Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why Game Developers Should Shut Up About Used Games

Soulskill posted about 5 years ago | from the not-that-they-will dept.

Editorial 590

Ssquared22 writes "It may feel like a rip-off to some, but you've got to admit that paying $30 for Gears of War 2 sure beats paying $60! Game publishers and developers may not like it, but people are going to trade in used games for new games and those old games will be sold back to other people. There's nothing game developers can do to stop them, and companies like Gamestop continue to laugh all the way to the bank. In an article at Crispy Gamer, David Thomas dissects one of the most critical issues in gaming today: used games and merchants (online and brick-and-mortar) who specialize in this 'sleight of hand.'"

cancel ×

590 comments

Great advertising for new versions! (5, Insightful)

flowsnake (1051494) | about 5 years ago | (#28720007)

Let's say I buy $GAME second hand for $30. Perhaps I'll like it enough to buy the sequel $GAME_2 new, full price, when it comes out and not wait.

It also keeps game stores open (1)

Shivetya (243324) | about 5 years ago | (#28720085)

because they more affordable product to sell. This means more exposure for the new game because they can place them together leading to hopefully sales of the sequels

Because I haven't found a big box retailer who has near the selection as local game shops.

Re:Great advertising for new versions! (4, Insightful)

NotWithABang (1570431) | about 5 years ago | (#28720133)

Who knows, developers could learn from this and say "hmm, maybe the average gamer can't afford $60 for our generic crap-of-the-month we're churning out, maybe if it was $30 in the first place, there wouldn't be a need for a Used market"
Capitalism at work... though... I know... unbelievably wishful thinking.

Re:Great advertising for new versions! (1)

hattig (47930) | about 5 years ago | (#28720225)

Isn't that why new game prices collapse a month or two after release? E.g., A £40 new game, sold for £30 new usually, drops to £20 new fairly soon afterwards.

And a year later it's on Platinum for £20 RRP, and £12-£17 in reality.

I can wait a year almost always.

Re:Great advertising for new versions! (0, Troll)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | about 5 years ago | (#28720461)

Oh for fucks sake learn how to use the $ symbol you bloody red coat!

Re:Great advertising for new versions! (2, Informative)

Lemming Mark (849014) | about 5 years ago | (#28720193)

Worked for me. I bought Halo 1 & 2 second hand, bought Halo 3 new when it was old and therefore cheap anyhow. Paid full whack for Halo Wars and probably will for OSDT and Halo: Reach, so long as the reviews indicate they're up to quality. For franchises I'm less fond of but nevertheless enjoy (e.g. GoW, L4D) I might wait to get the game second hand. If I had to buy *everything* new, I'd buy fewer games and wouldn't be inclined to "try out" franchises.

Another example of a slightly different nature: I bought Assassin's Creed and Crackdown even though some reviews were a bit lukewarm. I wouldn't pay full price for a lukewarm game. Assassin's Creed was sufficiently interesting that I'd like to know where the story goes, making me *more* inclined to buy the sequel, if the reviews are reasonable.

It's like the old argument against piracy - but even more so. A game bought second hand is not necessarily a lost sale, since a) the game might not be *worth* full price to the purchaser b) we don't have infinite money to spend on games. They should concentrate on ways to pull people into a franchise so that they *want* to buy new.

Re:Great advertising for new versions! (5, Insightful)

Old97 (1341297) | about 5 years ago | (#28720403)

It's like the old argument against piracy - but even more so.

The "even more so" is that reselling a game and buying used games is perfectly legal and violates the rights of no one. Game developers need to respect the rights of their customers and shut up.

Re:Great advertising for new versions! (4, Funny)

AndrewNeo (979708) | about 5 years ago | (#28720783)

Game developers need to respect the rights of their customers and shut up.

Woah, calm down! Next you'll be suggesting that they should stop implementing DRM because the only people it stops from using their software are the legitimate customers!

Re:Great advertising for new versions! (5, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 years ago | (#28720197)

I wont. I'm done paying full retail for games. I buy lots of games when they hit the $19.95 mark. almost no games I own cost more than that. I refuse to pay the stupid $70.00 each for a game. that's nuts.

but then I also am the guy that pisses off the EB clerks and got Fallout 3 for $20.00 when they offered the guy turning it in $10.00 for it.

I slapped the guy a 20 and he gave me the game. I left before the pimple faced manager could stop choking on his burger to yell at me.

Re:Great advertising for new versions! (4, Informative)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about 5 years ago | (#28720631)

Arbitrage in action. [wikipedia.org] Gotta love it!

Re:Great advertising for new versions! (1)

StickansT (1585125) | about 5 years ago | (#28720711)

Way to stick it to the Man!

Re:Great advertising for new versions! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720381)

Let's say I buy $GAME second hand for $30. Perhaps I'll like it enough to buy the sequel $GAME_2 new, full price, when it comes out and not wait.

Extremely doubtful. if you're used to buying used games, you'll continue to do so, thinking "I can just wait a few weeks, and buy it at a discount. Or, "I can wait 1 week, and get it for $5 less."

The problem with used games isn't so much that a market exists. That's totally fair and frankly makes sense. The problem is with companies like Gamestop that push these sales above all others, to the detriment of game publishers. Doing this causes 2 problems: 1. the gamer is still losing money. On each sale, gamestop makes, by my estimation, about $20, which is $20 less that the gamer--the one who buys games (including new games) has to spend on another (possibly new) game, reducing sales of other games that gamer might be interested in.

This leads to the second problem wherein since less gamers are buying new games, the price of new games creeps up. This, combined with a price increase in game development (since games are so much more complex these days) leads to two (similar) problems: less games, and less original games. No one is really willing on taking a multi-million dollar risk on an innovative game that may either suck, or not get any notice with other massively hyped games arriving in the same quarter.

The solution, I think, is something that'll never come to pass: a waiting period on trading in games. If you buy a game, you would not be able to sell it to a gamestop like store for a predefined period (say 3 months). If you got stuck with a game you didn't like, you'd have to do some networking to try to sell your game to someone else interested in the game (using a service like Craig's list, perhaps).

