seanflyon User Info

July 22, 2009 2:48:16 PM

@DavidThomas:

Publishers like money. If a publisher can make x dollars on a game they will try to buy it for as low a price as possible up to x dollars. If publishers can buy games for significantly less than x, then new publisher will enter the market because they too like money. This IS covered in econ 101.

You keep saying that used games help the market as a whole, but you have admitted that they hurt the new games market in the process.

"That means more money [for used games and less for new games], more games [except there will be fewer games because new game sales drive game production], more players, more distribution options [because this is where the majority of money from used sales goes], more innovation [except that new game sales drive innovation] and, perhaps sadly, more opportunity for games to fail."


"What do you want? Sony, Nintedo and Microsoft controlling the market and making sure every developer gets a regular paycheck? Or do you want the creative and financial wild west we have today." WTF are you talking about? No one is talking about cutting out the free market. I want publishers to sell non-transferable licenses which would result in more money spent on new games which would result in more money to developers which would result in more games and more innovation.

July 21, 2009 3:50:25 PM

@Nikoli_Volkoff:

I think you are confused. GM made poorly designed and uncompetitive products for decades, went bankrupt and was given large sums of money to stay in business. Game studios like Clover made great products (Okami, Viewtiful Joe 2...) and still went out of business.

Game developers don't live in a magical world paved with gold.

July 20, 2009 11:25:21 PM

@shponglefan:

"1) Residual value provided by the used market gives incentive for people to buy new (since they can resell it later). " OK I have not addressed this in a previous post. I don't think that many people take this into consideration when purchasing a game. I have no data to back this up, but I would guess that a given game would sell more at $55 for a non-transferable license than $60 for a transferable license.

"2) Cash flows from the used market to the new market from people who can't afford or don't want to buy new games. " Half of the cash flows from the used game market to gamers (the other half goes to GS). Of that half some portion of it is spent on games. Of that portion, some smaller portion is spent on new games. We would be lucky if a third of the money spent on used games finds its way to the new games market.

Lets say that people are willing to pay $10 more for a transferable license (which I think is a gross overestimation) and 1/3 of money spent on used games finds its way to new games (which mean that aprox 2/3 of money gamers receive for used games goes to new games). That would result in less than $30 to the new games market for each $55 used sale.

"The only way things could be bad for developers is if cannibalized sales of new games exceed revenue from the above points." The most certain thing in this entire debate is that used sales cannibalize new sales. When someone spends $55 for a used copy of Tears of War, they are demonstrating a willingness to pay at least $55 for the new version (unless they for so ludicrous reason actually prefer a used copy). It is highly likely that they would be willing to pay a few dollars more if there were no alternative. Even if they are not willing to pay a few dollars more it is still highly likely they would be willing to pay $50 for the game when it inevitably drops in price.

July 20, 2009 4:19:21 PM

@DavidThomas:

Most games lose money. Most developers can only stay in business if they make enough profit on the occasional hit game to cover their losses on other ones.

"So, any claims that the used market is hurting developers really should be used games are hurting the publishers" Because no one would ever think that games selling fewer copies would lower the amount a publisher would pay for them. Anything that makes my product worth less makes me get less money. I thought you took econ 101.

To re-iterate: Gamers who buy a transferable license have every right to transfer it. It is often in their best interest to do so. It is against developers self interest for gamers to transfer said license. Developers don't tent to like things that are against their self interest.

July 17, 2009 8:46:19 PM

@shponglefan:

I changed it to $55 because thats how much GS charges for used games (when the new version is priced at $60).

Used games are a perfect substitute for new games. People buy them instead of new games. The vast majority of those people who only have $45 and are willing to pay $45 for it would buy it when it comes down to $45 if no used copy were available. You are trying to argue that each lost sale is made up for by an addition sale with the money gamers get from selling their games. This works about as well as perpetual motion. Most of the money from the used game sale goes to GS, not a gamer. Even if 100% of money gamers get from selling their games at GameStop went to new games it would still be bad for developers because GS it taking most of the money.

I'm not saying that you can't sell used games. You have every right to transfer a transferable license. I'm saying that developers would be better off if you didn't.

Short term effects of used game sales:
Gamers win a little
GameStop wins a lot
Developers lose a lot

The industry would be better off if we dealt in non-transferable licenses such as those sold on Steam.