Beta
×

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!

Publishers Frustrated With Second-Hand Sales

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the deal-with-it dept.

Businesses 113

Via Joystiq, a look at MCV into the increasing frustration publishers have with second-hand game sales. From the article: "As pressure has increased this year on sell-through and pricing of new releases, so games publishers have become more sensitive about the size of the pre-owned market - which is believed to be worth as much as £50m a year to leading chain GAME and possibly £100m across the market as a whole. Publishers have agreed to discuss privately what action may be possible to stop the trend, either under the auspices of trade body ELSPA or simply via legal protection." We've already reported on Epic VP Mark Rein's opinion on reselling games.

cancel ×

113 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Morons. (5, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230053)

Publishers have agreed to discuss privately what action may be possible to stop the trend, either under the auspices of trade body ELSPA or simply via legal protection.

"Our business model isn't as profitable as it could be, let's outlaw competing with us!"

Isn't the point of capitalism that you're supposed to fix that yourself instead of bribing a politician to do it for you? The software industry already has a lot of special rights that should have been taken away long ago (beginning with that "it's not a sale, it's a license" crap), they don't need more.

Re:Morons. (0, Offtopic)

Stardate (13547) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230087)

But put themselves in your position: do YOU really want to do work? I hate work, like whazzisname in Office Space. Well, I don't HATE it actually, i kind of like it.. but then again I spent 3/5 days administrating Unix/Linux servers, and only 2/5 doing Windows. :)

in any case if i won the lottery i'd still never go to work. Everyone working at these game companies must feel the same way..

Re:Morons. (2, Informative)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230127)

Well if legislators have any sense they'll just laugh at them when they try to take away yet more rights of fair use from the public...but unfortunately, a large portion of Slashdotters (self included) live in America where we aren't so fortunate.

Re:Morons. (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 8 years ago | (#14233146)

...but unfortunately, a large portion of Slashdotters (self included) live in America where we aren't so fortunate.

Indeed - but many of the remainder live in countries such as Australia and Britain where the respective administrations are equally content to follow suit. While we continue to vote for politicians who are prepared to soil their noses by bottom-feeding amongst the corporate community, this problem just isn't going to go away.

Re:Morons. (2, Insightful)

tdemark (512406) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230213)

Isn't the point of capitalism that you're supposed to fix that yourself instead of bribing a politician to do it for you? The software industry already has a lot of special rights that should have been taken away long ago (beginning with that "it's not a sale, it's a license" crap), they don't need more.

Not that I think more laws would actually solve anything, petition the government to add the following to any second-hand sales legislation:

Employees of any company in an industry whose members restrict second-hand sales cannot trade-in or sell possession which were purchased new. This includes: electronics, computers, cars, and houses.

What's good for the goose, right?

- Tony

Re:Morons. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230399)

What does capitalism have to do with anything? The USA is not a capitalist country.

In fact, there are no capitalist countries. There are only countries that claim to be capitalist, while simultaneously subsidising their own industries out of tax money and imposing tariffs to hurt industries based in other countries.

Who am I supposed to vote for? The Democrats want to tax me and give it to the poor (and government contractors). The Republicans want to tax me and give it to the military-industrial complex (and private contractors). Devil, meet deep blue sea...

Re:Morons. (1)

SetupWeasel (54062) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231962)

You could either vote for the "tax and spend" Liberals, or the "spend" Republicans. Under the circumstances, I'd like to elect the politicians that intend to pay for their programs, rather than throwing our country into the dark chasm of debt.

The US is a mixed economy, inhabiting the grey area between socalism and capitalism. This is not inherently a bad thing. Every country with a position of power (in other words, every country) has the oppertunity for corruption regardless of their economic model. The US is corrupt, most certainly, but to blame an innocent economic model is missing the point.

Re:Morons. (1)

Jacius (701825) | more than 8 years ago | (#14232015)

You could either vote for the "tax and spend" Liberals, or the "spend" Republicans.

Not to imply that any of them are feasible, but there are other alternatives, including political activism, meeting with your representatives, and running for office yourself (or supporting an independent candidate who you agree with).

And of course, there is America's most popular option, which is to simply not vote at all. Viva la apatia?

Re:Morons. (1)

SetupWeasel (54062) | more than 8 years ago | (#14232071)

Sadly, most of the independant canidates are worse than their major party competition, because they are too idealistic (see Ralph Nader).

I'm not as jaded as you think. I think there are good people to elect. Most of those who call themselves Republicans are not these people.

Re:Morons. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14232596)

Or you can move to the 14th district in Texas and vote for the only congressman who actually upholds his oath of office and doesn't support nonsense that other congressmen do.

And yes, socialism, in any form, is inherently bad. Forcibly taking money from one person and giving it to another is certainly not good....

And capitalism doesn't necessarily mean there's a free market.

Re:Morons. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14232806)

USSR was a capitalistic country (the country beeing the sole capitalist), look how that worked out.

My solution to their sagging sales (-1, Offtopic)

game kid (805301) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230057)

Each game publisher should print the stories of their games as medium-sized, paperback compilation readers, and sell them at colleges. That should make those evildoers buy new.

--no wait...

Re:My solution to their sagging sales (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14232522)

Hey now, the Resident Evil books are rather decent. Granted I bought them used from ebay, but that doesn't mean that simply putting the stories into print is an underhanded dealing.

Why do we sell games? (5, Insightful)

dascandy (869781) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230070)

> frustration publishers have with second-hand game sales.

If you'd make a DECENT GAME to start with, I wouldn't want to sell it.

Re:Why do we sell games? (1)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230118)

Exactly. If "publishers" were releasing good games at reasonable prices (more like $20-30 rather than $50-60) then this wouldn't even be an issue.

Hold on! (1)

thepotoo (829391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230296)

Now, I agree with you that I'd like to see more lower priced games, but that's something the industry would never do.

Think of it this way:

If you could sell 100 games at $60 or 150 games at $30, which would you choose?

Right. People would have to buy twice as many games for that system to work. I don't see that happening, so we have the current system.

