XBox 720 to play Blu-Rays, block used games, according to source

Here's a question: how would this "used games block" work? Let's keep in mind that there is no physical difference between a new game and a used game, the console has no way to tell which one is which.

1. One way would be to make the console "imprint" a unique code on the game disc when you first play it, so that it can't be played on any other system, but this is impossibe unless they make some weird (and expensive) BD-RW rewritable disc.

2. Another way would be to ship EVERY game with a single-use code that needs to be activated online. This would be very stupid though, since a lot of people don't have internet connection or don't connect their console to the internet. Most of my friends, actually. You can't go telling these people they have to connect to the internet and redeem a code for every game they buy, too much hassle.

Either way, it would be a monumentally stupid move to make. Imagine a console that:

a) Forbids you from borrowing a game from a friend and viceversa

b) Makes your games forever unusable if your console breaks or your account is hacked or disabled

c) Does not allow you to play your new game if internet is down or MS servers are unavailable

If Microsoft were to go through with this they'd be chopping their manhood off and handing it to Sony which would dominate the market. This why I call BS on this whole thing.

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

[QUOTE="Ghost_Face"]How would they block used games from playing for those that don't have Live or their consoles networked in some manner? The only thing I can think that makes this rumor feasible is that kind of connectivity.Samslayer

Some sort of activation code? They could probably cook up something that makes it mandatory to enter one upon first time playing, make it happen purely on the local side of things without need for online activation.

Yep, pretty sure it would be pretty easy with that idea.

Again though, I hope it doesn't happen. It looks like things are going that way though.

You two's brilliant logic just can't be argued with. I never realized that payingthe $5 difference between new and used games made me rich. Of course, I don't always buy new at launch price, but still, the act of not buying used (and thus putting money into the pockets of game developers and not just Gamestop) makes me one of the 1%. Keep posting! This forum is richer for your insights.

CarnageHeart

And anyway according to that poll I posted a co-worker gave me another side I didn't even think of which is even worse---some are likely pirates and don't give 2 sh*ts.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]You two's brilliant logic just can't be argued with. I never realized that payingthe $5 difference between new and used games made me rich. Of course, I don't always buy new at launch price, but still, the act of not buying used (and thus putting money into the pockets of game developers and not just Gamestop) makes me one of the 1%. Keep posting! This forum is richer for your insights.

Dracula68

And anyway according to that poll I posted a co-worker gave me another side I didn't even think of which is even worse---some are likely pirates and don't give 2 sh*ts.

I don't buy used, but Gamestop is far and away the biggest seller and buyer of used games, so when we talk about pricing theirs are the prices that should be discussed.CarnageHeart

They may be the biggest for people afraid to find a deal on the net but Ebay, Amazon and expecially GameFly are the go-to sites for me. I thought everybody on this forum knew GS is a major ripoff for used games. I used to tell people not to go there years ago and stopped myself back in 2001 or so.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]I don't buy used, but Gamestop is far and away the biggest seller and buyer of used games, so when we talk about pricing theirs are the prices that should be discussed.Dracula68

They may be the biggest for people afraid to find a deal on the net but Ebay, Amazon and expecially GameFly are the go-to sites for me. I thought everybody on this forum knew GS is a major ripoff for used games. I used to tell people not to go there years ago and stopped myself back in 2001 or so.

Of course it is. My point is that they are the largest buyer and seller of used games, so even if prudent people avoid buying used games from them, they are who most of the discussion of used games are about. Having a website which allows consumers to trade whatever among themselves is one thing, the fact the biggest retailer in the business actively discourages people from buying new is another.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]I don't buy used, but Gamestop is far and away the biggest seller and buyer of used games, so when we talk about pricing theirs are the prices that should be discussed.Dracula68

They may be the biggest for people afraid to find a deal on the net but Ebay, Amazon and expecially GameFly are the go-to sites for me. I thought everybody on this forum knew GS is a major ripoff for used games. I used to tell people not to go there years ago and stopped myself back in 2001 or so.

Just because you dont use it, doesnt mean it's not THE biggest used games sales portal out there. According to Gamestop's own yearly revenue figures, 28% of their revenue came from used game sales.

So in effect, they cost the publishers 28% in sales last year. That's a sizeable chunk.

P.S You can argue that people who trade in their games might use that credit to buy new games, but that still comes at the cost of publisher losing a sale. I am all for used game sales, but I think it needs to be regulated. Some of that money ought to go to publishers.

[QUOTE="Dracula68"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]I don't buy used, but Gamestop is far and away the biggest seller and buyer of used games, so when we talk about pricing theirs are the prices that should be discussed.S0lidSnake

They may be the biggest for people afraid to find a deal on the net but Ebay, Amazon and expecially GameFly are the go-to sites for me. I thought everybody on this forum knew GS is a major ripoff for used games. I used to tell people not to go there years ago and stopped myself back in 2001 or so.

Just because you dont use it, doesnt mean it's not THE biggest used games sales portal out there. According to Gamestop's own yearly revenue figures, 28% of their revenue came from used game sales.

So in effect, they cost the publishers 28% in sales last year. That's a sizeable chunk.

P.S You can argue that people who trade in their games might use that credit to buy new games, but that still comes at the cost of publisher losing a sale. I am all for used game sales, but I think it needs to be regulated. Some of that money ought to go to publishers.

I don't favor the government stepping in, but if Gamestop persists in cutting publishers out of the used game revenue stream (and they are perfectly within their rights to do so) than developers are perfectly within their rights to implement measures which discouraged used games or even make them impossible.

I think not allowing any used games (effectively tying a game to a system, as PCs do) to be played on a systemwould be going way too far. I kind of doubt it will happen just because game companies have been reluctant to discount the online versions of games which also have physical copies for fear of offending Gamestop. This would go way beyond that. The vast majority of console game sales are still at retail, so alienating the biggest retailer would be dangerous. On the other hand, refusing to carry what might well be the most popular system would hurt Gamestop more than it hurt MS.