Ultimately, this isn't a huge issue, but it could exasperate other issues that might be more critical.

Hey! It's fun to make points up out of thin air! (2, Funny)

The End Of Days (1243248) | about 5 years ago | (#28720713)

Let's say Santa Claus is real and brings me the game that he had his elves construct in his workshop. Then no one gets any money at all, but are you really against Santa Claus?

Contracting (4, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | about 5 years ago | (#28720013)

There's nothing stopping major game publishers from creating their own chain of used game stores, and contracting (or just buy a majority share in) gamestop to manage them for the publishers. This seems like a pretty easy fix.

Re:Contracting (2, Insightful)

Monsuco (998964) | about 5 years ago | (#28720235)

There is no "fix", first sale says it is legal to resell a copyrighted work. Used game stores won't hurt game companies any more than used book stores hurt authors. All it means to these companies is that they are selling a copy and not a contract. Copyright should involve just that, the rights over making copies, not the rights over what is done with said copies after they are sold. Once sold, they shouldn't still own the work, they should just own the right to replicate the work.

Re:Contracting (1)

Hadlock (143607) | about 5 years ago | (#28720345)

Creating their own chain of stores allows them to legitimately resell their (and other publisher's) games, giving them a fair, competitive chance at that share of revenue, without resorting to bribing legislators into introducing new laws that might infringe on first sale doctrine.

Re:Contracting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720743)

Sure there is - require product activation and an always-on internet connection.

I'm not saying I like it, but that's probably where this industry is headed in order to protect its revenue stream.

Re:Contracting (4, Interesting)

dimeglio (456244) | about 5 years ago | (#28720779)

We should try to extend this to music especially downloaded music. Why is it that I can sell a used CD but, in some coutries, I can't sell a used iPod full of legally downloaded music? I suppose that's a definitive advantage of buying the CD vs downloading (on top of the quality).

They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware. (4, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about 5 years ago | (#28720025)

Sony was going to have each game be locked to a single PS3 thus preventing the resale of the game.

Sony decided against it when the fans made a stink.

Lets not say that its "impossible" to stop the selling of used games. Its quite possible and they will do it when they feel they have to.

Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware. (4, Informative)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about 5 years ago | (#28720073)

Also as far as i know... If you buy a game on steam, its locked to your account and name and you can not resell it.

The used game market is going to die when digital distribution takes over.

Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware. (2, Interesting)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 5 years ago | (#28720229)

I think most of us, even if we don't regularly buy things on steam are agreeable to binding a purchase to an account. I wish microsoft would adopt this logic so I could easily manage and transfer my licences between machines and so on.

From there publishers need to dramatically drop (or even zero) the price of older titles as they move on to sequels (or new IP). There's really not much point in charging 20 or 30 bucks for assassins creed or bioshock now. If the put them on games for windows live, steam, impulse, direct2drive gamersgate etc for 5 or 10 bucks, or even 0 and just said go torrent it they would have more people lined up for the sequels and ready to pay full price. The only people who pay full price for anything are the impatient ones, myself included, they need to grow that market, they're not likely to get much from anyone else no matter what.

Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware. (4, Insightful)

Sancho (17056) | about 5 years ago | (#28720559)

I think most of us, even if we don't regularly buy things on steam are agreeable to binding a purchase to an account.

I wouldn't mind binding things to an account, as long as I could unbind it and transfer it to another account.

Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware. (4, Interesting)

athakur999 (44340) | about 5 years ago | (#28720283)

You could, in theory, just sell your steam account itself to someone else. Of course, this means selling the entire collection of games in your account so you can't pick and choose. You could just set up a different account for each game you wanted to buy though.

Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware. (2, Insightful)

vertinox (846076) | about 5 years ago | (#28720473)

Also as far as i know... If you buy a game on steam, its locked to your account and name and you can not resell it.

True, but computer games in general are hard to resell even if you have the original box simply because of random DRM schemes and isn't specific to Steam.

I personally would never buy a used computer game because of this.

Console games on the other hand will always be easier to resell.

Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware. (1)

wigginz (730819) | about 5 years ago | (#28720591)

It never will. Publishers have too much invested and make too much money (along with retailers) selling games off the shelf. It will never go away or let digital distribution take over. Steam has been around how long? It hasn't made much of a dent especially when the console market is so huge.

Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware. (1)

2obvious4u (871996) | about 5 years ago | (#28720615)

Digital distribution will take over when all 6 billion people on the planet get 10Gb/s for free.

Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware. (4, Insightful)

Mortiss (812218) | about 5 years ago | (#28720109)

Yeah,
Thus ensuring that many people simply will not buy it because they not only cannot trade it but also cannot even take it to their friends places to play.

That would be a very stupid move indeed.

Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware. (2, Interesting)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about 5 years ago | (#28720185)

Microsoft already addresses this issue by allowing you to Download your gamertag to only one Xbox 360 at a time. So if you go to your friends house you can DL your gamertag and all of your "Xbox live arcade games" can now be played on your friends xbox. Of course your home Xbox will now not be able to play them until you redownload your gamertag to your Xbox 360.

So it is very possible that this will become a reality because it already very much is on Xbox Live. Its a HUGE pain in the ass tho.

Sony is actually better about it. If you buy a game on PSN, you can install it on your PS3 and your friends and both of you can even play the game at the same time on both your consoles.

Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720285)

Anybody remember "LAN Game CD's" -- I think maybe the original age of empires and/or starcraft came with them. YOu'd install all the CDs and that on your own machine--but they'd give you a second disk you could give to a friend that would only let you play the online version with them...

Sigh...at least that was a tolerable model. You want to play multiplayer now, both people have to buy it...and have an account with xbox...PITA

Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware. (2, Interesting)

Gizzmonic (412910) | about 5 years ago | (#28720343)

It's coming. I'll bet the next consoles have 'features' that prevent game resale. They think people will buy no matter what. I've been gaming for 25 years and I will not buy a game that I can't bring over to a friends' house. And no, giving your friend your PSN or Xbox Live info so they can download the game onto their console isn't the same. Takes too much coordination, time, and it could even cost money if your friend is on metered broadband.

Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720429)

Sony was going to have each game be locked to a single PS3 thus preventing the resale of the game.

Sony decided against it when the fans made a stink.

Bull. Shit. What you're saying is that Sony actually listened to their fans. I demand citations.

Re:They can stop it: Installs locked to hardware. (1)

sheepofblue (1106227) | about 5 years ago | (#28720625)

All true but like most DRM I have seen the implementation craps on your PAYING customers harder than those you are trying to stop.

Why would game publishers care? (1)

religious freak (1005821) | about 5 years ago | (#28720029)

Unless I'm missing something, it seems the OP is missing something... game publishers don't care if a certain new game is paid for with a certain old game. They still get paid full price for the new game.

Sure, the publishers theoretically miss out on selling these old games to new people (b/c of the trade in), but it's been like that for some time - I would hope they'd be over it by now. This quick aging of titles is what contributes to such a fast development cycle on games, and is what pushes progress forward. Yeah, it's hard work for the publishers, but it doesn't push down their sales, or profit, on the new titles they create.

Re:Why would game publishers care? (4, Insightful)

Dynedain (141758) | about 5 years ago | (#28720253)

But this is how the game publishers see it:

5 million people are playing my game.
500k people are pirating it.
1 million people are buying it used.

I get $30 for each new copy sold.

Ergo, I am LOSING $15 million to piracy, and I am LOSING $30 million to second-hand sales.

The key is that the publishes don't view the second-hand sales environment as free marketing. That is to say, they don't see the benefits of having a wider audience exposure, which in turn causes overall sales and first-sales to rise. Instead they look at second-hand sales as missed opportunities, assuming that they should have been first-sale purchases, and scream that they are losing revenue. Complete bullshit way of thinking about it, but when all you care about is the bottom line, then your goal is to have the absolute maximum number of people paying you the maximum price.

Of course the used-market game retailers put the price of the used games barely less than the new ones (compare to a pawn shop for example) which only further reinforces the mentality that the retailers are trying to screw the publishers.

Re:Why would game publishers care? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720257)

Companies only have a single goal: to be profitable. When companies are already as profitable as they can (or think they can) be, through legitimate tactics, they will move on to more underhanded taxes. Yes, that means apple locking down its software, media companies extending copyrights, film producers ousting rights holders, and game companies making money every time the game is bought, new or old. This isn't just about the trade in deals for new games, it's also just about people buying used games at all.

Just don't pull the same shit you did with PoP (0, Flamebait)

DonniKatz (623845) | about 5 years ago | (#28720065)

You had to buy the ending to Prince of Persia. I can't even begin to articulate how unacceptable a move that was.

Lower your price! (5, Insightful)

darkmeridian (119044) | about 5 years ago | (#28720075)

Game companies should progressively lower prices of their games as time passes. This would eat up the used game market.

Re:Lower your price! (5, Funny)

iron-kurton (891451) | about 5 years ago | (#28720175)

Same should be done with music. Eventually, you'll start getting paid to listen to Van Halen's Jump (as one should be)

Re:Lower your price! (1)

bitt3n (941736) | about 5 years ago | (#28720791)

Same should be done with music. Eventually, you'll start getting paid to listen to Van Halen's Jump (as one should be)

or they could just slow down the song, so you would still pay the same amount, but get far more music for your money.

Re:Lower your price! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720305)

Ummm, they already do that.

Re:Lower your price! (2, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 5 years ago | (#28720621)

This age old argument applied to music doesn't generally apply to games. Take any blockbuster title that was $59.95 a year ago and it's almost certainly going to be $39.95 today. Give it another year and it'll probably be down to $19.95. Most quality games will stay at at least $19.95 for the duration of it's host system's mainstream life cycle, but the unpopular games will go even lower - $10 or less isn't uncommon.

Not saying I agree with the publishers whining - IMHO they should just suck it up and accept reality (if auto makers whined about people buying used cars because they make no money on them then the public would tell them to fuck off - the game publishers need to accept that same situation). I'm just saying that they ARE reducing price as time goes on. Particularly for sports games. Ever priced a copy of Madden that's a year or two out of date? They'll almost pay you to haul the things away for them.

Re:Lower your price! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720717)

Don't they already? Maybe not so gradually, but they do fall pretty sharply after a few months.

It's one of those perks of upgrading your system only rarely and not to the bleeding edge. You save a ton of cash, and those fancy-pants games from a year or two ago run wonderfully on your new mid-range system. And they're probably patched too. Is there really more than one game every couple years that you absolutely must play at the moment of release?

Re:Lower your price! (1)

ArundelCastle (1581543) | about 5 years ago | (#28720727)

Game companies should progressively lower prices of their games as time passes. This would eat up the used game market.

This typically does happen, but only after sales slow to a certain threshhold. This takes forever with Grand Theft Autos and Call of Dutys.
It works well for PC games; a month after release they often drop $5-10. Not to mention starting $10 cheaper than consoles on average.
And yes, there is a used PC game market at retail. Hell, back in my day, I remember renting 'em.

But (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720117)

does Gamestop sell Battletoads 2?

Don't get it... (4, Insightful)

navygeek (1044768) | about 5 years ago | (#28720121)

Honestly, the argument against being able to buy used games is not one I understand. It's no different than buying a used car and as soon as someone suggested there be sanctions against reselling cars, there would be a public outcry. In both instances you can buy the brand new item for full retail price - or wait a while and get it in slightly worse condition and maybe not with all the extras that originally came with the item. In both cases the reseller (we'll say Gamestop and your local car dealership) make a profit over what they bought the used item for. In both cases the customer is paying more than they otherwise would if they bought it directly from the person selling it to the reseller. And in both cases you're dealing with shady, underhanded people.