Re:Hold on! (2, Informative)

Spaceman Spiff II (552149) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230374)

Well Nintendo DS games sell for about that. Soon after Mario Kart came out, I walked into Best Buy and walked out with $35 less and Mario Kart DS. Also, the Revolution's games are supposed to be "affordable" so I wouldn't be surprised if they came in around there.


But for multi-million dollar budget games, though, do have to recoup the costs somehow, so *those* may not come down in price.

Re:Hold on! (1)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235452)

That's an interesting point and all, but I could just as easily say would you rather sell 100 copies at $60 or 300 copies at $30 ;)

Generally in just about any given market you will almost always make more money selling for lower costs. Look at the film industry, they charge an average of $20 per DVD or $10 or less for theatre tickets, but it costs them much much more money to produce their films than it does to create a game.

With all the big industry people saying we need to expand the industry, this is one of the best ways I could see it happening.

Re:Why do we sell games? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230380)

Don't be silly. Certain games can be good and not have any lasting appeal, such as the Resident Evil series. Once you've done all the puzzles and beaten the boss once or twice there's no reason to keep the game, but the amount of entertainment you get justifies the price.

Re:Why do we sell games? (1)

dascandy (869781) | more than 8 years ago | (#14233574)

The only game I've wanted to buy in the past 3 years was Locomotion, and that went out of sale around here because nobody seemed to agree with me. It dropped from 50 euro to 15 within a few weeks, and then it appears to have just vanished when I tried to buy it. Aside from that, my recent game buys include C&C 2, Red Alert (re-buy, I lost one cd of my original copy (which I've bought for 99 guilders when it was first out, that's like 50 euros)) 1, C&C1, Diablo and Diablo 2. Games I want to buy are Locomotion (still...) and Diablo 2 : LoD. Oh, and Fallout 2, but that seems to have not been on sale for quite some time.

Screw off with all those new-fangled games that work like crap compared to old games. They've lost their replay values so I'm not going to buy 50 euros for a single shot of fun.

Re:Why do we sell games? (1)

name773 (696972) | more than 8 years ago | (#14234709)

my brother bought a copy of starcraft (new i think) years ago, and we still have it today. i still play it online :)

Frustrations abound (5, Funny)

msuzio (3104) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230081)

So... they're frustrated that they can't make more money?

Well, damn, we have a lot in common.

Give me a break (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230086)

This is ridiculous. You don't see car manufacturers trying to stop people selling second hand cars.

These people need to get it through their thick heads that once you've sold something to me, it becomes my property. You can't have it both ways. If you offer something for sale, then give it to me in exchange for money, then it's mine. And if it's mine, then it's mine to sell.

And don't give me any bullshit about "selling me a license". Do you say "buy a license NOW!" in adverts? Does the box say "License to play Gran Turismo" on it, or does it say "Gran Turismo"? You are selling the game, not a license.

You really want to make people stop selling second hand games? Fine. There's a legal way of doing that. Make them sign a contract when they buy it. That'll stop people selling second-hand. Why? Because they won't buy it in the first place, you eejits!

Re:Give me a break (1)

ZephyrXero (750822) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230140)

Sadly the automakers are trying to dissuade people from buying used cars too... Haven't you seen all the ads in recent years for licensed/certified resellers?

Re:Give me a break (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230209)

Nothing wrong with using PR for such purposes. If the automakers went to congress to outlaw used car sales, there would be a serious revolt. Unfortunatly game players can't get off their chairs.. :)

Re:Give me a break (1)

SetupWeasel (54062) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231986)

Unfortunatly game players can't get off their chairs.. :)

They wouldn't have to. EB and Ebay will take the matter to court for them.

Re:Give me a break (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230255)

No, its more like blockbuster suggesting you buy your previously played games from them since they offer a warrenty.

The car dealers/manufacturers have large numbers of used cars they try and unload from terminated leases, this is just their way of trying to make a second profit from the sale of a car.

Re:Give me a break (1, Insightful)

Screaming Lunatic (526975) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230208)

This is ridiculous. You don't see car manufacturers trying to stop people selling second hand cars.

It's not about revenue. The point is that when a second sale is made the costs to the publisher go up.

Publishers have to pay for their 1-800 support lines, multiplayer servers, online community, etc. Have you played a Live! enabled game yet? The goal is to provide value to the player long after the sale of a game is made.

You are selling the game, not a license.

No. We are selling an experience, a community.

Car makers only allow transfership of warranty under strict guidelines. Publishers haven't decided what they think their guidelines should be.

I speak for myself, not my employer.

Re:Give me a break (5, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230247)

No. We are selling an experience, a community.

No, you're selling a box with some optical media in it because that's what I get for my money. I don't buy a good evening from Wolters and I don't buy a vacation in France from Opel.

The argument about causing more loss is only true if we assume that all copies resold would have gone into the trash instead because otherwise there'd still be a user attached to them causing you that loss. Assuming there's any actual loss caused by people owning the game, of course.

Re:Give me a break (1)

Clover_Kicker (20761) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230634)

> No. We are selling an experience, a community.

Can I have a hit of whatever you're smoking?

Re:Give me a break (1)

name773 (696972) | more than 8 years ago | (#14234795)

sounds like a derivative or cousin of the apple cool-aid powder.

i think we'll be hearing more of this as businesses go further into providing services.

Re:Give me a break (2, Insightful)

amarodeeps (541829) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230641)

It's not about revenue. The point is that when a second sale is made the costs to the publisher go up.

Publishers have to pay for their 1-800 support lines, multiplayer servers, online community, etc. Have you played a Live! enabled game yet? The goal is to provide value to the player long after the sale of a game is made.

What are you talking about? Please explain to me how one person buying a game off of another one--one cumulative user per copy--is costing the publisher more? Is the first person who no longer has the game to play for some reason still calling the support line and getting into the server?

Or--are you talking about the first person illegally copying the game to use after they have sold the first copy? Well, shouldn't the licensing key or whatever is on every single freaking game today prevent that? If not, aren't you talking about piracy here rather than abuse of a publisher's 'magnanimity?' Your statement is preposterous and based only in greed as far as I can tell. Suck it up and review the business model before you complain about publishers losing money when people do what they have an absolute right to do.