Of course it is. My point is that they are the largest buyer and seller of used games, so even if prudent people avoid buying used games from them, they are who most of the discussion of used games are about. Having a website which allows consumers to trade whatever among themselves is one thing, the fact the biggest retailer in the business actively discourages people from buying new is another.

CarnageHeart

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="Dracula68"] [QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="Dracula68"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]I don't buy used, but Gamestop is far and away the biggest seller and buyer of used games, so when we talk about pricing theirs are the prices that should be discussed.CarnageHeart

They may be the biggest for people afraid to find a deal on the net but Ebay, Amazon and expecially GameFly are the go-to sites for me. I thought everybody on this forum knew GS is a major ripoff for used games. I used to tell people not to go there years ago and stopped myself back in 2001 or so.

Just because you dont use it, doesnt mean it's not THE biggest used games sales portal out there. According to Gamestop's own yearly revenue figures, 28% of their revenue came from used game sales.

So in effect, they cost the publishers 28% in sales last year. That's a sizeable chunk.

P.S You can argue that people who trade in their games might use that credit to buy new games, but that still comes at the cost of publisher losing a sale. I am all for used game sales, but I think it needs to be regulated. Some of that money ought to go to publishers.

If you lose or break the disk are you going to get in trouble or shunned/shamed because you created a 'lost sale' for the devs? People have been buying/selling/trading used games for what, 30 years? Why raise a big stink over it know. $$$$$$$ that's why. They want to add an extra 0 on their check. I think it's greedy being that they come out with DLC which is mainly downloadable (until the GOTY or physical copy, IE Undead Nightmare, hits stores) isn't enough extra to help fill their money hungry wallets.

I'm apart of a team that builds fire suppression tanks. I doubt there's too much in the way of used sales in that products market, but even so, I get paid X amount per hour. I don't get a cut of every tank sold. Everyone on our line is losing 100% in potential commission/sales. I don't like to use this saying because it's a phrase I that think is used too often by authority figures, but the devs should just deal with it. It's how things work.

[QUOTE="Dracula68"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]I don't buy used, but Gamestop is far and away the biggest seller and buyer of used games, so when we talk about pricing theirs are the prices that should be discussed.S0lidSnake

They may be the biggest for people afraid to find a deal on the net but Ebay, Amazon and expecially GameFly are the go-to sites for me. I thought everybody on this forum knew GS is a major ripoff for used games. I used to tell people not to go there years ago and stopped myself back in 2001 or so.

Just because you dont use it, doesnt mean it's not THE biggest used games sales portal out there. According to Gamestop's own yearly revenue figures, 28% of their revenue came from used game sales.

So in effect, they cost the publishers 28% in sales last year. That's a sizeable chunk.

P.S You can argue that people who trade in their games might use that credit to buy new games, but that still comes at the cost of publisher losing a sale. I am all for used game sales, but I think it needs to be regulated. Some of that money ought to go to publishers.

Actually, GameStop's profit margins for used game products is higher than that at closer to 50% as seen in this chart.

I can understand MS wanting to prevent used games from being played on their consoles. They are losing money on the hardware, especially early on in the life cycle of the hardware and next generation will have a bigger loss than the two previous versions. Having more new game sales made means that they make their losses up earlier.

As far as developers, they can stop used game sales if they want. As been discussed, one time codes or online activation are just two of the ways. As someone who has spent time talking with developers (actually the CEOs of a couple of studios), I understand the time and effort put into creating a game. They deserved to be paid for their time and effort by everyone who wants to play their game. Those who buy used games are not paying the developer for that right, instead they are paying an entirely different entity who is in it just for profit (and as seen above, they rake in the profit from it).

As far as the first sale doctrine goes, that does not give GameStop the right to sell said game a second time, it gives the original purchaser the right to sell it to another party. Since video games are typically licensed for use, first sale doctrine does not necessarily apply.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="Dracula68"]

They may be the biggest for people afraid to find a deal on the net but Ebay, Amazon and expecially GameFly are the go-to sites for me. I thought everybody on this forum knew GS is a major ripoff for used games. I used to tell people not to go there years ago and stopped myself back in 2001 or so.

WhiteKnight77

Just because you dont use it, doesnt mean it's not THE biggest used games sales portal out there. According to Gamestop's own yearly revenue figures, 28% of their revenue came from used game sales.

So in effect, they cost the publishers 28% in sales last year. That's a sizeable chunk.

P.S You can argue that people who trade in their games might use that credit to buy new games, but that still comes at the cost of publisher losing a sale. I am all for used game sales, but I think it needs to be regulated. Some of that money ought to go to publishers.

Actually, GameStop's profit margins for used game products is higher than that at closer to 50% as seen in this chart.

I can understand MS wanting to prevent used games from being played on their consoles. They are losing money on the hardware, especially early on in the life cycle of the hardware and next generation will have a bigger loss than the two previous versions. Having more new game sales made means that they make their losses up earlier.

As far as developers, they can stop used game sales if they want. As been discussed, one time codes or online activation are just two of the ways. As someone who has spent time talking with developers (actually the CEOs of a couple of studios), I understand the time and effort put into creating a game. They deserved to be paid for their time and effort by everyone who wants to play their game. Those who buy used games are not paying the developer for that right, instead they are paying an entirely different entity who is in it just for profit (and as seen above, they rake in the profit from it).

As far as the first sale doctrine goes, that does not give GameStop the right to sell said game a second time, it gives the original purchaser the right to sell it to another party. Since video games are typically licensed for use, first sale doctrine does not necessarily apply.

Misread the chart. They tie in used games/hardware/and accesories into one bunch. It's hard to tell exactly how much of it is from games, hardware and/or accesories.

This is all I can find and it matches up to what I have seen before:

Now that will hold true if a developer has a publisher. If a developer self publishes, they can make more per unit, but usually have more laid out before sales start so start in the hole before profits are seen.