Re:Don't get it... (1)

Itchyeyes (908311) | about 5 years ago | (#28720511)

Just to play the devil's advocate, someone in the development community would say that the difference is that while a car's condition depreciates through use, a used game plays exactly the same as a new one. And there's a bit of truth to that. A used game typically only sells for about 10% less than a new copy at somewhere like Gamestop, while used car values drop precipitously over time.

The problem here is one of buyer's and seller's expectations. Publishers and developers do not want to sell you games. They want to sell you limited use of games. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, it's something people do all the time. Think of any time you've rented a movie or game. And I don't think that most gamers would mind simply buying limited use of games. After all, if you buy a game, play it, then sell it, that's essentially what you did for the cost of the purchase price minus the sales price. Where these expectations clash though is in the pricing. Many developers seem to think that a limited use right should be priced the same as purchasing the game. Obviously gamers don't see it this way. If developers want to essentially sell rentals, they're going to lower their prices dramatically. Something I don't think many of them have realized yet, because if they had we would not be hearing about the abolishment of used games sales nearly as much.

Re:Don't get it... (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 5 years ago | (#28720565)

I agree with you in spirit, but

In both instances you can buy the brand new item for full retail price - or wait a while and get it in slightly worse condition and maybe not with all the extras that originally came with the item.

breaks the analogy. This is a digital product. The used version is exactly the same as the new version (assuming the packaging & manual are included).

While this doesn't really destroy your point, it does help explain why the used game market presents such a problem for game producers.

You buy a new car, instead of a used one, because it's better than a used one.

You don't buy a new game, instead of a used game, because it is better -- you buy the new game because there are no used versions available.

So what the game producers are trying to do, is to *introduce* a reduction of value in used games (by limiting the number of activations, or other DRM). This drives gamers to the new copies of the game, where the producers make money.

In both cases the customer is paying more than they otherwise would if they bought it directly from the person selling it to the reseller. And in both cases you're dealing with shady, underhanded people.

So there is no value in maintaining a marketplace for goods? There is no value to sellers for a reseller to expend all the effort in selling the game?

There are shady, underhanded people everywhere, but resellers provide a valuable service to sellers (and buyers). I'll gladly sell a game for $20 less so that I don't have to spend an hour selling the game to the end-customer myself. My time is worth more than that.

Re:Don't get it... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 years ago | (#28720785)

The only reason is because I would rather the game companies get my money than Gamestop. Without game companies, there are no more games (yeah, whatever, don't talk to me about freeCiv). Without Gamestop, well, theoretically the world might be a better place. That's why I always buy either direct, or go to an independent game shop that I don't mind if they get my money.

Even better: Piracy. (0, Flamebait)

Doug52392 (1094585) | about 5 years ago | (#28720123)

Paying NOTHING for something that would cost $50 is a much more rewarding feeling.

Re:Even better: Piracy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720295)

What I end up doing is pirating some games, and buying others. That way the average amount I pay for a game reaches a reasonable level, and I still support the people who make the games.

Make up your minds: product or license? (4, Interesting)

stmfreak (230369) | about 5 years ago | (#28720139)

It is a simple case of seller's remorse. They lure you to the table with the advertising that you are buying a product. A physical good you can re-use, re-cycle, trade, sell, etc. And they make you pay a premium price for that product.

Then they whine that you are trading, re-using, selling and undermining their sales. What they really wanted was for you to pay a product price ($60) for a license.

It's pretty clear that the free market (blockbuster) has established the value of a license at $3-$5 per week. But I don't think the game studios would be happy if they sold ten million physical copies on launch day for $5 a pop either.

Re:Make up your minds: product or license? (1)

radish (98371) | about 5 years ago | (#28720259)

It's pretty clear that the free market (blockbuster) has established the value of a license at $3-$5 per week. But I don't think the game studios would be happy if they sold ten million physical copies on launch day for $5 a pop either.

I'm not sure the gamers would be happy about having to pay $5 a week forever if they want to keep those copies, either. Rental exists for gaming just like movies, and the individual consumer can choose which they prefer. Even selling at "product" prices (whatever that means) plenty of people still seem to want to buy.

Re:Make up your minds: product or license? (1)

navygeek (1044768) | about 5 years ago | (#28720325)

Why can't they be both and charge double the price? That's the trend these days, right? Make a shitty product and overcharge...

Re:Make up your minds: product or license? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 5 years ago | (#28720661)

It's pretty clear that the free market (blockbuster) has established the value of a license at $3-$5 per week. But I don't think the game studios would be happy if they sold ten million physical copies on launch day for $5 a pop either.

If that was a weekly license fee, they'd be happy. That's $50 million in revenue per week.

If they game companies could get $5/week (~$20/month) for each copy they "sold", they could conceivably make a lot more money than they are making now... assuming that they could retain customers for longer than three months on average. Look at WoW (which gets revenue from initial sales and from continuing access fees)... it's a fricken gold mine.

Maybe then we'd get games with more replay value, too, since it would be necessary in order for the producers to maximize their profits.

"sleight of hand" (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 5 years ago | (#28720153)

Anyone who describes selling used anything this way is clearly so out of touch with reality that their opinion on the subject isn't worth listening to.

The primary reason that game developers (and marketers) should shut up about used games? It's not because it may act as advertising for their future games, although that's a valid economic argument. It's because if you buy something, you own it, and it is yours to do with as you wish. Don't talk about "selling" people games if you're not willing to, you know, sell them. Rent them out, whatever. But when you agree to have your products on store shelves (store, not rental facility) or listed as "for sale" in online catalogs, you are giving up the right to control what people do with the physical media after they buy them. Period. End of story. Game over, man, game over.

Movie studios, music labels, book publishers: you too.

Nothing game developers can do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720155)

I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of game consoles are download (non-transferable) game licenses only. Sound crazy? They are already phasing this in slowly with so much pay-for DLC content.

The Law (4, Informative)

Absolut187 (816431) | about 5 years ago | (#28720163)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine [wikipedia.org]

Any studios arguing that copyright rights prevent sale of a used game are just plain WRONG.

