Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Article

It was just recently that David Braben of Frontier Development said used games were "killing single player games." Today brings a similar sentiment, this time from Denis Dyack, Founder of Silicon Knights.

"From a consumer side, [in the last few years] we started seeing used games really come into fruition, and I believe that has caused quite a problem," Mr. Dyack said to Gamesindustry.biz. "I would argue that used games actually increase the cost of games," echoing sentiments of Mr. Braben.

Mr. Dyack went on to explain how used games have basically cut off the "revenue tail" for most titles.

"There used to be something in games for 20 years called a tail, where say you have a game called Warcraft that would sell for 10 years. Because there are no used games, you could actually sell a game for a long time, and get recurring revenue for quite a while. Recurring revenue is very key," he said.

"Now there is no tail. Literally, you will get most of your sales within three months of launch, which has created this really unhealthy extreme where you have to sell it really fast and then you have to do anything else to get money," alluding to the recent deluge of multiplayer and downloadable content to hit the industry.

"I would argue, and I've said this before, that used games are cannibalizing the industry. If developers and publishers don't see revenue from that, it's not a matter of hey 'we're trying to increase the price of games to consumers, and we want more,' we're just trying to survive as an industry. If used games continue the way that they are, it's going to cannibalize, there's not going to be an industry."

His position is absurd and logically fallicious.

First off, his example is stupid as gak. Warcraft is a PC game. There is no used market for PC games the likes we see for console games.

Secondly, used sales are not new. The difference is that they've become a large business due to the likes of Game Stop. Sure you guys are gonna lose some money, maybe even a substantial sum, but the idea that used games will kill the industry is extremely ludicrous. There are no used games without a games industry to start with. If no one buys something new no one can buy it used. Used games are bargain shopping. Maybe if you guys dropped your prices like you used to as time went on you'd do better.

EDIT: This also ignores the self perpetuating system where companies create serial titles. Why is anyone gonna buy Madden 07 in 2009? Sure you budget is low, but then there's CoD which releases a new game every year. Of course your not going to get a tail. Back in the 90's sequelization was so minor that if I wanted a Jet Force Gemini game there was really only one option. Now I have my pick of Gears of War 1, 2, and 3. Why would I bother buying a game that's five years old when the new one looks better, works better, and has been hyped to death?

Thirdly, the industry is killing itself by over saturating the market with a monotony of crappily made and repetitive titles and has been doing so for years. Then they pull stupid stunts like invasive DRM, strews of DLC, and other things that slowly turn consumers off. The little game the industry has been playing where it consitently blames its own failures on buzz words like "piracy" and "used games" has been old for a very long time. This hasn't killed films, music, or even computer hard ware. How is it going to kill you?

And btw Silicon Knights, there's a reason you guys don't have a tail. Its because the last major game you made was Too Human and it sucked.

Okay I'm done

Silicon's Knight's last game wasn't Too Human. It was that terrible X-Man game.

Also even when companies do drop their prices on games it's now seen as a negative. I've been to various gamestores and when I am deciding on what I want to purchase (if I went on a whim) often people'll ask what's wrong with the game that is priced at $20, $30, or even $40. Since this generation people are too used to games being the premium price of $60 (where as before we had quite a bit of price differences) that when a game isn't $60 there must be something wrong with it.

As for the topic at hand. Used games do take a fair chunk out of the game industry but, even as someone who knows people who work in it and plans to, I think it's grossly over-exaggerated. I think it's just publisher's realising they can't fight piracy aswell as they thought so they're attacking people who they can do something against.

There is also the problem of SP games lasting only 4-5 hours now. Hell I beat Twisted Metal's SP in about 2-3 hours. If you want to release a SP game you need to have a super engaging story, a fair ammount of game time, and reasons to go back and play the game. Trophies/achievements can only go so far. The answer isn't to simply tack on MP or stop making SP games (MAG's problem). We need to go back to the PS1/2 era were SP games would last you a few weeks to beat and you could actually enjoy them. I say, if anything, the used game market is proving how crappy games are getting. If you don't want your game after you beat it,especially on launchday or day after, there's something wrong.