This is all I can find and it matches up to what I have seen before:

Now that will hold true if a developer has a publisher. If a developer self publishes, they can make more per unit, but usually have more laid out before sales start so start in the hole before profits are seen.

WhiteKnight77

How are they losing a sale? They already bought the game on the initial purchase. It's that persons item to do what they want with it. It doesn't work like this. DVDs, CDs, game accessories, they're not a 'lost sale' if someone sells/trades it used. Now if someone went to the store and stole something, and/or then turned around and sold it themselves, then yeah that's a 'lost sale'. When you buy something, it's yours. The whole idea of "well the poor devs should get a cut of used sales" really puts into perspective of who 'owns' the video game after purchase.

If you lose or break the disk are you going to get in trouble or shunned/shamed because you created a 'lost sale' for the devs? People have been buying/selling/trading used games for what, 30 years? Why raise a big stink over it know. $$$$$$$ that's why. They want to add an extra 0 on their check. I think it's greedy being that they come out with DLC which is mainly downloadable (until the GOTY or physical copy, IE Undead Nightmare, hits stores) isn't enough extra to help fill their money hungry wallets.

I'm apart of a team that builds fire suppression tanks. I doubt there's too much in the way of used sales in that products market, but even so, I get paid X amount per hour. I don't get a cut of every tank sold. Everyone on our line is losing 100% in potential commission/sales. I don't like to use this saying because it's a phrase I that think is used too often by authority figures, but the devs should just deal with it. It's how things work.

Invisible_Kid2

How are they losing a sale? They sell a new game to the retailer. That's 1 copy sold. Retailers sells that copy, and then buys it back a week later. Retailer sells that same copy to a different customer. Copies sold: 1. NOT 2.

pretty simple, right? But i have a feeling you will completely ignore that example above. :)

$$$$$? Really? It's a business after all. I dont make games for a living, I am not related to anyone who does. I dont care about these 'poor' devs. I am talking about simple economics. As a business, the publishers take a hit with every used game sold. This affects me because the revenue they should be getting and investing back into their games is now going to Gamestop who makes money for investors and puts no money towards games I play.

Say you build 100 fire supressions tanks a month. You sell them to your biggest customer. The customer then cuts your next month's shipment by half because they are now selling, buying and reselling those 100 fire supressions themselves. Now your team has to be downsized because the demand is down. Because your customer has f***ed you and has started his own business of selling tanks. Now you are out of a job because your company cant afford to keep your entire team on their payroll making just 50 supression tanks a month.

Pretty simple economics.

[QUOTE="Invisible_Kid2"]

How are they losing a sale? They already bought the game on the initial purchase. It's that persons item to do what they want with it. It doesn't work like this. DVDs, CDs, game accessories, they're not a 'lost sale' if someone sells/trades it used. Now if someone went to the store and stole something, and/or then turned around and sold it themselves, then yeah that's a 'lost sale'. When you buy something, it's yours. The whole idea of "well the poor devs should get a cut of used sales" really puts into perspective of who 'owns' the video game after purchase.

If you lose or break the disk are you going to get in trouble or shunned/shamed because you created a 'lost sale' for the devs? People have been buying/selling/trading used games for what, 30 years? Why raise a big stink over it know. $$$$$$$ that's why. They want to add an extra 0 on their check. I think it's greedy being that they come out with DLC which is mainly downloadable (until the GOTY or physical copy, IE Undead Nightmare, hits stores) isn't enough extra to help fill their money hungry wallets.

I'm apart of a team that builds fire suppression tanks. I doubt there's too much in the way of used sales in that products market, but even so, I get paid X amount per hour. I don't get a cut of every tank sold. Everyone on our line is losing 100% in potential commission/sales. I don't like to use this saying because it's a phrase I that think is used too often by authority figures, but the devs should just deal with it. It's how things work.

S0lidSnake

How are they losing a sale? They sell a new game to the retailer. That's 1 copy sold. Retailers sells that copy, and then buys it back a week later. Retailer sells that same copy to a different customer. Copies sold: 1. NOT 2.

pretty simple, right? But i have a feeling you will completely ignore that example above. :)

$$$$$? Really? It's a business after all. I dont make games for a living, I am not related to anyone who does. I dont care about these 'poor' devs. I am talking about simple economics. As a business, the publishers take a hit with every used game sold. This affects me because the revenue they should be getting and investing back into their games is now going to Gamestop who makes money for investors and puts no money towards games I play.

Say you build 100 fire supressions tanks a month. You sell them to your biggest customer. The customer then cuts your next month's shipment by half because they are now selling, buying and reselling those 100 fire supressions themselves. Now your team has to be downsized because the demand is down. Because your customer has f***ed you and has started his own business of selling tanks. Now you are out of a job because your company cant afford to keep your entire team on their payroll making just 50 supression tanks a month.

Pretty simple economics.

It is simple economics, but not quite that simple. There are a number of other markets that have re-sales in them. To the best of my knowledge, GM doesn't get any money when I go to an independentused car dealer and purchase a used Volt (or whatever). Neither Random House nor Martingets a cent if I decide to buy a used copy of the latest Game of Thrones book from Half Price Books. It's a fact of business that re-sales need to be taken account of.