Oh, and by the way--I'd like you to explain to me how providing an online community forum which is used by everyone and their grandma is something other than marketing dollars well spent. You want people who aren't playing to go on there and use it--it creates a potential (probable) base for customers. That's business. It costs money to make money.

No. We are selling an experience, a community.

...which comes in the form of a media with content on it and perhaps a server connection fee. Spare us the corporate-marketing-drone b.s. please!

Right now, for example, Blizzard charges for the media that has the World of Warcraft game on it and then they charge monthly to login to their server. If I stop paying that monthly cost, sell my copy of WoW to someone else, how is Blizzard entitled to any more money that what they'll get when they start getting that monthly fee paid to them again? They are making all the money they possibly could deserve (and then some). Frankly, I'm acting as an extension of their sales department by hooking up another steady revenue stream to their money funnel. The should be writing me a freaking check for assuring them another year of dough after I would be long gone.

Car makers only allow transfership of warranty under strict guidelines. Publishers haven't decided what they think their guidelines should be.

Assuming we're both in the U.S. here: if I buy a car or a book then I can sell it to someone else. That's all there is to it.

I speak for myself, not my employer.

Good for you.

Re:Give me a break (1)

Screaming Lunatic (526975) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231389)

Most support calls come at install time. If there are multiple installs, support costs increase.

Games that do not do stat tracking, matchmaking, and auto-update get lambasted in reviews and rightfully so. Multiple installs means multiple accounts even if the original account is not in use there is a maintenance cost.

Years after a game is sold there is still a team in place for play balance updates and patches whenever a new video card or set of drivers is released. If people are not buying the game first-hand anymore this support will stop.

Lastly, your assuming this debate is about you. It is not. Sure the publisher would rather have a person buy a new copy. But go ahead and lend, give away, or even sell your copy.

This debate is between the retailers and publishers. They are supposed to be partners. Publishers buy retail space and pay for co-marketing. But the retailer is doing their damndest to sell you a used copy. Publishers feel slighted.

Re:Give me a break (2, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#14232546)

This entire argument falls flat on its face if we look at console software which has no installation, post-release support or (in many cases) online accounts.

Besides, users will install a piece of software more than once unless it sucks so bad they'll never dig it out again.

Re:Give me a break (2, Insightful)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 8 years ago | (#14232704)

Games that do not do stat tracking, matchmaking, and auto-update get lambasted in reviews and rightfully so. Multiple installs means multiple accounts even if the original account is not in use there is a maintenance cost.
Considering the (old, inactive) accounts itself, we are talking about a few records in a database. That means some cost but in the age of multi-gigabyte drives it should be small enough to be no trouble to the publisher.
Matchmaking happens at runtime and is no issue at all for inactive accounts.
Auto-Update probably happens once per installation (simplified) and I guess is the most significant cost involved here. But when the initial release comes with reasonable quality, the amount of data transfer needed should still be acceptable.

Years after a game is sold there is still a team in place for play balance updates and patches whenever a new video card or set of drivers is released. If people are not buying the game first-hand anymore this support will stop.
In most games that rely on box sales only, this sort of support stops after a short time anyway. You will get patches for a few months but then you are left with whatever the last patch offers. Companies like Valve (who supported CS for years) are an exception.
For subscription-based games, like most MMORPGS, your argumentation fails completely because a few months of gameplay cost as much as the box. If one of these games is re-sold, the subscription fees from the buyer will pay for the support.

Re:Give me a break (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230858)

Publishers have to pay for their 1-800 support lines, multiplayer servers, online community, etc.

That's a ridiculous thing to say! After the game is sold, the original owner won't be calling the support lines or using the servers. Not unless they've copied before selling, and that's already illegal. So there's no additional cost. If you have one million users, and half of them sell their game, you don't have one and a half million users to support, you still have one million.

No. We are selling an experience, a community.

That's a completely vacuous thing to say. When somebody goes into a shop and hands over money and takes something in return, that thing that is being bought is a game. Not an experience. Not a community. Not a license. A game.

Re:Give me a break (1)

SetupWeasel (54062) | more than 8 years ago | (#14232007)

Publishers have to pay for their 1-800 support lines, multiplayer servers, online community, etc. Have you played a Live! enabled game yet? The goal is to provide value to the player long after the sale of a game is made.

1) I can call an EA support line without owning any EA game.

2) Any hint lines are almost always 900-type numbers.

3) Any promised multiplayer support would have to be promised to the original owner anyway, whether or not they are using it.

4) I can join the BioWare forums (to pick a name at random. I hate their games.) without owning a BioWare game anyway.

They need to provide all this to every copy of the game anyway. If enough people don't buy a certain game, a publisher feels it has the right to terminate any or all of these benefits at will. Exactly why should we suddenly be concerned with their plight after we have been screwed so many times.

Re:Give me a break (1)

SetupWeasel (54062) | more than 8 years ago | (#14232012)

Anyway, I apologize for the overuse of the word, "anyway."

Re:Give me a break (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14234172)

No. We are selling an experience, a community.

From my experience the community builds itself, whether or not you support them.

Car makers only allow transfership of warranty under strict guidelines. Publishers haven't decided what they think their guidelines should be.

Car Warranties are to freely cover issues with the vehicle within a stated time before the customer has to go to a shop and pay to cover those issues.

Most issues with video games are fixed freely via information found in web forums created by the community that built itself, even some patches are released by fans of the games when the manufacturer will not do so.

Typically the game manufacturer will only issue patches while the game is still in original release. If they have stopped mass producing the game then they tend to stop providing patches to the game.

Re:Give me a break (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230310)

Yeah, and if you're selling me a license, then you have an obligation to replace the damn game for the cost of the media when the disc gets scratched or otherwise becomes unplayable. How the heck can they claim to be selling you a license, and then turn around and sell you a replacement for $30 when your first one (that you paid $50 for) gets scratched?

Re:Give me a break (1)

The Swirve (931722) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236934)

Hey, if they're selling you a license and someone steals your game, that would mean that the manufacturer is legally obliged to replace the media. After all, you didn't buy the game, you bought the license. If the license is somehow attached to the media, then they have no argument in the first place, but if, as they argue, the license is some intangible blessing placed upon the person who made the purchase, then you still have the right to play the game even if someone steals your media. I think if they pass any kind of law like that, then we would see an incredible upsurge in game "theft", and they would essentially be distributing games at a 2 for 1 rate.