"There used to be something in games for 20 years called a tail, where say you have a game called Warcraft that would sell for 10 years. Because there are no used games, you could actually sell a game for a long time, and get recurring revenue for quite a while. Recurring revenue is very key," he said.

That's because:

1) there weren't as many good games out there so people would hold on to titles for longer periods of time - drying up the used game supply;

2) dedicated game systems weren't being redeveloped and re-released every few years - making games playable for longer periods of time;

3) used games used to be a sketchy market. Used cartridges in the pre-DVD era were likely to be worn out and unplayable - drying up the demand for used games; and

4) Most importantly - you guys aren't competitively priced against the used game market.

I remember when I wanted to buy Bioshock quite a while after its release. I could buy it new for $40 or used for $25. I'm generally inclined to buy new, but to save $15, I'll buy used. I would've been willing to spend $5 over the used price, but not $15.

Of course, Game Stop likely knows this, so if the new price was dropped to $30, Gamestop would sell used for $15.

The price retailers pay for used games is staggeringly low compared to the price they pay for new games. Game developers will never be able to compete with used games at the retail level unless there's some additional value to new games (which is the purpose of DRM).

Silicon's Knight's last game wasn't Too Human. It was that terrible X-Man game.

I don't count that as a 'major' game. We could amend the statement to "Silicon Knights you don't have a tail because you suck at your job these days"

They haven't actually made a good game since the 90's or early 00's. It probably has something to do with dithering away on a game for nine years just to have it be crap

P.S. Wasting money on a pointless Epic lawsuit isn't helping either.

LordofHats wrote:

Silicon's Knight's last game wasn't Too Human. It was that terrible X-Man game.

I don't count that as a 'major' game. We could amend the statement to "Silicon Knights you don't have a tail because you suck at your job these days"

They haven't actually made a good game since the 90's or early 00's. It probably has something to do with dithering away on a game for nine years just to have it be crap

P.S. Wasting money on a pointless Epic lawsuit isn't helping either.

I can agree to that, about them sucking. The X-men game was a major game for Activision and lost them quite a bit of money.

I'll say SK hasn't made a good game since they ended their contract with Nintendo. From the stories I've heard Nintendo's QA and assisstance is god like if you're in an exclusive deal with them. Like hearing stories from people who worked at Retro from before and after they signed the deal with Nintendo (before Nintendo bought them out) is just amazing how they turned a studio who was in a worse position then SK into one of the best studios (in my oppinion).

As for the Epic lawsuit. Blaming Epic for their game sucking was stupid. However, I have heard numerous devs complain about Epic's help with Unreal(mostly around the time they have a game about to come out) and often just went to the UDK forums for help or other third party forums. Why SK just didn't do that if they were having such problems with Unreal is beyond me.

The problem with suing Epic isn't that SK handled it poorly. Epic is a bunch douches run by a douche bag (anyone whose ever played Gears of War should have figured this out ). The problem is that at the end of the day, Epic has more money. A lot more money. They'll just drag it out until SK has none left. Considering SK's financial debt and poor prospects for future income, they're killing themselves trying.

Oh yeah, I 100% know that too. I think they're hoping for another Canadian government bailout.

'Entitlement', anyone? :p

The modern era has introduced a number of interesting difficulties for content producers and distributors across the board. No longer can they rely on outmoded business practices and still expect people to buy their over-priced and/or crappy product, so they're basically fumbling over themselves in an effort to keep up.

LordofHats wrote:

Thirdly, the industry is killing itself by over saturating the market with a monotony of crappily made and repetitive titles and has been doing so for years. Then they pull stupid stunts like invasive DRM, strews of DLC, and other things that slowly turn consumers off. The little game the industry has been playing where it consitently blames its own failures on buzz words like "piracy" and "used games" has been old for a very long time. This hasn't killed films, music, or even computer hard ware. How is it going to kill you?