Also, the fact is, not everyone buys games right away upon release, and later down the line after a game is dropped in price (or even becomes a "Greatest Hits" title) those money totals become much smaller, or even non-existent (When a game becomes a "greatest hit,"typically there's a deal between the publisher and the console manufacturer where a lump sum is paid, and publishing rights are abdicated to the console manufacturer. The developer may or may not see a chunk of that lum sum depending on the original contract for the game. Any subsequent sales, only the console manufacturer makes any money of that version of said game). Your point for a lost sale doesn't necessarily hold true. That second sale could happen later at a reduced price which really isn't helping either. There's also the fact that not everybody can afford to buy all of their games new. That used sale in this case isn't a lost sale, if the sale of the new game wasn't going to happen due to the game being too expensive for the buyer to afford (or justify. I've personally bought many games over the years that I wasn't willing to pay 50-60 USD for, but 20-30 was acceptable.) Then, there is the variation on the piracy argument (a pirated game = a lost sale). Similar to the piracy argument, no, a used game sale does not automatically equal a lost new game sale. Like I have said already, sometimes the buyer can't afford or justify the purchase at its original price. For people who have tight gaming budgets, a couple dollars may make the difference between getting a game and not. Sometimes there's a limited number of copies printed of a given game, and used is your only option if you didn't get it right away. So yes, the publishers do take a hit, but it's not going to be a 1 to 1 hit for every used game sold, cutting off used game sales can cause damage to free market business models

I'm not necessarily against areasonable amount going to the devs for used games, but realistically even if this thing goes through, the money won't go to the devs in most cases. It will line the pockets of the Publishers and Microsoft who in most cases did next to nothing to cause the game to happen. In a perfect world, the makers of the products would continue to garner a fair profit for their efforts, but unfortunately that doesn't happen…so you do what to can to keep the scales as balanced as possible (This goes without saying, but if you're in the industry always do your research and hire a good lawyer…its always worth the money). Also, there's the fact that there was nothing stopping the publishers or the console manufacturers from handling their own used game sales. They chose not to(understandably so, it's not economically feasible to do so unless you do it industry wide). Ignoring Game Stop for a moment, Amazon and eBay make some decent bank on Used Game sales as well (frankly, I generally would rather deal with Amazon or an independent local used game store, but sometimes GameStop is the most convenient choice). Used game sales are a business model unto themselves, one that is too resource intensive for any of the publishers or manufacturers to deal with. There's also digital downloads, which have a lot of advantages for the game makers (including virtually no used market), but the average consumer tends to prefer physical media. So basically, I'd be OK with a reasonable fee to "activate" a used game so long as that money went mainly to the developer, but I don't see that happening if this gets instituted.

As a final point, I do actually work in the industry. Because of this, I find myself torn between the prevention of used game sales through digital downloads (though to be fair, we make smaller games and don't charge 60 USD, we charge between 5 and 15) and my personal preference for physical media. Sales attrition is something that just needs to be taken account of, it's going to happen, so you mitigate it as much as possible in your business plan. Regardless of your thoughts on this it should be telling that a sizable percentage of people would likely pass over a console that outright blocked used games (though something like EA's online pass would probably work, so long as the used game sellers took that into account for their pricing).

Two side notes:

I personally believe that it's not Microsoft necessarily pushing this but rather the big publishers (EA, Activision, Ubisoft). Microsoft knows that people would be POed about losing used games, and MS also gets revenue from multiple sources such as Xbox Live subscriptions and licensure for the various services on the machine such as NetFlix. These other sources are less effected by the presence of used games, not to mention all of the fees and profits from XBLA games and services. (Just my personal 2 cents on why this is being floated and who's actually pushing for it).

Secondly, I would not be surprised if Game Stop threatened to not carry the next Xbox if an out-right blocking of used games happened (or if the fee to re-activate used games was ridiculous). Heavy handed? Yes, but as your chart points out, that is a lot of lost profit for Game Stop. I imagine they'd try to protect that to some extent, and Game Stop handles a large enough percentage that that would be a credible counter-threat in the face of anything EA or Activision can bring to the table.

It is simple economics, but not quite that simple. There are a number of other markets that have re-sales in them. To the best of my knowledge, GM doesn't get any money when I go to an independentused car dealer and purchase a used Volt (or whatever). Neither Random House nor Martingets a cent if I decide to buy a used copy of the latest Game of Thrones book from Half Price Books. It's a fact of business that re-sales need to be taken account of.

Also, the fact is, not everyone buys games right away upon release, and later down the line after a game is dropped in price (or even becomes a "Greatest Hits" title) those money totals become much smaller, or even non-existent (When a game becomes a "greatest hit,"typically there's a deal between the publisher and the console manufacturer where a lump sum is paid, and publishing rights are abdicated to the console manufacturer. The developer may or may not see a chunk of that lum sum depending on the original contract for the game. Any subsequent sales, only the console manufacturer makes any money of that version of said game). Your point for a lost sale doesn't necessarily hold true. That second sale could happen later at a reduced price which really isn't helping either. There's also the fact that not everybody can afford to buy all of their games new. That used sale in this case isn't a lost sale, if the sale of the new game wasn't going to happen due to the game being too expensive for the buyer to afford (or justify. I've personally bought many games over the years that I wasn't willing to pay 50-60 USD for, but 20-30 was acceptable.) Then, there is the variation on the piracy argument (a pirated game = a lost sale). Similar to the piracy argument, no, a used game sale does not automatically equal a lost new game sale. Like I have said already, sometimes the buyer can't afford or justify the purchase at its original price. For people who have tight gaming budgets, a couple dollars may make the difference between getting a game and not. Sometimes there's a limited number of copies printed of a given game, and used is your only option if you didn't get it right away. So yes, the publishers do take a hit, but it's not going to be a 1 to 1 hit for every used game sold, cutting off used game sales can cause damage to free market business models

I'm not necessarily against areasonable amount going to the devs for used games, but realistically even if this thing goes through, the money won't go to the devs in most cases. It will line the pockets of the Publishers and Microsoft who in most cases did next to nothing to cause the game to happen. In a perfect world, the makers of the products would continue to garner a fair profit for their efforts, but unfortunately that doesn't happen…so you do what to can to keep the scales as balanced as possible (This goes without saying, but if you're in the industry always do your research and hire a good lawyer…its always worth the money). Also, there's the fact that there was nothing stopping the publishers or the console manufacturers from handling their own used game sales. They chose not to(understandably so, it's not economically feasible to do so unless you do it industry wide). Ignoring Game Stop for a moment, Amazon and eBay make some decent bank on Used Game sales as well (frankly, I generally would rather deal with Amazon or an independent local used game store, but sometimes GameStop is the most convenient choice). Used game sales are a business model unto themselves, one that is too resource intensive for any of the publishers or manufacturers to deal with. There's also digital downloads, which have a lot of advantages for the game makers (including virtually no used market), but the average consumer tends to prefer physical media. So basically, I'd be OK with a reasonable fee to "activate" a used game so long as that money went mainly to the developer, but I don't see that happening if this gets instituted.