But we need to be vigilant and make sure we get out and ACTUALLY VOTE for politicians who will keep it that way!

Re:The Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720275)

But we need to be vigilant and make sure we get out and ACTUALLY VOTE for politicians who will keep it that way!

Rules out voting for most Democrats, then. Senator Disney - Fritz Hollings, is the biggest threat - and he's a Democrat.

Re:The Law (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | about 5 years ago | (#28720395)

The law? I AM THE LAW!

Er...yeah. Hey, wanna go get a burger and a pint? No? Ok, I'll get me coat.

Re:The Law (1)

pilgrim23 (716938) | about 5 years ago | (#28720413)

the same has been true of used books for some 10 generations. But the digital world will soon make that a thing of the past. Then once only digital books are available they will be printed in ASCII, no in Rich Text, no in PDF, no .docx no Kendel reader no....in a standard that will LAST for another 10 generations! or not...

Crybabies (1)

bigdadro (452037) | about 5 years ago | (#28720165)

Maybe they should spend less time crying and more time innovating. Nintendo with Wii-ware (sp?) and Valve with STEAM seemed to have figured out a decent solution. Physical game media is no different than CD's. Just a matter of time before they are relics of the past.

Re:Crybabies (1)

Dullstar (1581331) | about 5 years ago | (#28720549)

Most games used the Wii really cruddy. I really don't like the concept of having to shake the Wiimote to attack, or, for example, in one of the games that actually did it right, Elebits, the basic nature of the Wii made it difficult to control.

They ARE crybabies.

Re:Crybabies (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 5 years ago | (#28720609)

No. Fuck that. Steam is not a decent solution. Steam sells you a 'subscription' to a game. Worse, they put it in a box, on store shelves alongside the other games that are actually for sale. And they frame everything in terms of 'buying the game', until you read the fine print, and then you find out you didn't buy anything... you've got a subscription.

Oh, and its non-transferable, so you can't resell it or even give it away. And if Steam ever shuts down, your subscription ends, and you have nothing at all once it comes time to 'validate' your 'purchase' again.

I have 2 steam games. One I bought on purpose. One I bought by accident, not knowing it was a steam game. Both of them I bought at EB off the shelf in a box.

Wrong! (1)

Sj0 (472011) | about 5 years ago | (#28720179)

It's idiotic to say game developers can't do anything about used games. There's plenty they can do.

Blizzard has some great strategies for making their games virtually unsellable: Make the multiplayer a central feature, then make it so the one and only key will be deactivated if multiple copies are detected, or make the whole game multiplayer.

Valve's steam, despite my love for it(There are no game stores where I live so being able to play a game without spending 16 hours driving to the city and back is very nice), completely eliminates the ability of users to sell games. The various console DLC providers, as well as windows live games do similar things.

Forget simple economics, this story has problems with simple logic and empirical data.

You're doing it wrong. (-1, Offtopic)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 5 years ago | (#28720237)

So let me get this straight -- you're trying to tell game developers they don't deserve the money they're lawfully entitled to? And your compelling argument is that you don't think it's worth that much? Never mind the topic, which tells them to "shut up", which is never a good way to start a debate. Here's a couple facts, my adorable little black hole of Clue: First, federal law says they can charge whatever they want, and they've got the rights to the work for the life of the developer plus a couple hundred years after that. Second, if they charged less, the games would suck badly enough that they'd no longer be worth even a slashdot post lamenting the lack of availability.

If you want to make a change here, fix the copyright laws, but don't tell game developers to "shut up", because they're the ones pulling doubles every day for months at a go, foregoing the comforts of a significant other, basic hygiene, and possibly their sanity--simply because that's what they love doing and don't mind being underpaid for it. Because it would be just your luck that they'd do exactly that, and then you'd be forced to do something other than masturbating to your level 80 elf huntress.
 

Re:You're doing it wrong. (1)

Sj0 (472011) | about 5 years ago | (#28720335)

What does any of that have to do with the user once the software has left the developer's hands?

Copyright law allows people who own books, movies, music, or video games to sell them.

Re:You're doing it wrong. (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 5 years ago | (#28720421)

What does any of that have to do with the user once the software has left the developer's hands?

You did read the title of the post, right? It says "game developers should shut up". They won't, because the law says they can do it and it's a revenue stream. Nevermind the logistics, the social impact, or anything else -- it's legal. All the complaining and finger-pointing in the world won't change the fact that as long as a corporation CAN legally do it, they will, because the marginal cost of doing so will almost always be outweighed by the net return when your product is an intangible (a video game).

Game developers aren't the problem; The law is.

Re:You're doing it wrong. (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 5 years ago | (#28720729)

Did you read the rest of the title of the post?

"Why Game Developers Should Shut Up About Used Games".

I have trouble working out what you're refuting. You seem to be arguing that game developers can charge what they like for a game, which is a fair point but not one that anyone actually disagreed with.

You seem to be completely failing to agree or disagree with the point about used games.

Re:You're doing it wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720377)

Game developers don't have to develop games. If they don't like the conditions they could get another job. Federal law says that game companies can demand their worker drones put up with these conditions - if you want to make a change here, fix the employment laws, but don't tell game buyers to "shut up" ;)

Re:You're doing it wrong. (1)

Aggrajag (716041) | about 5 years ago | (#28720447)

If the game does not have any replayability and can be
completed in 20 hours, why would I pay $60 for it
instead of $30? And if I pay $60 for the game what would
be my incentive of not selling the game to someone else
and get at least some of my money back?

Re:You're doing it wrong. (4, Insightful)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | about 5 years ago | (#28720595)

So let me get this straight -- you're trying to tell game developers they don't deserve the money they're lawfully entitled to?

They're not lawfully entitled to used-game sales. Once they've received the check for the games they sell to retailers, their deal is done. They got their money. The game DVD is no longer property of $Game_Developer. That property was sold. The developer still has the rights to print the game, and make more copies, but they don't have the right to harvest cash after they've already received full compensation for the property.