This.
The games industry is strong enough to resist "damage" from piracy and used sales. Any company who blames it for their failures is most likely doing so out of greed or incompetence.

They're absolutely right, of course. The used game market IS destroying the industry, at least on the console side.

This is why companies have started taking the stance that a used game buyer is not their customer so they're not really obligated to give them any extra content.

Honestly, what would you say if your employer said that wanting to be paid for your work was feeling "entitled"?

Melissia wrote:Honestly, what would you say if your employer said that wanting to be paid for your work was feeling "entitled"?

As has been pointed out in previous threads related to the subject, they have been paid for their work. If I go into a store and pay $60 for a new copy of "Super Soldier Man 2345" then "Super Soldier Game Developer 1345" has been paid for their work. Whatever happens to the copy after that doesn't hurt them. People who buy a game used buy it used for two reasons: They can't afford to buy it new, or the cost of a new game is not competitive with the cost of a used one.

Both of those issues are on the publisher, not the person selling the used copy or the person buying it. If they want to do things like online passes, I disagree with it, but its fair in a sense. However, don't make a long string of crappy games, and then tell me that used game sales are killing your business. That's disingenuous and the game's industry knows it (SK certainly should). Used sales are not a monstrous thorn in their side, and even if they were it doesn't matter. They're just going to release the sequel in two or three years anyway the profitable weight of which massively exceeds that of tail sales (of course I'd argue that practice is a leading reason in why tail sales are so low).

Frankly once a game hits about 1,000,000 sales, which most block busters will in the first few weeks, a game has exhausted the pool of people who really want it. When a successful company can make over 1,000,000 in sales (and often multiple times that for major releases) and then turns around to complain that they would have been higher without used games is an outright lie (or they're idiots).

EDIT: And as I said earlier the pool of used games available for sale can never exceed that of new games purchased. Its a sliding scale. If a game is selling so low that there are no used games then no one wants it to begin with. If sales are high then the game is likely good and the chances that a large number of people will sell it back used any time soon is low (insert massive influx of used copies of Halo 3 prior to the release of Halo Reach. Substitute titles as necessary). If people are buying a game used in large number then the game rests in the middle ground as a mediocre product that probably wasn't even worth the initial purchase.

The idea of used games hurting the industry is an outright lie that makes no logical sense.

LordofHats wrote:

Melissia wrote:Honestly, what would you say if your employer said that wanting to be paid for your work was feeling "entitled"?

As has been pointed out in previous threads related to the subject, they have been paid for their work. If I go into a store and pay $60 for a new copy of "Super Soldier Man 2345" then "Super Soldier Game Developer 1345" has been paid for their work. Whatever happens to the copy after that doesn't hurt them. People who buy a game used buy it used for two reasons: They can't afford to buy it new, or the cost of a new game is not competitive with the cost of a used one.

And as has been pointed out in previous threads related to the subject, if I go into a store and pay $60 for a new copy of "Super Soldier Man 2345" but then sell it back to the store for $45...they in turn sell it for $55.
The developer is cut out of the second sale entirely, however, and thus receives nothing for it.
The same game has been sold twice, but the developer was paid once.

The same game has been sold twice, but the developer was paid once.

And? They only did the work to be paid once. They aren't entitled to profit from the same work twice in a row unless of course they themselves are managing the used product.

If I buy a used game than the only thing the publisher lost is the off chance that I might have bought it new. Which isn't costing them anything. They were paid for the work and at this point the product of that work is just cycling through different hands. They haven't really lost anything.

LordofHats wrote:

The same game has been sold twice, but the developer was paid once.

And? They only did the work to be paid once. They aren't entitled to profit from the same work twice in a row unless of course they themselves are managing the used product.

If I buy a used game than the only thing the publisher lost is the off chance that I might have bought it new. Which isn't costing them anything. They were paid for the work and at this point the product of that work is just cycling through different hands. They haven't really lost anything.