As a final point, I do actually work in the industry. Because of this, I find myself torn between the prevention of used game sales through digital downloads (though to be fair, we make smaller games and don't charge 60 USD, we charge between 5 and 15) and my personal preference for physical media. Sales attrition is something that just needs to be taken account of, it's going to happen, so you mitigate it as much as possible in your business plan. Regardless of your thoughts on this it should be telling that a sizable percentage of people would likely pass over a console that outright blocked used games (though something like EA's online pass would probably work, so long as the used game sellers took that into account for their pricing).

Two side notes:

I personally believe that it's not Microsoft necessarily pushing this but rather the big publishers (EA, Activision, Ubisoft). Microsoft knows that people would be POed about losing used games, and MS also gets revenue from multiple sources such as Xbox Live subscriptions and licensure for the various services on the machine such as NetFlix. These other sources are less effected by the presence of used games, not to mention all of the fees and profits from XBLA games and services. (Just my personal 2 cents on why this is being floated and who's actually pushing for it).

Secondly, I would not be surprised if Game Stop threatened to not carry the next Xbox if an out-right blocking of used games happened (or if the fee to re-activate used games was ridiculous). Heavy handed? Yes, but as your chart points out, that is a lot of lost profit for Game Stop. I imagine they'd try to protect that to some extent, and Game Stop handles a large enough percentage that that would be a credible counter-threat in the face of anything EA or Activision can bring to the table.

armouredpriest

See the above pic to see where the money goes. 60% goes to the publisher though 30% of it goes to the devs and for advertising and the like. Now, as far as the used cars go, once a car is driven off the lot, and has been used for a while, it no longer has the value and is no longer the same as it was as they wear out. That is why used cars are cheaper. There is also the fact that there is no warranty from the manufacturer (and most are sold as is, meaning no warranty even then). The difference with video games is that nothing has worn out or broken down, a used game is the same as a used game.

While there are some places that sell used books, there are no places that sells used books right next to the same book new. eBay shouldn't figure into the equation as it is usually individuals selling items and not a retailer. Amazon, I haven't figured out how to sort through them as far as used games, nor has the CEO I speak with on a weekly basis. But GameStop has made used game sales a major part of their business plan and makes almost a 50% profit margin on said sales.

GameStop sells used games right next to the new game they are selling and more often than not, urge customers to buy, even at a $5 difference, so the money goes into their pockets and not the publishers or developers. As stated in a different thread (or maybe this one), if a publisher isn't making money, they will have to cut staff, as in the ones who are actually creating the games. Gamers bltch about how long it takes for games to be made as it is, smaller development teams means longer development time. Figure it out.

[QUOTE="Invisible_Kid2"]

How are they losing a sale? They already bought the game on the initial purchase. It's that persons item to do what they want with it. It doesn't work like this. DVDs, CDs, game accessories, they're not a 'lost sale' if someone sells/trades it used. Now if someone went to the store and stole something, and/or then turned around and sold it themselves, then yeah that's a 'lost sale'. When you buy something, it's yours. The whole idea of "well the poor devs should get a cut of used sales" really puts into perspective of who 'owns' the video game after purchase.

If you lose or break the disk are you going to get in trouble or shunned/shamed because you created a 'lost sale' for the devs? People have been buying/selling/trading used games for what, 30 years? Why raise a big stink over it know. $$$$$$$ that's why. They want to add an extra 0 on their check. I think it's greedy being that they come out with DLC which is mainly downloadable (until the GOTY or physical copy, IE Undead Nightmare, hits stores) isn't enough extra to help fill their money hungry wallets.

I'm apart of a team that builds fire suppression tanks. I doubt there's too much in the way of used sales in that products market, but even so, I get paid X amount per hour. I don't get a cut of every tank sold. Everyone on our line is losing 100% in potential commission/sales. I don't like to use this saying because it's a phrase I that think is used too often by authority figures, but the devs should just deal with it. It's how things work.

S0lidSnake

How are they losing a sale? They sell a new game to the retailer. That's 1 copy sold. Retailers sells that copy, and then buys it back a week later. Retailer sells that same copy to a different customer. Copies sold: 1. NOT 2.

pretty simple, right? But i have a feeling you will completely ignore that example above. :)

$$$$$? Really? It's a business after all. I dont make games for a living, I am not related to anyone who does. I dont care about these 'poor' devs. I am talking about simple economics. As a business, the publishers take a hit with every used game sold. This affects me because the revenue they should be getting and investing back into their games is now going to Gamestop who makes money for investors and puts no money towards games I play.

Say you build 100 fire supressions tanks a month. You sell them to your biggest customer. The customer then cuts your next month's shipment by half because they are now selling, buying and reselling those 100 fire supressions themselves. Now your team has to be downsized because the demand is down. Because your customer has f***ed you and has started his own business of selling tanks. Now you are out of a job because your company cant afford to keep your entire team on their payroll making just 50 supression tanks a month.

Pretty simple economics.

On your first example. Yes, that's how things work. Someone makes a product, sells it to a retailer, they in turn sell it. If the retailer buys it back and then resells it cheaper, it's none of the product makers business. That first initial transaction was already made, from the person who sold the product to the retailer. End of transaction, end of story, end of all the BS.

On your second paragraph. There's a difference between churning out a profit, whether it be a huge one or small one, but what they're doing is screwing their consumer. It's bad business practice/ethics/what have you.