Second, if they charged less, the games would suck badly enough that they'd no longer be worth even a slashdot post lamenting the lack of availability.

How much mercury did you drink before you started believing this? Until developers have access to time machines, retail price of a game will NOT affect the development process. NBA Jam for the Genesis sold for $100 retail. Shenmue had a budget of $70M and turned out mediocre. Too Human had a budget of about $100M, and was received even worse. You said yourself that price is not indicative of value, but it's an indication of what the game developer feels they "deserve" for their contributions to a superfluous entertainment industry.

Re:You're doing it wrong. (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 5 years ago | (#28720795)

Shenmue had a budget of $70M and turned out mediocre

Hey now, Shenmue was fucking awesome.

Re:You're doing it wrong. (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | about 5 years ago | (#28720623)

If you want to make a change here, fix the copyright laws, but don't tell game developers to "shut up", because they're the ones pulling doubles every day for months at a go, foregoing the comforts of a significant other, basic hygiene, and possibly their sanity--simply because that's what they love doing and don't mind being underpaid for it.

All I can say is...suckers!

Because it would be just your luck that they'd do exactly that, and then you'd be forced to do something other than masturbating to your level 80 elf huntress.
 

Fine with me. There are enough good games out there already that I could probably play for the next 25 years or more and not get bored. I also have other hobbies. If developers want to alienate people like me (late 20's/early 30's, married, good income) by taking away our ability to resell or take a game over to a friend's house, they can go ahead. I promise it will hurt them a lot worse than it hurts us.

Re:You're doing it wrong. (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 5 years ago | (#28720757)

So let me get this straight -- you're trying to tell game developers they don't deserve the money they're lawfully entitled to?

Game developers are lawfully entitled to money from second hand sales? Which law is that?

First, federal law says they can charge whatever they want, and they've got the rights to the work for the life of the developer plus a couple hundred years after that.

You know what else Federal law says?

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord

"Copy" in this case refers to any medium that is not a phonorecord. So this applies to computer programs.

If you want to make a change here, fix the copyright laws, but don't tell game developers to "shut up"

Are you misunderstanding something here? At least when it comes to First Sale, copyright law is fine. It's perfectly fair to tell game developers to shut up when they're whining about perfectly legal activity.

Steam (1)

Pingh (1130313) | about 5 years ago | (#28720273)

Personally I think there needs to be a better distribution network for games. Steam for example is great at what it does on the PC side. I can grab a game when it comes out right away, but odds are if I wait 2 weekends it'll be on sale. Or I can wait 6 months and it's lumped together with a few other games in a bundle pack. 90% of what I've bought on steam has come in a bundle pack that averaged out to less then $10 a game. If they had a system this slick for the console market I wouldn't need to buy used games.

Re:Steam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720575)

This Steam fanboyism is why there soon won't be a way to resell games. You buy something on Steam and you are 100% at the mercy of this company. You can only play as long as they allow you to or stay in business. I'm keeping popcorn and beer for the day Steam goes belly up and all those who applaud it will be left with nothing. All games gone. No DRM server to start games. That's going to be hilarious :)

Re:Steam (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 5 years ago | (#28720669)

Roughly half the games I've bought on Steam don't require Steam in order to run... Fallout 3, for example, will run whether or not Steam is running.

However, I mostly buy games from gog.com these days: cheap and DRM-free.

Steam... (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | about 5 years ago | (#28720291)

I bought Total War: Empires a while ago which uses Steam for it's registration and updates.

I'm pretty sure that locks the game down to my steam account so there's no way I could trade it in or sell it.

I'm on the fence about it really. On one hand I'm not sure I like not being able to resell the game like I would [Insert Car Analogy] but on the other hand there are benefits as far as ease of updating or installing on other machines. Certainly better than locking down to the hardware. While I don't fault the companies for trying to find a way to force consumers to buy new products straight from them (every company would love to do this) I don't think they have any right to complain about people reselling property they legally own.

Developers need to do the math (5, Insightful)

Itchyeyes (908311) | about 5 years ago | (#28720301)

Developers and publishers are under the, mistaken, impression that they're missing out on huge revenue stream through used games. Let's assume that I buy a game for $60. Once I'm done with it, I sell it, either through Gamestop or Amazon for about $20 net. They take a $10 commission and sell it to someone else for $30. In this scenario developers seem to think that they've missed out on a single $60 from the person who bought it at $30 used, but that just isn't the case.

First of all, the person who waited for a used copy at $30 isn't going to spend $60 in the absence of a used copy. They're going to wait until the new copies are about $30 and buy it then. Giving them fewer choices of how to spend their money does not magically give them more money to spend. Also, the person who bought the game at $60, didn't just buy a game. They bought a game that they knew they could sell for ~$20. By stripping out the ability to resell the game you lower the value of the game to the initial buyer as well. So without the used option, the developer doesn't get two $60 sales, they get one $40 sale and one $30 sale. But they have to pay for all the production, shipping, packing, etc... costs for a second copy of the game as well. So at the end of the day the net gain is more or less zero.

Re:Developers need to do the math (1)

Cornflake917 (515940) | about 5 years ago | (#28720797)

Developers and publishers are under the, mistaken, impression that they're missing out on huge revenue stream through used games.

I doubt it. It's hard for me to believe that the publisher never played a scenario similar to yours in their minds.

It's a publishers job to maximize profit, and they want cold hard numbers to back it up. Maybe the used game market does help the sale of forthcoming games made by the same company, however there are no numbers to back that up. People who have the job of selling games have never liked used game sales, and that's not likely to change.

I don't agree with your argument that people will be less likely to buy a game due to the fact that they can't resell it. I think resell value is far down on the priority list when buyers make decisions on purchasing games. I don't have any numbers to back that up, but how often do you hear someone say "This game is great, but I'm not going to buy it because I won't be able to sell it when I get bored with it?" I think you are making a big assumption by asserting that there is the net gain is negligible (not to mention you provide nothing but speculation).