If you buy a used game, then the only thing the publisher/developer has lost is the sale of the game.

Stores sell used games and pocket the entire sales amount. Nothing from a resale goes to the publisher/developer.

Kanluwen wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

The same game has been sold twice, but the developer was paid once.

And? They only did the work to be paid once. They aren't entitled to profit from the same work twice in a row unless of course they themselves are managing the used product.

If I buy a used game than the only thing the publisher lost is the off chance that I might have bought it new. Which isn't costing them anything. They were paid for the work and at this point the product of that work is just cycling through different hands. They haven't really lost anything.

If you buy a used game, then the only thing the publisher/developer has lost is the sale of the game.

Stores sell used games and pocket the entire sales amount. Nothing from a resale goes to the publisher/developer.

That is of course you conveniently leave out the hype generated, the popularity, the extra interest generated into the sales of a sequel,
the company, the studio, and the development team.

Lets not forget how much a game's resell value is also reflected by its game play duration, extra contents you can play online , with your friend etc etc
after you pass it which will also effect how much you can fetch out of selling back to a game store.

You cannot ignore these 2 obvious points that make up the success and value of a game.

I didn't ignore the points, they're just irrelevant because it's still money that the company isn't getting.

Frankly used games are a bigger problem than pirating.

Kanluwen wrote:If you buy a used game, then the only thing the publisher/developer has lost is the sale of the game.

I am a toothbrush maker. I make a toothbrush and sell it to Bob for $5. I have been paid. I am no longer entitled to anything as I no longer own that toothbrush. Bob sells the toothbrush (ew) to Frank for $3. All I've lost is the possibility that Frank might have bought one from me for $5. However by not buying one from me, I haven't really lost anything because the costs of that toothbrush (sold to Frank by Bob) have already been paid. Claiming that I have lost a sale by Frank not buying a new toothbrush from me is a dubious and disingenuous position because Franky might not have bought one at all (thought it would have been better for his health... probably).

This is how second hand things work. Should Milton-Bradly profit from every yard sale of one of their tricycles?

Stores sell used games and pocket the entire sales amount. Nothing from a resale goes to the publisher/developer.

Because they aren't entitled to anything.

Let me outline my premise for why this idea (that used sales hurt the industry) is flawed:

Lets assume that I make a game called Hat Man 64. I sell copies for $50 each and manage a total of 500,000 sales. Used game sales are now capped at a maximum total of 500,000. If people turn around and then dump their copies on Game Stop within a week of release (something that happened with Bioshock for example) and people start buying the game used, who is the problem? Is it used game sales, or is that my game, while decent, wasn't good enough to keep and therefor turn around on the product was rapid because no one wanted to play it anymore? That's not the fault of used game sales that's my fault for creating a product without long term playability. If I create a game worth keeping (at least until I release my next sequel) then I won't have to worry about a meaningful impact from used game sales.

Assume this does not happen. I sell 500,000 copies, and maybe a couple thousand go back as used but most people keep theirs cause they like the game. There are not many used games available, forcing consumers to buy new or not buy at all.

Used game sales are a problem the industry has created for itself (assuming be believe it is a problem, I do not). Because they rush out titles, often with little replayability or that weren't worth the initial $60 price in the first place. This is not a problem of used games killing the industry is a problem with the service of the industry on itself and then blaming the result of their own shotty workmanship on someone other than themselves.

EDIT: I also propose this is a self-perpetuating system, where game companies have creating this market where initial sales are the most important so they hype the game up and promise features prior to release. Large numbers of people buy the game on release and then realize that it isn't what I made it out to be. They sell the game to get some money back. Then the industry turns around an blames used game sales for their own failure, and then they boost the hype next time around trying to again maximize initial sales.

This whole discussion of course ignores the absurdity in claiming that a game that sells 1,000,000 copies is somehow still killing the industry because a few hundred thousand or so end up be resold used.