On your third paragraph. I see what you're getting at. In all honesty, if we lost an order from a big company (it's happened before) we usually find a new client to sell to depending on the specifications of the tank. If a game company doesn't like the way that Gamestop is doing their business, then stop doing it there and MAKE a new one. By that I mean, if GS is doing nothing but giving you 'lost sales' then go to Wal-Mart. They don't do the whole buy/sell/trade used games thing. Do special promotions with them instead of Gamestop.

Hey, the new Twisted Metal game is coming out. If you buy at Wal-Mart you get a code to download Twisted Metal 1 or 2 from PSN for free and if you buy at GS, you get.....a recipt showing that you bought the game? It could get to the point where they totally boycott GS all together and not have their product sold there at all. There are always options. I've seen games at Wal-Mart that I haven't seen at GS, and vice versa. I've also seen games used at GS that weren't being sold new any where in my town. The total eratification of the used game market could also mean a huge loss in exposure. I know it's over used but Demon Souls is a great example.

I'm sorry, but the idea that the developer deserves a cut of used sales is a load of horse****. What makes gaming so special? Second hand markets have been around for used games for nearly three decades and yet the gaming industry continues to grow and thrive to the point where the market supports four different platforms. Please spare me the nonsense about the poor, impoverished developers.:roll:

I love how buying a used game supposedly hurts a developer, but no one points out that waiting for a game to hit the bargin bin pretty much achieves the same effect. But hey, it's not used, so that gets a pass so that the anti-used games snobs can feel better about themselves.

If someone really wants a game, they will gladly buy it at full price. If you're into "supporting the developer," then you should be preordering to help drive up demand. The developer gets paid from the reseller. Your purchase reimburses the retailer, and that's all.

[QUOTE="armouredpriest"]

It is simple economics, but not quite that simple. There are a number of other markets that have re-sales in them. To the best of my knowledge, GM doesn't get any money when I go to an independentused car dealer and purchase a used Volt (or whatever). Neither Random House nor Martingets a cent if I decide to buy a used copy of the latest Game of Thrones book from Half Price Books. It's a fact of business that re-sales need to be taken account of.

Also, the fact is, not everyone buys games right away upon release, and later down the line after a game is dropped in price (or even becomes a "Greatest Hits" title) those money totals become much smaller, or even non-existent (When a game becomes a "greatest hit,"typically there's a deal between the publisher and the console manufacturer where a lump sum is paid, and publishing rights are abdicated to the console manufacturer. The developer may or may not see a chunk of that lum sum depending on the original contract for the game. Any subsequent sales, only the console manufacturer makes any money of that version of said game). Your point for a lost sale doesn't necessarily hold true. That second sale could happen later at a reduced price which really isn't helping either. There's also the fact that not everybody can afford to buy all of their games new. That used sale in this case isn't a lost sale, if the sale of the new game wasn't going to happen due to the game being too expensive for the buyer to afford (or justify. I've personally bought many games over the years that I wasn't willing to pay 50-60 USD for, but 20-30 was acceptable.) Then, there is the variation on the piracy argument (a pirated game = a lost sale). Similar to the piracy argument, no, a used game sale does not automatically equal a lost new game sale. Like I have said already, sometimes the buyer can't afford or justify the purchase at its original price. For people who have tight gaming budgets, a couple dollars may make the difference between getting a game and not. Sometimes there's a limited number of copies printed of a given game, and used is your only option if you didn't get it right away. So yes, the publishers do take a hit, but it's not going to be a 1 to 1 hit for every used game sold, cutting off used game sales can cause damage to free market business models

I'm not necessarily against areasonable amount going to the devs for used games, but realistically even if this thing goes through, the money won't go to the devs in most cases. It will line the pockets of the Publishers and Microsoft who in most cases did next to nothing to cause the game to happen. In a perfect world, the makers of the products would continue to garner a fair profit for their efforts, but unfortunately that doesn't happen…so you do what to can to keep the scales as balanced as possible (This goes without saying, but if you're in the industry always do your research and hire a good lawyer…its always worth the money). Also, there's the fact that there was nothing stopping the publishers or the console manufacturers from handling their own used game sales. They chose not to(understandably so, it's not economically feasible to do so unless you do it industry wide). Ignoring Game Stop for a moment, Amazon and eBay make some decent bank on Used Game sales as well (frankly, I generally would rather deal with Amazon or an independent local used game store, but sometimes GameStop is the most convenient choice). Used game sales are a business model unto themselves, one that is too resource intensive for any of the publishers or manufacturers to deal with. There's also digital downloads, which have a lot of advantages for the game makers (including virtually no used market), but the average consumer tends to prefer physical media. So basically, I'd be OK with a reasonable fee to "activate" a used game so long as that money went mainly to the developer, but I don't see that happening if this gets instituted.

As a final point, I do actually work in the industry. Because of this, I find myself torn between the prevention of used game sales through digital downloads (though to be fair, we make smaller games and don't charge 60 USD, we charge between 5 and 15) and my personal preference for physical media. Sales attrition is something that just needs to be taken account of, it's going to happen, so you mitigate it as much as possible in your business plan. Regardless of your thoughts on this it should be telling that a sizable percentage of people would likely pass over a console that outright blocked used games (though something like EA's online pass would probably work, so long as the used game sellers took that into account for their pricing).

Two side notes:

I personally believe that it's not Microsoft necessarily pushing this but rather the big publishers (EA, Activision, Ubisoft). Microsoft knows that people would be POed about losing used games, and MS also gets revenue from multiple sources such as Xbox Live subscriptions and licensure for the various services on the machine such as NetFlix. These other sources are less effected by the presence of used games, not to mention all of the fees and profits from XBLA games and services. (Just my personal 2 cents on why this is being floated and who's actually pushing for it).