Re:Give me a break (1)

funkify (749441) | more than 8 years ago | (#14232185)

You don't see car manufacturers trying to stop people selling second hand cars.

Actually, you do. It's called American cars that crap out after ~100K miles.

I'm not surprised. (3, Interesting)

Trelane (16124) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230129)

There have been many games I've passed up in my Windows-using past because they were simply Too Danged Expensive. Look, if I go to a used book store because I can buy a lot more books there than new ($3 instead of $8, for instance, for a paperback) how much more am I gonna buy used games that run $40-50 new?!

Now I'm a Linux user and much more willing to shell out that kind of money if the game is good and has native Linux support, so there's one angle you could persue. ;) [thank you for UT2004, NWN, Doom3, and Quake4, amongst others!]

Unfortunately, I suspect "prevention" has much more to do with screwing the customers over (Even Better CD Checks and Licensing! Whoo! Just what I wanted--new ways for things to break so that I can't play the games I purchased from you [the CD check has to be the #1 reason I cannot play a game]!) than listening to the customers.

quite right; consider customers pockets (1)

samjam (256347) | more than 8 years ago | (#14232286)

I've noticed charity shops (thrift stores) in the UK making similar mistakes and most are now charging quite a high price for their stuff, with books going for up to 2 pounds (4 dollars) instead of 20p (~50 cents).

I've only got so much money in my pocket to spend when I pop into a charity shop, I don't magically get more money because the prices have gone up. Instead I start to compare prices with publishers outlets and things and end up spending less money in the charity shop - I don't know whether or not the strategy works out well for the shop overall.

I'm not "complaining" just pointing out that charity shops hardly get any of my money these days.
(For me charity shops are a purely commercial experience, I don't like to mix charity giving with buying from charity shops)

As for ganes, I'm short on time. Battlefield2 goes for around 25 UKP, I hae a copy a friend gave me (he didn't have the time to play it), and having played it I can see that I would want to buy it, and at that price I would linge at the boundary for a log time, so I am glad it was given to me.

I still only have time to play battlefield2 for a couple of hours a month and thats what makes modern games hard to value, the time it takes to get your moneys worth.

Sam

Idiots (4, Insightful)

samjam (256347) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230131)

Through the sale of their second hand games fans can afford to buy new games.

If you stifle second hand game sales you also stifle new game sales with the same stroke.

Sam

Wait, that's not quite it. (2, Insightful)

neostorm (462848) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230291)

This is not the issue is the gamer selling the game. It's the retail outlets pushing sales on used games instead of new games. This means when a customer comes into the store, the store will push them to buy a used copy of Gran Turismo 4, instead of the new copy (which is nearly always only a fraction of savings for the customer anyhow, but almost 100% profit for the store).

This causes the publisher to lose out on a sale for every used copy of the game sold. The game could be the best one made ever, with every gamer intending to buy a copy in the first place, but it won't sell well enough to keep the publisher afloat if the majority of the sales on it are used.

Granted this requires a lot of gamers to sell their copies in the first place, but I can kind of see where the publisher is coming from in this regard.

Either way, resorting to legal action and the whole "you're buying a license, not a game" crap is quite stupid, so I hope it doesn't come to that. My personal fear is that we're going to resort to locking down games to only play on one system and never run again on a different one (it's been discussed), or games actually degrading in quality over time forcing used copies to display their age after they've been played previously. Then we're just enforcing a superficial limitation on the digital medium, which is a smaller part of the overall digital copyright issue in the first place (falsly limiting otherwise limitless resources under the pretense of actual, lost material wealth).

License, not game... (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230583)

Yeah and when someone steals your entire library, forget about getting help from them in getting it all replaced. In fact, there are a number of titles in my library that got stolen that aren't available new anymore, and some on top of that are rare in the secondhand library... the two Playstation Lunar games, for example

Re:License, not game... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14232081)

Boo hoo... some one stole my car. Ford you need to help me replace my car.

Re:Wait, that's not quite it. (2, Interesting)

Trelane (16124) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230688)

This causes the publisher to lose out on a sale for every used copy of the game sold.
Note please that not every user who bought a game used would have bought the game new at full price had they not had the used option. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it, and this presents itself as illegal copying games as well as buying used games and buying games later on down the road when they're cheaper.

Additionally, for a game to be a used copy, it must necessarily have previously been sold and then re-sold. Assuming that the original purchaser truly resold it (and didn't retain a copy), you've still sold one copy to one person. You've not lost a sale, you've gained a user (over the lifespan of the game; the original purchaser is no longer a user, though was once).

Granted this requires a lot of gamers to sell their copies in the first place, but I can kind of see where the publisher is coming from in this regard.
Oh, I certainly do too. However, just because you have unprcedented power to make your customers' lives miserable in the effort to achieve a little more profit (there are certainly those that buy used who will buy a copy new if that avenue is closed off, but this comes at the expense of many more users).

Software is extremely unlike many other things which have been sold in the past, in that the producers have unprecedented ability to modify their software to their customers' and competitors' benefit--or detriment.

Re:Wait, that's not quite it. (1)

gandy909 (222251) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231575)

Don't the retailers buy the games up front from the publisher?, in which case the game creator has already 'sold' the game regardless of whether it leaves the retailor shelf or not...

    Or is it a "let me put my game in your store and if you sell it you get a piece of the action"?

Re:Idiots (1)

wakim1618 (579135) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230608)

The value to the consumer of the option to resell the game in the future is included in the price. Imagine you could buy cars under 2 arrangements: (i) you can resell the car, or (ii) you cant resell the car. Wouldnt you be less willing to pay the same $$$ for option (ii)? Note to game publishers, research economists dropped the assumption "All else being equal" sometime in the 1980s.

Re:Idiots (1)

samjam (256347) | more than 8 years ago | (#14232298)

Aye; the trouble is haing the game publishers recognize the difference between a second hand sale and the kid buying his own new shiney computer when he leaves home.

