shponglefan User Info

July 20, 2009 10:21:04 PM

@seanflyon:

When you say, "It is against developers self interest for gamers to transfer said license", you are still ignoring two points:

1) Residual value provided by the used market gives incentive for people to buy new (since they can resell it later).

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.

The only way things could be bad for developers is if cannibalized sales of new games exceed revenue from the above points.

July 17, 2009 9:25:56 PM

@seanflyon:

I'm not familiar with Gamestop so I don't know their pricing policies. I tend to buy used games from EB and at least for myself, typically don't spend more than $30 a game.

At any rate, you're making a problematic assumption of your own in that every gamer buying used over new has the same amount of disposable income and same willingness to buy new if no other option was available. But this isn't reality. In general, more people will buy at $55 than $60.

Do used game sales canibilize new sales? Probably. But on the other hand, there is uptake of money from the used market into the primary market. At EB, for example, typically they give greater trade-in value than straight up cash value for games. So they are actually encouraging games purchases in the process.

Something else to consider to is that gamers willing to buy new and sell used probably also factor that into their willingness to buy new. If I know a game has residual value, I may be willing to pay $60 for a new game if I can sell it for $30. OTOH, if I know I can't sell a game, suddenly $60 doesn't seem like such a good deal.

The nay-sayers like yourself seem too fixated on the fact that there is a middleman making money in this. You need to step back and look at the big picture. Ultimately, it comes down to how much cash is flowing from end consumers to the developers, regardless of whether it flows through middlemen or not.

July 17, 2009 7:32:46 PM

I don't understand why developers would oppose the used games market, since ultimately the secondary market will fuel the primary market.

Gamer A is rich and impatient with $120 in their pocket. They have no problem buying the latest games at brand-new prices, so they head down to a local game shop and buy a couple new games at $60 a pop.

Meanwhile, you have more frugal gamers (B & C) who don't have as much disposable income as Gamer A. They have $45 each to spend.

Gamer A spends a couple weeks playing his new games before getting bored and heads back to the store to trade them in. They receive $30 for each game, for a net of $60 back in their pocket. With that $60, they can now buy another brand new game.

The game shop being a business takes the two games they bought for $30 each and marks them up to $45 each. Gamers B & C now see these used games at $45 a pop, and each buy one.

The net result of this scenario is that three new games were sold. Money from the secondary market flowed into the primary market and ultimately into the coffers of the developers. The game shop also made a decent profit on the used game sales, and gamers B & C got to play the games they wanted and prices they were willing to pay.

The bottom line is everyone wins. Why would anyone be against this?