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

  • 93 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for rumbalumba
#1 Posted by rumbalumba (2445 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??

Avatar image for finalstar2007
#2 Posted by finalstar2007 (27911 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.

Avatar image for NoirLamia777
#3 Posted by NoirLamia777 (3174 posts) -

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

Avatar image for nutcrackr
#4 Posted by nutcrackr (13029 posts) -
That would never happen, if anything the new console games would hit $70
Avatar image for Bigboi500
#5 Posted by Bigboi500 (35550 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Thefatness16
#6 Posted by Thefatness16 (4673 posts) -

Still wouldn't go near it.

Avatar image for lamprey263
#7 Posted by lamprey263 (34425 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.
Avatar image for xhawk27
#8 Posted by xhawk27 (10018 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Cranler
#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.
Avatar image for campzor
#10 Posted by campzor (34932 posts) -
considering i dont buy used games (maybe the ODD ODD ODD RARE OCCASION [never]) This would be cool
Avatar image for Masenkoe
#11 Posted by Masenkoe (4897 posts) -

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

NoirLamia777

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#12 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (44839 posts) -
I wouldn't mind.
Avatar image for 15strong
#13 Posted by 15strong (2806 posts) -

That would be fine by mean.

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

Avatar image for AmazonTreeBoa
#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.
Avatar image for silversix_
#15 Posted by silversix_ (26347 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...
Avatar image for Cranler
#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?
Avatar image for Cherokee_Jack
#17 Posted by Cherokee_Jack (32198 posts) -
I don't think publishers would be too stoked about that.
Avatar image for BPoole96
#18 Posted by BPoole96 (22817 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)

Avatar image for xhawk27
#19 Posted by xhawk27 (10018 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. 

Avatar image for psymon100
#20 Posted by psymon100 (6835 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. 

Avatar image for Cherokee_Jack
#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.
Avatar image for rumbalumba
#22 Posted by rumbalumba (2445 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.

Avatar image for StrongBlackVine
#23 Posted by StrongBlackVine (13262 posts) -

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

Avatar image for Cherokee_Jack
#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.

Avatar image for rumbalumba
#25 Posted by rumbalumba (2445 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).

Avatar image for xhawk27
#26 Posted by xhawk27 (10018 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. 

Avatar image for rumbalumba
#27 Posted by rumbalumba (2445 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.

Avatar image for Cherokee_Jack
#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."

Avatar image for Ly_the_Fairy
#29 Posted by Ly_the_Fairy (8541 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.

Avatar image for tagyhag
#30 Posted by tagyhag (15874 posts) -
Lol $40. I'm used to paying <$10 so no.
Avatar image for ActicEdge
#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. 

Avatar image for rumbalumba
#32 Posted by rumbalumba (2445 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.

Avatar image for rumbalumba
#33 Posted by rumbalumba (2445 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. 

Avatar image for ActicEdge
#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.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#35 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (23034 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.
Avatar image for rumbalumba
#36 Posted by rumbalumba (2445 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.

Avatar image for ActicEdge
#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.

Avatar image for ActicEdge
#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.

Avatar image for Ly_the_Fairy
#39 Posted by Ly_the_Fairy (8541 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.

Avatar image for StrongDeadlift
#40 Posted by StrongDeadlift (5460 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.  

Avatar image for ActicEdge
#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? 

Avatar image for whiskeystrike
#42 Posted by whiskeystrike (12172 posts) -

Would still not buy

too anti-consumer

Avatar image for rumbalumba
#43 Posted by rumbalumba (2445 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.

Avatar image for ActicEdge
#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. 

Avatar image for NeonNinja
#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.

Avatar image for TheEpicGoat
#46 Posted by TheEpicGoat (2006 posts) -

I can dig it.

Avatar image for NeonNinja
#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).

Avatar image for Cranler
#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.
Avatar image for munkeypoo45
#49 Posted by munkeypoo45 (3221 posts) -

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

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