I may be in the minority here, but I really don't mind if digital distribution takes over retail. Developers will be less dependent on publishers, and hence more free to make the games they want. Decreased distribution costs will allow companies to sell their games cheaper while still maintaining a good profit margin.

Why IKEA Should Shut Up About Used Couches (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720307)

"It may feel like a rip-off to some, but you've got to admit that paying $30 for a used IKEA couch sure beats paying $60! Couch manufactures and craftsmnet may not like it, but people are going to buy new couches and those old couches will be sold back to other people. There's nothing couch manufactures can do to stop them, and people who hold garage sales or use craig's list continue to laugh all the way to the bank. In an article at Cheap Buys, Dave Thomas, eating Wendy's burgers from the grave, dissects one of the most critical issues in furniture today: used furniture merchants (online and brick-and-mortar) who specialize in this 'age old practice of selling used items.'"

You really can't have it both ways (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about 5 years ago | (#28720353)

On one hand, they want to act like "the thing" is the media upon which the games are distributed. This is why they don't want to replace media that has been damaged at any reasonable cost. On the other hand, they want to act like "the thing" is also the software license and not the media itself and so they want to deny the license to resell the media by asserting that users are not allowed to transfer the license to use the software and data within.

You can't have it both ways. If the media is the thing, then they don't need to replace my damaged disks for a reasonable fee but they can't prevent me from selling them either. If the software/data contained is the thing, then they should offer media replacement services at a reasonable cost FOREVER or at least offer a means to back up the data and to play the backup copies. (They should not be allowed to back out of this by saying a game is discontinued and replacement copies are no longer available... they can just print more! And any company that buys the original company and copyrights to the software/data should ALSO be required under the same licensing agreement...) and then they can disallow the right to resell the media.

At the moment, the paradigm appears to be in favor of the media being "the thing" as the behavior of the game publishers and the console makers seem to bear this out. (That is to say, no backup copies are playable and no replacement guarantees are available.) And since the media is the thing, they can't restrict what I do with it and damn the DMCA as it is an unjust law and I will violate it every time it gets in the way of my fair use.

Digital distribution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720359)

Digital distinution, like Steam makes it already impossible to resell your used games. I guess you could sell your whole account, but no one that I know of is doing that. Steam has shown that this can be wildly successful, and the myriad of competitors (Direct2Drive, etc.) that have sprung up indicate huge momentum in this direction.

Already have it for music (1)

basementman (1475159) | about 5 years ago | (#28720361)

As we move towards digital, and not physical methods of owning our content this is only natural. Take music, in the past I could sell a CD when I got bored of it. Now that's impossible, I either buy it from iTunes and am unable to sell it in the future, or I just pirate it for free. The second one is much more popular. Game companies trying to alienate people that actually buy their product are just setting themselves up for future piracy.

Re:Already have it for music (1)

PCM2 (4486) | about 5 years ago | (#28720633)

Take music, in the past I could sell a CD when I got bored of it. Now that's impossible, I either buy it from iTunes and am unable to sell it in the future, or I just pirate it for free.

It's "impossible" unless you, uh, buy the CD. The record stores where I live are still chock-full of used CDs. Not yours, though, I guess.

if this were done earlier... (1)

unfunk (804468) | about 5 years ago | (#28720363)

can you imagine just how much money companies like Atari, Sega and Nintendo would be if this sort of thing were getting started in video games?
If the publishers (and back then, the console manufacturer was the publisher) all got a cut of the profits each time the game was resold? They'd all be swamped with the income from eBay alone!

Of course, we must also consider the opposite side of the scale - if by law, the publishers always had to have a cut of the money when the game was resold, then I suspect there would have been a lot less places willing to specialise in games, or at least accept used ones. It would become virtually impossible to discover games from previous generations.

Gears Of War 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720455)

In what world is Gears of War 2 sixty dollars? IT IS NOT $60 NEW. Also, at least where I live, GameStop prices their $60 games at about $55 if they're used. I did not RTFA so maybe I missed something?

Digital "copies" for sale (2, Insightful)

192939495969798999 (58312) | about 5 years ago | (#28720457)

You can't "sell" just one digital copy of anything, since each digital copy can be reproduced AND distributed at essentially zero cost to anyone. The concept of buying and selling goods applies only to tangible goods with a fixed lifespan. How can you "sell" just one digital copy of something and have it retain a tangible quality? You can't. The idea that a used game can sell for anything says that the economy is strong. If piracy really applied to digital media, then there would be no used market whatsoever. Furthermore, the tangible item (a disc) is exactly why game makers shy away from digital distribution -- DD removes the only tangible good they are selling and destroys the ability to control any of the distro rights (i.e. the main income stream).

Gamestop blows (2, Informative)

furby076 (1461805) | about 5 years ago | (#28720477)

I can't stand places like gamestop. $60 game (brand new). They buy it back for $10 to $15. They resell it at $55. No wonder they are laughing all the way to the bank - they are ripping off their consumers.

Craigslist/Ebay and other similar sites is the way to buy used games.

Yeah, we'll always be able to resell them! (1)

8tim8 (623968) | about 5 years ago | (#28720485)

>people are going to trade in used games for new games and those old games will be sold back to other people. There's nothing game developers can do to stop them...

Exactly! Nothing they can do at all! They should just stop complaining about it and move on.

On a completely unrelated note, can someone please post instructions on how I can resell the games I've downloaded for my Wii and Xbox 360? Also, I've got some downloaded books for my Kindle that I'm tired of and want to sell. I know I can do these things because, like the summary says, there's nothing the publishers can do to stop it. Thanks in advance!

Publishers also can offer cheaper (1)

Grokko (193875) | about 5 years ago | (#28720487)

EA themselves used to release "Classic" versions of their games for around $20. What happened?

If they had any brains at all, they could cut off the used market rather quickly. Just sell the games for cheaper and cheaper amounts, online or otherwise. In other words, let the market function properly.

If their new games were priced lower than used games at GameStop, how many people would buy used?