Secondly, I would not be surprised if Game Stop threatened to not carry the next Xbox if an out-right blocking of used games happened (or if the fee to re-activate used games was ridiculous). Heavy handed? Yes, but as your chart points out, that is a lot of lost profit for Game Stop. I imagine they'd try to protect that to some extent, and Game Stop handles a large enough percentage that that would be a credible counter-threat in the face of anything EA or Activision can bring to the table.

WhiteKnight77

See the above pic to see where the money goes. 60% goes to the publisher though 30% of it goes to the devs and for advertising and the like. Now, as far as the used cars go, once a car is driven off the lot, and has been used for a while, it no longer has the value and is no longer the same as it was as they wear out. That is why used cars are cheaper. There is also the fact that there is no warranty from the manufacturer (and most are sold as is, meaning no warranty even then). The difference with video games is that nothing has worn out or broken down, a used game is the same as a used game.

While there are some places that sell used books, there are no places that sells used books right next to the same book new. eBay shouldn't figure into the equation as it is usually individuals selling items and not a retailer. Amazon, I haven't figured out how to sort through them as far as used games, nor has the CEO I speak with on a weekly basis. But GameStop has made used game sales a major part of their business plan and makes almost a 50% profit margin on said sales.

GameStop sells used games right next to the new game they are selling and more often than not, urge customers to buy, even at a $5 difference, so the money goes into their pockets and not the publishers or developers. As stated in a different thread (or maybe this one), if a publisher isn't making money, they will have to cut staff, as in the ones who are actually creating the games. Gamers bltch about how long it takes for games to be made as it is, smaller development teams means longer development time. Figure it out.

Games don't wear out...they do become obsolete tech, though. As far as the consumer is concerned, the end result is the same: price depreciation. Last year's "model" is going to be (and should be) cheaper in both cases. There'd be no reason to improve and innovate otherwise.

Last time I checked, Half Price Books sold new books as well as used. Barnes and Nobles does as well (at least the two near me, do). Otherwise, chain stores tend not to deal with both new and used, though there are exceptions. Usually small regional chains, or single independant stores. For example: near by, we have Exclusive Company. Its 5 or 6 stores in the region and they mainly deal in CD and DVD sales. Primarily new, but they have a decent sized used section for CDs and DVDs (plus they'll also take in used video games as well.)

As I already mentioned, I'm not opposed to the developers getting a cut of used sales. A couple things though: frankly, the publishers are overstating how much they are being hurt by used sales. Again a used sale does not automatically equal a lost new sale. While Game Stop is somewhat unique in the amount of dominence it has in both the new and used markets (most of the time the business that deal with new, and the businesses that deal with used are seperate entities, I'll grant you), most non-perishible consumer goods have to account for and deal with a co-existing re-sale market.

Also, what will actually happen:

If (an "If" that I actually doubt will happen, but stated none the less) the next Xbox completely blocks out used games, there will be a gamer backlash, and it will cost Microsoft and related companies profits (more profits then if they had just left well enough alone). Gamers have demonstrated lately (the 3DS first year, and unusually quick price drop by Nintendo being the most recent example) that they are getting tired of being jerked around. We want games, and we want hardware...both at a fair price. I think if a full block happens, the next Xbox will loose a lot of sales and money. You'll get basically the same effect if they charge to unlock used games with a stupidly expensive charge (say 20+ USD).

Now if a reasonable fee (say 5-10 USD) is levied to reactivate a used game, gamers will grumble, but they will pay it. Game Stop may or may not work with this. If they play nice, things basically won't change for the consumer (Game stop will mearly make a little less gratuitous profit, and that money is shifted). If GS doesn't, thenthey'll fade quickly, but something else will rise to take their place. The issue is that realistically, the devs (the ones who should be getting the majority of the extra money) will see next to nothing of those fees. It will be collected by Microsoft and the major publishers to line their pockets. If a given company feels inclined to cut their development staff first, thereby making it harder to develop their product (before say, more extraneous staff...a lot of larger companies have a stupid amount of middle management on their projects which can actually slow down the process because of all the hoop that need to be jumped through to meet milestones) I feel bad for the developer that has to deal with that, but the publisher is going to reap what it sows. That's why I'm against locking out used games, because the people who should benefit from the used game profits usually won't even if a fee structure is implemented.

As for development time and gamers? Gamers are going to gripe regardless. At the end of the day most gamers want the game to be done right, and would probably prefer the developer take the time it needs to make that happen. Sometimes it isn't even a money concern that causes teams to become smaller, people change jobs.

Make no mistake, I'm not defending Game Stop's practices (I agree the charge too much for their used games...at least the ones that cost 30+ USD, less then that it doesn't matter as much). I generally buy my used games from Amazon. Used games I buy from Game Stop are generally older where the price benefit of Amazon is mostly lost due to shipping costs. Game Stop does provide a service, though, and in and of itself I have no problem with that service.

What the publishers and developers should be doing, instead of punishing people who wish to buy used, perhaps it would be more prudent to simply benefit those who wish to buy new. Maybe some free and/or exclusive DLC. How about a preorder code for a discount for the sequel (or the next game by said developer). Its a lot easier to manage your development/marketing budget if you know you already have some sales waiting for you. Maybe an exclusive with preorders (I'm a sucker for game soundtracks personally ;P ). Oh wait...there are companies that are already doing this, and to good effect. I see companies like Atlus, XSeed, and NISAmerica do this stuff all the time. They're plenty successful (if not so massive as the EAs and Activisions of the world, but hey don't really see a problem with that).

Hey I feel it would be awesome if the developers got their fair share (the percentages the publishers and developers on your chart get should be flipped around IMO), but I don't see that happening. I do what I can when I can to help developers I like (not that I'm being completley altruistic here...at the end of the day, all I want are good games). If I don't know about a game (or if its out of print), I'll buy it used. If I like said game then I'll try to purchase new the next time, because I realize that business make a product and to make more products they need the previous product to sell. However, I (and a fair number of other people) can't buy every game new without at leat flirting with dealing with used games, either by trading in or purchasing used at some point.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]Of course it is. My point is that they are the largest buyer and seller of used games, so even if prudent people avoid buying used games from them, they are who most of the discussion of used games are about. Having a website which allows consumers to trade whatever among themselves is one thing, the fact the biggest retailer in the business actively discourages people from buying new is another.