Sam

Two Options (1)

Yeldarb-7 (873124) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230133)

As I see it, they have two viable solutions to their "problem" 1.) Make games that are good enough that people will want to hang on to them or 2.) Keep putting out new material so you don't have to rely on the sales of old titles. If you put out half-assed attempts at games, people are going to resell them. If the game isn't worth the $50 they bought it for, they are going to try to recoup their losses by making some of that money back.

I've bought 4 games in the last week (2, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230196)

for under $20 total off ebay (shipped). Onimusha, Auto modellista, Tekken Tag Tournament and Omega Boost. Sure, they're a little long in the tooth, but they're still great games.

The real problem as I see it is the console manufactures (Sony et al) have been dragging their feet too long on this generation. The latest stuff just isn't that much better then the backlog of games. It doesn't help when big name titles like Soul Calibur III aren't any better than their predessesors.

Re:I've bought 4 games in the last week (1)

mofomojo (810520) | more than 8 years ago | (#14232145)

The real problem as I see it is the console manufactures (Sony et al) have been dragging their feet too long on this generation. The latest stuff just isn't that much better then the backlog of games. It doesn't help when big name titles like Soul Calibur III aren't any better than their predessesors.

-----

Do you really expect anything new from the so-called next-gen consoles?, Hrmm..? Hrmm?!?!

Besides the new gameplay format on the revolution, nothing new is headed our way. Gameplay has reached its zero point. You can only make so many FPSes, so many RPGs, so many racing games, so many MMOs and so many whatevers before it gets stale.

Let's face it, gaming is getting stale. Blowing the heads off of prostitutes just isn't as fun as it used to be.

Overpriced shitty product. (2, Insightful)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230219)

Game makers need to understand that they themselves are to blame for the impact of used games on their sales. It's the same situation as with music and film: Overpriced shitty product. Bottom line: They need to lower the prices.

Re:Overpriced shitty product. (2, Insightful)

Unordained (262962) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230287)

Lower prices, yes, or make the new games so much better than the previous ones that gamers will have no choice (so to speak) but buy the latest. Or create a culture in which playing old games is seen as lame. (Sadly for them, the culture's common-sense wisdom is that old, retro games are still more fun to play than new games -- that's gonna make it difficult.) Whether there's a secondary market or not, their sales are driven by our desire to have their new products. Suggestion: make new products more appealing. I can't find good multiplayer console games, for example. We want to play them, but we're bored of racing games, I don't like fighting games, and we don't like sports games. What's left? Lego Star Wars?

They could also try making games so replayable that no gamer would ever want to get rid of a game once purchased -- but that would be unlikely to improve sales of new games. They could also make games so short that people go through them like, uh, candy -- buy game, play game, sell game, all in the space of a week or month. Even with a secondary market, those games would quickly fade out of existance once everyone's played them. But you'd have to lower the prices for this to be of any interest, and ... that's not likely either.

Solution? Increase the cost of primary-market games, get all your profit for the next ten years out of the way, and then stop making games. We'll probably all be better off.

Re:Overpriced shitty product. (1)

CableModemSniper (556285) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230723)

We want to play them, but we're bored of racing games, I don't like fighting games, and we don't like sports games

Mario Party!

Re:Overpriced shitty product. (1)

cornface (900179) | more than 8 years ago | (#14232243)

Mario Party!

He wants to play a game, not cry.

Re:Overpriced shitty product. (1)

despisethesun (880261) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231129)

What's left? Lego Star Wars?

Actually, I heard that's actually a pretty good game. I haven't played it myself, but that's got more to do with the fact that I hardly ever touch my consoles anymore. There've been so many good titles for my DS that that's where I spend my money and time.

Re:Overpriced shitty product. (1)

Meagermanx (768421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231946)

I played that at a demo station in Walmart.
All I could think was "Hey, I'm playing Episode 1: The Phantom Menace but with lego minifigures!"
Then I went home.

Re:Overpriced shitty product. (1)

gameguy1957 (937850) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230510)

Amen brother!

This is the first Christmas since '79-80 that I haven't wanted at least one game or a new console for a gift. Last year I only bought two new games. However, I have started filling in my collection of old games and systems that I couldn't afford or didn't have the time for in the past.

Same goes for music. I swore off buying CDs about eight or nine years ago. That was the first time I bought a CD ($18) that had only one good song on it. The remainder of tracks were worthless crap, and, of course, the store wouldn't take it back. That all changed when iTunes came out. I've bought hundreds of individual songs and several albums from them because they allow me to buy what I want when I want it.

Same goes for the games as the music. Make something I like for a fair price and I'll buy and keep it. Otherwise I'll keep the cash in my pocked or use it for something else.

Drop prices. Grow your market. (2, Insightful)

Yonder Way (603108) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230224)

I am not a hardcore gamer. Two or three times a month I'll fire up the X Box and play for a few hours. I enjoy games like the Call To Duty series, or Ghost Recon 2. Buying these games new at $50-$60 doesn't make sense to me. I'm more than happy to pay $15-$20 at the mall for a used game. The few times I have paid the $50-$60 cost of a new game, I've deeply regretted it and won't let it happen again.

If new games were in the $20-$25 range, I'd have a lot more games (and probably play more often).

Now the real question is, are there enough guys like me out there to justify charging half as much for the game to make the profit on volume?

And how much less will resellers have to charge for a used game at that point? Is it even worth it for them to sell used games at $10?

Re:Drop prices. Grow your market. (2, Insightful)

TheoB (859132) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230464)

Now the real question is, are there enough guys like me out there to justify charging half as much for the game to make the profit on volume?

Yes. And they do: when console games hit a certain rate of penetration, the Big Three turn them over to "Platinum" status, slash the System Licensing cost to a few bucks, and let the publisher re-release the game at that magic price-point of 20-25 bucks.

Is it worth it for them to do this with new games? Hell no. Market research demonstrates that casual gamers such as yourself almost never know when a new game is coming out anyway, don't read the magazines where those dates are advertised, and don't frequent the websites that hype them (although, since you're reading Slashdot Games, you might be less "casual" than you'd like to believe). So releasing a new title at a lower price point doesn't gain the publisher anything: they can release it at full price, wait while your hardcore friends play it and tell you how great it is, and by the time you decide to see what the fuss is about, the price is already in the sweet spot.