It reminds me of the Canadian Government complaining about a black market in cigarettes forming because they jacked the taxes up. There was more incentive to buy black market cigarettes than retail, because it was just so much cheaper. They created the black market by ignoring the demand.

Publishers, stop ignoring the demands of the market, and you will make more profit. Is it that hard to understand?

Same solution to whining as always (2, Interesting)

DarksideDaveOR (557444) | about 5 years ago | (#28720505)

The entities complaining that used game sales are costing them money need to do the same thing as all whiners - face the reality, and do something that actually has a shot of working.

Enough with this trying to cherry-pick the characteristics of physical and non-physical products that suit your current business model the best.

In the case of used game sales, they simply need to get in on the action. Forget resale of discs; that's a lost cause. In the near future, even where those items still exist, they'll be linked to an account anyway.

They need to get in on resale of digital purchases. Say I'm done with a game I bought on Steam. I put my "copy" of the game up for sale, for some percentage of the current "new" price. Some other user decides to buy it, and pays that price. I get a substantial chunk of it in credit - at least half. The rest gets split between the publisher and Steam. The publisher and the developer can then work out what they do with that bit.

Mind you, eventually I'd like to see an end to paying for individual games at all. Instead, I pay a monthly subscription, and play whatever games I want. In turn, the developers for those games get a percentage of my subscription fee, based on how much I (and other subscribers) play their game.

We should be allowed to sell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720507)

I like being able to sell my older games and get my money back. It could be weeks, months, or even years but it does not matter because I owned the game to begin with. The game industry continues to complain about this while I am still able to buy and sell used books, cars, dvds, and anything else that can be listed on Craigslist or eBay.

By taking that buying and selling power away, it gives much more power to the publishers and less as an actual consumer who paid their own money for something.

Add replay value (1)

BagOBones (574735) | about 5 years ago | (#28720517)

As a gamer who almost never plays single player story games more than once trading in is a HUGH savings to me since I will only play the title once it just gathers dust otherwise.

Purchase new title at full price $60
Finish the title in two weeks - one month
Trade it in at high value (still new and popular) get $40
Purchase another title that was used for $50
Total cost for two single player experiences $70

If game developers had their way it would cost me $120 for the same single play through experiences.

For REALLY short single player games renting is even better.

Used car market (1)

rrz103 (725918) | about 5 years ago | (#28720529)

I hear GM, Chrysler and Ford are making the same complaint -- that the used car market is eating up their profits.

I hate the used games. (1, Redundant)

MaWeiTao (908546) | about 5 years ago | (#28720569)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anyone who buys used games from Gamestop and their ilk is a sap. Anyone who believes they're sticking it to developers and publishers by doing so is an even bigger sap. Used games from these retailers is one of the biggest sucker deals I've seen in years, $5 to $10 off games with battered, dirty cases, missing instruction manuals and worn, scratched discs. Even more ridiculous is how little they offer customers for used games.

I can't count the times I've seen used games at Gamestop going for more than a new copy at Target. If you're a truly discerning shopper concerned with saving money you'd go online where the best deals, by far, can be had. I don't think waiting a couple of days for delivery is going to kill anyone.

This is not to say I have some kind of problem with used games. Not at all. But if you're buying used games for a deal, which I presume most people are, then you should be shopping on eBay because that's one of the few days to find a good deal. And even better option is to just the game.

But the fact is that there are such good deals to be had online that there's virtually no good reason to buy a used game. Even new games can be had for about $5 off, at least, which is how much Gamestop is charging for the same game used. The way I see it, if a person is so impatient that they have to have a game immediately then they really aren't all that serious about saving money. If I don't think a new game is worth $60 then I don't buy it. I wait until prices have dropped.

The only people being screwed by used game sales are the consumers themselves but only because they allow themselves to be screwed. I remember as a kid collecting a bunch of old Atari 2600 games we had laying around and taking them to various pawn shops to make a few bucks to that in turn I could buy some Sega Master System games. I went from shop to shop trying to find a good deal, but in the end I gave up a decent number of good Atari games to end up with a single, average SMS game. Live and learn.

Fictitious Opportunity Cost (1)

javacowboy (222023) | about 5 years ago | (#28720653)

There's something that game developers don't seem to understand:

Let's say for the sake of argument that there are 100 copies of said game sold for $60/copy. Those 100 copies get sold for $6,000 total. Of those 100 copies, 50 get sold in the used games market for $30. Let's suppose further that there's no Gamespot and buy and sell price is the same. Thus, $1,500 was made in the used games market.

Now, let's suppose that the game developers suddenly come up with some foolproof DRM to tie the game to the specific console it's played on, but still sell the game for $60 a pop. What do you think will happen?

Well, it's fair to say that anywhere between 40 to 50 of those initial 100 copies don't get sold. In fact, I'd say it's closer to 50, since I'm sure that those buyers would refuse to pay $60 for the game knowing that they won't be able to recoup $30 of it. Given the realities of free market economics, this will drive down the price of the games to, say, $45. This would bring in 25 buyers who would otherwise buy used games.

I know I'm making up the numbers from the top of my head, but the idea is to illustrate a point: There's no way they can force used game buyers to pay the existing full price for a new game unless it's one of the best games of all time, and even then it probably won't work.

The game developers' notions of opportunity cost are fictitious.

DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28720715)

DRM and Downloadable games dance all the way back!

A healthy used market makes for a healthy new one! (1)

Me! Me! 42 (1153289) | about 5 years ago | (#28720737)

Its silly for the game companies to concern themselves with this. Buyers at all points in the market are more likely to buy/pay a higher price since they can have confidence that their investment will retain value due to a healthy secondary market. GM discovered this more than half a century ago when Harley Earl et. al. invented the annual model change.
If anything, they should, as some suggest above, get into the used game market themselves.

Figures (1)

orsty3001 (1377575) | about 5 years ago | (#28720759)

I'd like to see the sales figures of games that have been out for awhile vs. games that have just been released. I could be wrong but I have a feeling on most games sales drop off fast. I wouldn't worry about used games because it keeps people busy creating new games.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...