The solution for used game sales (assuming they cause harm which I don't believe they do) is the same solution to piracy. Make the game worth buying new. Stuff like online passes may achieve this goal somewhat, but really its just a crutch that allows the companies to continue not fixing the real problem.

Melissia wrote:I didn't ignore the points, they're just irrelevant because it's still money that the company isn't getting.

Frankly used games are a bigger problem than pirating.

"that isnt getting" directly.

But they are getting the benefit of it as I mentioned.

Just like warhammer, we have market for metal and plastic where people are ok with buying and stripping.

then we have finecast, they can barely fetch the same price as the materials above.
Which circles back to how much they can be resold for.

Video game is every bit the same


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:If you buy a used game, then the only thing the publisher/developer has lost is the sale of the game.

I am a toothbrush maker. I make a toothbrush and sell it to Bob for $5. I have been paid. I am no longer entitled to anything as I no longer own that toothbrush. Bob sells the toothbrush (ew) to Frank for $3. All I've lost is the possibility that Frank might have bought one from me for $5. However by not buying one from me, I haven't really lost anything because the costs of that toothbrush (sold to Frank by Bob) have already been paid. Claiming that I have lost a sale by Frank not buying a new toothbrush from me is a dubious and disingenuous position because Franky might not have bought one at all (thought it would have been better for his health... probably).

This is how second hand things work. Should Milton-Bradly profit from every yard sale of one of their tricycles?

Stores sell used games and pocket the entire sales amount. Nothing from a resale goes to the publisher/developer.

Because they aren't entitled to anything.

Let me outline my premise for why this idea (that used sales hurt the industry) is flawed:

Lets assume that I make a game called Hat Man 64. I sell copies for $50 each and manage a total of 500,000 sales. Used game sales are now capped at a maximum total of 500,000. If people turn around and then dump their copies on Game Stop within a week of release (something that happened with Bioshock for example) and people start buying the game used, who is the problem? Is it used game sales, or is that my game, while decent, wasn't good enough to keep and therefor turn around on the product was rapid because no one wanted to play it anymore? That's not the fault of used game sales that's my fault for creating a product without long term playability. If I create a game worth keeping (at least until I release my next sequel) then I won't have to worry about a meaningful impact from used game sales.

Assume this does not happen. I sell 500,000 copies, and maybe a couple thousand go back as used but most people keep theirs cause they like the game. There are not many used games available, forcing consumers to buy new or not buy at all.

Used game sales are a problem the industry has created for itself (assuming be believe it is a problem, I do not). Because they rush out titles, often with little replayability or that weren't worth the initial $60 price in the first place. This is not a problem of used games killing the industry is a problem with the service of the industry on itself and then blaming the result of their own shotty workmanship on someone other than themselves.

The solution for used game sales (assuming they cause harm which I don't believe they do) is the same solution to piracy. Make the game worth buying new. Stuff like online passes may achieve this goal somewhat, but really its just a crutch that allows the companies to continue not fixing the real problem.

In red, great minds think alike /thumbsup

LunaHound wrote:But they are getting the benefit of it as I mentioned.

Your'e not getting paid for your work. Oh, I still expect you to put in 40 hours, and perhaps even overtime. But I'll give you a good word to toher people that you're a good worker. Still not paying you though.

Honestly your "benefits" are just worthless apologisms which do not pay the bills.

LordofHats wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:If you buy a used game, then the only thing the publisher/developer has lost is the sale of the game.

I am a toothbrush maker. I make a toothbrush and sell it to Bob for $5. I have been paid. I am no longer entitled to anything as I no longer own that toothbrush. Bob sells the toothbrush (ew) to Frank for $3. All I've lost is the possibility that Frank might have bought one from me for $5. However by not buying one from me, I haven't really lost anything because the costs of that toothbrush (sold to Frank by Bob) have already been paid. Claiming that I have lost a sale by Frank not buying a new toothbrush from me is a dubious and disingenuous position because Franky might not have bought one at all (thought it would have been better for his health... probably).