And if your gaming friends aren't playing it and telling you how great it is? Then you probably wouldn't buy it even if it was $20 on launch day.

This second-stage of a console game's life is extremely profitable for the publisher: sales volume typically goes way up. But it doesn't work with new games. I was at Atari when they considered releasing a title at a $25 price point for launch: the problem is that hardcore gamers see this as a sign that the game isn't good (not because we released it cheap, but because they hadn't heard much about it and, seeing it at that price point, presume it's been on shelves for months and wasn't selling), and casual gamers don't hear about it from hardcore gamers, so they don't give it a second glance. It's not impossible, mind. [ign.com] But it doesn't usually pay off.

Re:Drop prices. Grow your market. (1)

TheScottishGuy (701141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231297)

one point i haven't seen noted is that if new games cost $25-30 bucks, then trade in value on them would be minimal, and used cost would probably not be a whole lot lower than new, if the difference between a used and new copy of the game is $5 wouldn't you just grab the new one? also, if games were at a lower price-> trade in value is lower -> it might be more worthwhile for gamers to hold on to that game for the few times they'll fire it up to play than to take a $3 trade value for it.

Re:Drop prices. Grow your market. (1)

Jonny_eh (765306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14233075)

I hope this isn't too redundant:
In other words, would dcutting the price a product in half cause the said product to sell more than twice as much?

It sounds similar to this problem:
One time an accountant was complaining that he had too many customers and couldn't do all their work in time. It was then suggested that he double his rates, so he did and lost half his clients, yet somehow not any money.

The moral is that pricing is dependant on the supply and demand. The accountant's supply is his time, and the game's supply is the number of discs and packaging that can be made at a given price.

If they sold games at a lower price, and sold more volume, the cost to manufacture each disc would go down. So they may not even need to double sales to maintain the same revenue.

I keep wondering why games that take 4 hours to finish cost just as much as epic games that people still play today. Looks a lot like price fixing. (Thank you 2K sports for selling cheap sports games on the xbox, and practically the same games on the 360 for double!)

I've said it before... software is not a product. (1)

neo (4625) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230253)

It's a service. As long as game producers continue to think of games as products they will continue to be befuddled by a market that wont pay the rates that they feel they must charge to keep up. Get people involved and paying for your game developement early, and continue having them pay while they play it. It wont take a large amount of money and updates wont feel like wasted time. Bug fixes will be expected and there never will be a "gold" version... you'll just keep making it better.

Re:I've said it before... software is not a produc (1)

Spaceman Spiff II (552149) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230413)

Uh... I wouldn't pay for something like that. But then that's why I play console games, I guess. I can buy a nice title, bring it home, and get a good many hours of enjoyment out of it, no updating/upgrading/bug-fixing necessary.

Re:I've said it before... software is not a produc (1)

neo (4625) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230750)

Uh... I wouldn't pay for something like that. But then that's why I play console games, I guess. I can buy a nice title, bring it home, and get a good many hours of enjoyment out of it, no updating/upgrading/bug-fixing necessary.

And if it's broken.... then what do you do?

Re:I've said it before... software is not a produc (1)

Sage of Lightning (696643) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231030)

Then you either unload it and take the loss(good luck, or you could have done your research/rented first so you would have know before hand. Console game maker have learnt over the years broken games don't sell as well.

Re:I've said it before... software is not a produc (1)

neo (4625) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231061)

Then you either unload it and take the loss(good luck, or you could have done your research/rented first so you would have know before hand. Console game maker have learnt over the years broken games don't sell as well.

And computer game makers have learned that if they continue to evolve a game after launch, it's audience grows. Allow the audience to affect the game, and it fan base grows even faster.

Patronage. Pay for the right to have the game you really want.

Re:I've said it before... software is not a produc (1)

Pofy (471469) | more than 8 years ago | (#14232360)

>And if it's broken.... then what do you do?

Return it to the store for a refund? Like with everything else I buy that is broken. Of course, the store can decide to fix it for me instead, either way works for me.

Second hand everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230262)

If coporations have their way pretty soon it will be illegal to buy anything second-hand. Heck I'm surprised eBay is even still legal.

The obvious answer (4, Insightful)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230278)

Is to make games people want to keep. Nintendo's publicly discussed this for a while now, so I can't help but wonder why these other companies haven't picked up on it. Are they worried that they don't know how to do that?

Or maybe EA's just wants their practice of dumping yearly sports franchise revisions to be supported by retailers, despite the obvious used game trend it creates.

Re:The obvious answer (1)

Zangief (461457) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231162)

Does anybody ever buy Madden (year-1)?

I mean, why should you? If you are into that kind opf shit, you want the latest one, or you are happy with the one you have.

Games no longer published (4, Interesting)

kmahan (80459) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230385)

Game manufacturers stop selling older titles. If I want to purchase one how am I supposed to do that without buying a used title from someone else?

If they want these new laws maybe there should be some more laws created that force them to keep every title they've ever produced available for purchase.

If they claim to be "licensing" the games instead of "selling" them won't there be consequences? The tax laws are different since the company still "owns" the product. Also there should be more warranty -- if the media (cd/dvd/whatever) gets scratched the company should have to replace it (since I've purchased the right to use the product).

Re:Games no longer published (1)

BladeRider (24966) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230554)

Interesting point on taxes. If you are "licensing" something, then there should be no sales tax. I can't see any municipality giving up that tax revenue.

'Making brand new product look worthless'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230719)

Like anything else, it's worth exactly as much as someone is prepared to pay for it.

This isn't entirely without precedent, by the way (see Chris Kohler's Power-Up for a commentary; I'd summarise it if I had my copy to hand, which, alas, I don't), although I'm not aware of any U.K. precedent.

If they weren't so overpriced.... (2, Insightful)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230783)

I cannot imagine spending $50 on one video game. I just can't. $20-25 seems reasonable to me, over $30 is just not worth it. If I can't buy secondhand games, I'd probably just not buy games at all and rent everything except *maybe* my favorite couple of games. (Of course, I also can't imagine spending $10 on one freaking viewing of a movie, so maybe I'm not the norm.)

