of the things you mentioned could blame used games as the sole reason for their existence. Sequels have, and will always exists because fans want more adventures in familiar settings. DLC exists on PC as do FPS - so blaming their existence on used games is a reach. Less innovation and risk taking may be true, but there are other factors to consider in addition to the used game market. It's easy to use used games (and piracy, DLC, motion controllers etc) as a singular scapegoat and forget other factors at work.

Killing the used game market would be a huge mistake and i really believe that this is no one's intention, but much like movies where blu-rays or dvd's are released after the box office has taken it's rightful share , then maybe a similar model could be implemented where no copies of new releases would be sold as used for an [ arbitrary ] amount of time...2 months from release would probably be a huge benefit to devs

spiderluck

A possible solution, but relies on individual retailers honoring the agreement. Considering how many games leak before the official release date - I'm skeptic how effective it would be.