This is how second hand things work. Should Milton-Bradly profit from every yard sale of one of their tricycles?

These are silly comparisons; and you're quite aware of that.

Yard sales and private sales are not the same as a business which sells these things for profit.

Stores sell used games and pocket the entire sales amount. Nothing from a resale goes to the publisher/developer.

Because they aren't entitled to anything.

Let me outline my premise for why this idea (that used sales hurt the industry) is flawed:

Lets assume that I make a game called Hat Man 64. I sell copies for $50 each and manage a total of 500,000 sales. Used game sales are now capped at a maximum total of 500,000. If people turn around and then dump their copies on Game Stop within a week of release (something that happened with Bioshock for example) and people start buying the game used, who is the problem? Is it used game sales, or is that my game, while decent, wasn't good enough to keep and therefor turn around on the product was rapid because no one wanted to play it anymore? That's not the fault of used game sales that's my fault for creating a product without long term playability. If I create a game worth keeping (at least until I release my next sequel) then I won't have to worry about a meaningful impact from used game sales.

Assume this does not happen. I sell 500,000 copies, and maybe a couple thousand go back as used but most people keep theirs cause they like the game. There are not many used games available, forcing consumers to buy new or not buy at all.

Used game sales are a problem the industry has created for itself (assuming be believe it is a problem, I do not). Because they rush out titles, often with little replayability or that weren't worth the initial $60 price in the first place. This is not a problem of used games killing the industry is a problem with the service of the industry on itself and then blaming the result of their own shotty workmanship on someone other than themselves.

The solution for used game sales (assuming they cause harm which I don't believe they do) is the same solution to piracy. Make the game worth buying new. Stuff like online passes may achieve this goal somewhat, but really its just a crutch that allows the companies to continue not fixing the real problem.

The "rush out of titles, often with little replayability" isn't necessarily the problem the industry CREATED for itself.

Part of the problem is simply that there is a fixture on the multiplayer rather than single player.

Melissia wrote:

LunaHound wrote:But they are getting the benefit of it as I mentioned.

Your'e not getting paid for your work. Oh, I still expect you to put in 40 hours, and perhaps even overtime. But I'll give you a good word to toher people that you're a good worker. Still not paying you though.

Honestly your "benefits" are just worthless apologisms which do not pay the bills.

I don't think you should mix the specific workers together with the over all company.

They are completely different entities when looking at profit returns.

Im sorry if that sounds cold blooded, but its the truth.
Im not denying the workers arnt being paid fairly, but this is how the industry goes.
they can either suck it up, or the company will hire the next thousands of workers available down the line.

LunaHound wrote:They are completely different entities when looking at profit returns.

Unless they're the ones selling used games apparently, in which case they are the same, amirite?

You're still not getting paid. If your company doesn't make money, you don't make money. You get fired, or forced to work longer hours for less, or work harder because you have less people working on the same project.

Or worst of all, projects get canned completely. Because if the company doesn't get paid, NOONE gets paid. Not just you.

Then treat it like starbucks coffee where you can refill for free :'P

LunaHound wrote:Then treat it like starbucks coffee where you can refill for free :'P

That is one of the dumbest video game comparisons I've ever heard. At best it's partially tangential.

At worst it s just... it hurts.

Kanluwen wrote:These are silly comparisons; and you're quite aware of that.

Its not. Economic systems function on the idea that I do work I get paid for it. Demanding that I do work get paid for it, and then get paid for that same work a second time is ludicrous.

Used games are a service problem. They result because the game clearly wasn't worth keeping to the consumer. If used games sales are killing video games then why aren't used sales killing other industries? The fact of the matter is they don't. No one gets paid twice for a product in the world. Video games are not some special love child that needs special attention because if they don't get an exception, second hand sales will end them. Its a silly position to adhere to.

If something is worth buying new people will buy it new. If its not, then the game probably isn't worth $60 to begin with.