And even for people who are willing to spend $50 on a game, not everyone is able to spend that much at once all the time. If someone was going to buy a $25 used game, they now have to wait until they've got another $25... And in that time, they might decide they are just better off borrowing it from a friend or renting it.

Of course, I have no idea how I'd get SNES games, seeing as how no one rents them anymore, and you can't even get them used except on eBay.

Re:If they weren't so overpriced.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14232608)

> I cannot imagine spending $50 on one video game.

MMORPG. The price of the box + 1 years subscription is generally about the price of 1-2 full price games and then less the following year.

They get more value for money and keep updating. Very few box games interest me anymore once I play with a large scale (1000+) human element in the game.

Here's a wacky idea (3, Interesting)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230865)

1) Make a better game that someone is proud to keep in their library, either to loan to a friend for a weekend or to replay at a later time, perhaps on a more difficult setting.

2) Offer trade-ins: EB, Gamestop, Rhino, et al employ a large number of people and they make a good deal of money off second-hand games. Also, other establishments make an extra $10 or so taking games as trade for other merchandise and then reselling them later.
Institute some sort of voucher system. Let's use Nintendo as a hypothetical. Say for example a customer purchased Pikmin 2, beat the game fairly quickly, and had no desire to keep it in his collection any longer. If Nintendo had a system where the purchaser could send the game back to Nintendo for coupon for any future Nintendo media purchase. Nintendo could then evaluate the state of the game, repackage it (if the package has been stained, or damaged) and then resolicit it at a discounter price to a specialty electronics vendor with a seal saying it has passed inspection.
The game looks new, plays as well as a new one (not having scratches, smudges, etc.) and is certified by the company.

Re:Here's a wacky idea (1)

TheScottishGuy (701141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231319)

i like your first point, although i'd rather see huge 20 hour games sold in four episodes of 5 hours each, maybe for $15 a piece Imagine a truly Episodic version of something along the lines of Halo3, episode 1 has the first 3 levels, each one taking 10-30 minutes depending on exploration, difficulty etc etc... plus you throw in multiplayer functionality with a basic map selection, episode two, has the second batch of campaign, picking up the obvious cliffhanger from episode 1, release them maybe 6-8 weeks apart and you're building a following that will grab each one as it releases, each episode could have more multiplayer maps and/or gametypes (along the lines of the multiplayer map pack for halo2) and of course, once you finish out releasing all the episodes you then release a collectors edition that has everything in it, the same way DVD releases run, cover all the angles and make those episodes affordable to the wider range of gamers, dev. costs would be lower for subsequent episodes, and you could probably get away with 5-6 maybe more episodes for a good title

How about games people don't want to sell (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231140)

you'll have to pry my copy of Valkyrie Profile out of my Cold, Dead Hands. But the next Tekken? I'll pick it up for $5 bucks off ebay.

Perhaps it's just a matter of economics? (1)

fwitness (195565) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231165)

For this Joe Consumer, it's just money. I just don't see the value of a 50-60 dollar game. Don't get me wrong, I've done it, and games are my number one past time. However, I'd rather buy five year-old games at $15 a pop then one game (that may or may or may not be good) at $49.99.

Give me a 15 hour game at twenty bucks and I'm good. If you gain a good rep with me, I'll buy your 40 hour 49.99 game (Looking at you, my delicious PSP GTA:LCS).

Why not? (0)

Phantasmo (586700) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231250)

A company's response to this issue could make or break a console. We already know Sony's stance [slashdot.org] .
Some solutions?
  • Charge a monthly fee. Everyone's doing it.
  • Trade-ins. Mail your discs back to the publisher and get $10 off the next installment. If the disc works, sell it as a Greatest Hit. If it doesn't, toss it in the dump.
  • Sony-style DRM. This will lead to wide-spread modding (like this isn't already the case with Xbox and PS2), or instant console death.
  • Make games that people want to keep, and don't sweat it when stuff gets traded around. Try and pick up Gameboy Tetris, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Ocarina of Time, Mario 64 or even Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door or Wario Ware: Mega Party Game$. Okay, eBay, sure, but they are pretty dang hard to find.
I buy way more console games than PC games because it's just so easy to trade games around temporarily. Just find a group of friends with the same consoles, then coordinate your purchases. "Alright, you get Super Mario Strikers and I'll get Double Dash... Then you can lend me Resident Evil 4 for next month and you can borrow Viewtiful Joe." Games are being purchased, developers are making money... what's the problem?

Re:Why not? (1)

LordZardoz (155141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231272)

Hmm...

So under the scenario you describe, you get Resident Evil 4 and Double Dash, and your friend gets Mario Strikers and Viewtiful Joe?

Your friend is getting gyped!

END COMMUNICATION

The publishers will not get what they want in this (1)

LordZardoz (155141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231293)

I see no way that the publishers can get around this.

At the exteme end of it, they wont stop garage sales, or me selling a used game to a friend.

Also, Electronics Boutique (or whatever they are called since the merger with Gamestop) makes money off of this. And EB is a key retailer for games.

The only long term viable way for the publishers to stop this is to stop selling physical media versions of their games, and require that the console be connected to centrally located servers and stream the games. While I think that on demand gaming may come about, I dont expect many gamers to go for this arrangement, unless the service is lightning fast and error free. Some people enjoy replaying games, and wont want to repurchase a game they bought in full a few years ago just to replay it.

END COMMUNICATION

Let's review some basic microeconomics. (2, Insightful)

Pendersempai (625351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231780)

With the typical assumptions, part of the value of a game is the ability to resell it. A rational consumer may only be willing to buy a $60 game knowing that he can sell it back for the equivalent of $20. Otherwise his initial price point might only be $40.

Similarly the publisher might only be willing to sell a game for $40 if it knows that the game will not be resold in a way that will stifle an average of $20 of original sales. Otherwise it might only be willing to sell the game for $60.

So it's not entirely clear to me what advantage publishers think they will get from banning resales. If they think customers are willing to pay the same amount for less benefit -- that is, a game with no resale value -- why don't they just increase the price of the game instead of lobbying for legislation?