EDIT: Basically the giest of what I'm trying to say here is that, assuming used game sales are causing harm, Game Stop and companies like it are a byproduct of the root issue not the cause.

Yard sales and private sales are not the same as a business which sells these things for profit.

Which is the real issue at hand. Game Stop, and its compatriots, have turned the 'yard sale' into a business model. But this isn't not a problem with consumers. Its a problem with the industry itself and needing to find a solution to used game sales, not demanding to be paid twice for no extra work. But frankly, I don't believe this pretext that should Game Stop not exist that sales would be higher. Prior to this past year, game sales have done nothing but increase for two decades. Used game sales have also increased parallel to that in a predictable line. EDIT: There's no evidence, or even a way to prove, that used sales are causing any harm even if they were.

If Game Stop did not exist, people who no longer want a game will by and large still find a means to sell it. For EA, there's no functional difference between me selling a game to John, and me selling it to Game Stop who then sells it to John. EA just gets peeved that Game Stop has made a free and clear $40, but under no circumstances is EA entitled to make any money from Game Stop for that sale anymore than they are entitled to money had I just sold it myself.

The "rush out of titles, often with little replayability" isn't necessarily the problem the industry CREATED for itself.

It is a problem they've created for themselves. Surely, we can agree that multiplayer games carry more replayability than single player games as a general rule, yes?

So, then, how do we make single player games more playable thus boosting their replayability and making the chances that people sell them back is lower? That's the real question the industry needs to answer, not "how do we get paid for our game twice."

This is of course assuming that used game sales noticeably hurt a publisher. Take Bioshock for example. All around good game. Game Stop however got flooded by copies in the weeks following its release because the game had little replay value. Bioshock still sold over 2,000,000 copies in its first year, and another 2,000,000 over the next two, and it was one of the most heavily traded in games of all time. 4,000,000 sales is huge. That Take2 is somehow taking a loss and will be destroyed by used games after shipping 4,000,000 copies (that was in 2010 btw) that is an absurd position.

Melissia wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Then treat it like starbucks coffee where you can refill for free :'P

That is one of the dumbest video game comparisons I've ever heard. At best it's partially tangential.

At worst it s just... it hurts.

As insulting as that is, its understandable. The most successful companies are ones that can apply proper psychology
together with human purchasing patterns. How good people are at connecting the dots is what makes or breaks a concept.

I cant find a starbuck example, so use Mcdonald. Find the relativity between what I said and you'll see its not so dumb after all.

http://mhsstobbs.weebly.com/mcdonalds-soft-drink-pricing-strategy.html

Or, I noticed you watched anime. So you can even apply what to think about N.Americans dubbing animes and stream it for free.

Has anybody actually got any figures on this? My personal suspicion is that in recent years publishers have started to become better off not worse thanks to the various codes and internet requirements they put in these days, but I'm loathe to make a sweeping statement without proof.
Despite this argument being quite old I've never actually seen any figures, not ones about profits etc (inflation and the expansion of the game market would make those hard to compare I guess), but some kind of annual round-up of new sales versus used sales.
Should think downloads have offset things somewhat as well, but again, would like PROOF.

Lux_Lucis wrote:Has anybody actually got any figures on this? My personal suspicion is that in recent years publishers have started to become better off not worse thanks to the various codes and internet requirements they put in these days, but I'm loathe to make a sweeping statement without proof.
Despite this argument being quite old I've never actually seen any figures, not ones about profits etc (inflation and the expansion of the game market would make those hard to compare I guess), but some kind of annual round-up of new sales versus used sales.
Should think downloads have offset things somewhat as well, but again, would like PROOF.

To further expand on that idea, I would also want to see the initial sale # AND the discount sale # ( e.g steam sales , or most retailers lowers the price after 4 months ish? )

Computer games generally are not what is being resold, given that most have single-use registration keys and it's cheaper to do things via digital distribution.

It's console games where the money is currently at.