Sounds to me like this guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

Mark Reins, hypocrite. (1)

DoctaWatson (38667) | more than 8 years ago | (#14231901)

Does anyone else think it's a little ironic for someone who built a game company on the shareware model to years later be the one of the most outspoken partisans against game consumer rights?

Valve has already taken care of this... (1)

fujiman (912957) | more than 8 years ago | (#14232005)

By locking my copy of HL2 to me and only me (my steam account), I now have to pay TEN DOLLARS for the privelege of reselling the game to someone else (the cost of re-registering the game to another account, assuming of course some buyer on Ebay would want to /know how to do this). Of course, I didn't know this when I shelled out 55 bucks for the game.


I won't ever buy a Steam game again. UNLESS I'm absolutely sure I'd never want to sell it, or it's so cheap I wouldn't bother reselling it.


Needless to say, I only know this because I wanted to sell HL2. Fool me once, Valve...

Re:Valve has already taken care of this... (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 8 years ago | (#14232748)

Heh. Fortunately I've known about this before buying HL2.
My reaction is what Pendersempai suggested two posts above yours:
I will simply pay less in the first place, so I have a sort of "compensation in advance" for the hassle. Considering HL2 in particular, my idea of an acceptable price is 20 Euros. Right now, discount offers seem to start at 25 Euros. Well, Valve, maybe in 2006 ;-)

Re:Valve has already taken care of this... (1)

Walkiry (698192) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237337)

>or it's so cheap I wouldn't bother reselling it.

Indeed. In my case, it was a voucher with my Radeon 9800 Pro (which I bought after my ti4400 died a horrible death). Otherwise, the chances of me buying such game would be infinitesimal.

Thanks the germanz... (1)

dupont54 (857462) | more than 8 years ago | (#14237351)

... because thanks to a german consumer association [golem.de] , if you have bought a retail box of HL2, you no more [steampowered.com] have to pay Valve the infamous "$10 resell tax". Strangely, this move from Valve has made little publicity.

But if you only have a Steam version of HL2, well you are out of luck. You need to realise you haven't bought any game, but merely pay some subscription fees to access an overhyped content on some buggy and restrictive online service. So technically, you have pretty much nothing to resell. Did you say the advertisement was unclear?

Boycott EB & Gamestop (1)

abrotman (323016) | more than 8 years ago | (#14232760)

I've been personally boycotting EB/Gamestop. While I do think it is unfair to the publishers that they sell used games, that's not the reason. My reason is that it is nearly impossible to find a new copy of the game you're looking for. I shouldn't need a store employee, a map, and a member of the K-9 unit to find a new copy of a game released three weeks ago.

Games are different than most Items. (1)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 8 years ago | (#14232820)

Games aren't like most consumer goods that are sold.
If you have a car, you use it for as long as you need it. You will want to have access to it permanently. The same is true with furnature.

I can't imagine someone saying "hey, this chair, do you wan't to buy it off me? I've been sitting exclusively on this one chair for weeks, and am a bit bored of it. But think I can safely say I got my money's worth"

But with games, it's commonplace. They offer fun for a limited amount of time, and many people are ready to spend 60 bucks on the experience.
But when they've done with it, they have no reason keeping it, and sell it on to someone who might have spent 60 bucks on it too, but would rather get it for half that.

Games just have a different value than most things we know. Most use-once-and-fun-is-over items we know can't be resold, such as food.

And it just isn't possible to make all games must-keep-will-always-keep-playing.

For publishers, it isn't a big difference if the games are sold used or pirated.

I believe it's one of the big reasons CERO is saying that the games market in Japan is shrinking. It's a bigger problem than people think.

Re:Games are different than most Items. (1)

kn0tw0rk (773805) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236294)

No they are not. They are like books or dvd's. Mostly used once and then sold, but if enjoyed on the first 'usage' then re-used and lent to friends. And this leads to the 'shared' experience that gets people talking about them.

Also the argument of selling an experience or service is a strange way of looking at games in my opinion. As I own the hardware that the game is run on, I pay for the electricity used to run said hardware, and I have to pay for the game. Thus I want to play as many times as I like, and then dispose of the game as I see fit, either to give or sell to who I want.

A game is like a piece of art, a finished product, that once you sell it too me, I can choose to hang it were I want or give to a friend to hang on their wall.

A service is something that 'someone' does for me, like mow the lawns, or provide electricity, on an ongoing basis.

And I concur with the parent poster, to me it sounds like there are too many sellers and not enough buyers, so the market will adapt to balance itself, thus inevitably there will be winners and losers.

Japan had this for a while (4, Informative)

Myria (562655) | more than 8 years ago | (#14235745)

Up until a few years ago, it was illegal to sell used games in Japan. If you have an imported game from this period it's likely it will have a NO RESALE icon on the back. A Japanese court decided it was illegal to do this, but it took an act of Parliament to actually reverse it (their legal system does not have precedent).

The system failed in Japan because it was against consumer rights.

Melissa

Let's be clear (1)

patternjuggler (738978) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236339)

What these people are talking about is fucking with the Free Market and Property Rights. They might as well be communists and treated accordingly.

I usually go into EB looking for something cheap in the bargain bin, but while I'm there I'll scan the racks of new games and occasionally purchase one, thinking I'd rather be playing one good new game I know I'll like rather than getting 2-3 old games that might be not very fun and waiting months and months for that new game to get cheaper.

I'm thinking about buying a PS3 and playing a lot of used PS2 games I've missed out on, or screw the PS3 and just get PS2 maybe there'll be another price reduction after the PS3 comes out.

If there were no used games market I probably wouldn't be playing or buying any games at all.

Dear Morons, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14236664)

If you are depressed by the fact that your product has a second-hand value, move into the drinks industry.

Publishers are assuming something. (1)

BruceTheBruce (671080) | more than 8 years ago | (#14236709)

We don't buy Game X based on whether or not it's used, we buy it because we want to play Game X! If it's not in the New Releases section anymore, not produced, not shipping, and not sold new, how the heck else are we to acquire it?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?