Dracula68

blocking secondhand games? that would be the first time I go against microsoft, such a plan would be a big hit for gaming industry, and I don't see it's practical..

the Blue-ray sounds logical, why microsoft can't(or won't) use it? why sony can pack every VAIO with the MS os? these companies rarely look at matters from "fanboys" stand point of view, if it was profitable then they will go for it. if sony could prevent microsoft from using BR (although they can't because it's not just theirs) MS would prevent them from using windows on their PCs, and in the end of the day what they have done? they just made themselfe lose millions, which will never happen.

Games don't wear out...they do become obsolete tech, though. As far as the consumer is concerned, the end result is the same: price depreciation. Last year's "model" is going to be (and should be) cheaper in both cases. There'd be no reason to improve and innovate otherwise.

*snip*

armouredpriest

We are not talking about games from the XBox becoming obsolete because of the X360. We are talking about GameStop selling Batman Arkham City used right next to a new copy of the same game. You are trying to compare GameStop selling Call of Duty right next to Modern Warfare 3. While they play the same, they do feature different tech, but the one can't be played on the same machine as the other so that point is irrelevant. We are talking the same game both new and used, with GS pushing used sales even when a customer wants new. It happens, I see the complaints about it all the time.

Barnes & Noble may sell used books (I haven't seen any sell used books), but if they are, they are not selling a new copy of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo right next to a used copy of it. I know that regional media stores will sell used media such as Hastings (Nacogdoches, TX), but they do not have used copies of media right next to the new stuff that they are selling too and both are on the same shelf. I also know FYE sells new and used media, but again, they are not pulling the garbage GS does.

While PC games end up in the bargin bin, console games do not, or at least, not for a long time. That is a major complaint of gamers, even on this forum (as well as others) and is why a lot of people claim to buy used games to begin with. I can't give you an answer why it is, but it could be that retailers think they can make more from them by keeping the price up. I wont get into why they are more expensive than PC games as that is widely known already.

[QUOTE="armouredpriest"]

Games don't wear out...they do become obsolete tech, though. As far as the consumer is concerned, the end result is the same: price depreciation. Last year's "model" is going to be (and should be) cheaper in both cases. There'd be no reason to improve and innovate otherwise.

*snip*

WhiteKnight77

We are not talking about games from the XBox becoming obsolete because of the X360. We are talking about GameStop selling Batman Arkham City used right next to a new copy of the same game. You are trying to compare GameStop selling Call of Duty right next to Modern Warfare 3. While they play the same, they do feature different tech, but the one can't be played on the same machine as the other so that point is irrelevant. We are talking the same game both new and used, with GS pushing used sales even when a customer wants new. It happens, I see the complaints about it all the time.

Barnes & Noble may sell used books (I haven't seen any sell used books), but if they are, they are not selling a new copy of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo right next to a used copy of it. I know that regional media stores will sell used media such as Hastings (Nacogdoches, TX), but they do not have used copies of media right next to the new stuff that they are selling too and both are on the same shelf. I also know FYE sells new and used media, but again, they are not pulling the garbage GS does.

While PC games end up in the bargin bin, console games do not, or at least, not for a long time. That is a major complaint of gamers, even on this forum (as well as others) and is why a lot of people claim to buy used games to begin with. I can't give you an answer why it is, but it could be that retailers think they can make more from them by keeping the price up. I wont get into why they are more expensive than PC games as that is widely known already.

The GS in my town doesn't sell them right next to the new copies. They're on another section of the wall or sometimes in a bin. If GS sold used copies in the back room or something would that make everyone happy regarding the "they sell them right next to the new ones" argument?

Invisible_Kid2

The saying that they sell them right next to the new copy is just that, a saying. From what I have seen, the whole wall is made up of games as is a second smaller wall. It's the fact that GS has a policy of pushing used games over new games is what publishers (and some customers) have a problem with.

If they block used games, they can kiss my money goodbye. What happens when Microsoft's horribly made consoles die again, and again, and again, and again like the 360 does. Does that mean you need to buy all of your games over and over and over again because they'll only work on the first console they were played on? This would essentially be punishing people for buying new copies of games. What a stupid idea.

[QUOTE="Invisible_Kid2"]

The GS in my town doesn't sell them right next to the new copies. They're on another section of the wall or sometimes in a bin. If GS sold used copies in the back room or something would that make everyone happy regarding the "they sell them right next to the new ones" argument?

WhiteKnight77

The saying that they sell them right next to the new copy is just that, a saying. From what I have seen, the whole wall is made up of games as is a second smaller wall. It's the fact that GS has a policy of pushing used games over new games is what publishers (and some customers) have a problem with.

I don't think they are that stupid to block games

so if my new console died or should I say when it dies will I have to buy my games all over again??

I don't think they are that stupid to block games

Shado0ow7

I'd like to think so. I'm pretty confident that half of all 360 owners wouldn't even consider buying their next console if that were to happen.....cause I'd certainly be one of them. Dosen't sound like a good way to make money to me.

I think the used game embargo is faulty (if not necessarily unfounded) speculation. The Blu Ray is very plausible, even if I don't support such a move.CRS98

Why wouldn't you support MS adopting BR?

[QUOTE="CRS98"]I think the used game embargo is faulty (if not necessarily unfounded) speculation. The Blu Ray is very plausible, even if I don't support such a move.MirkoS77

Why wouldn't you support MS adopting BR?

That's good. Having Blu-ray and the ability to block used games are beneficial. Xbox 720 with Blu-ray will ease the fact that 360 was holding the PS3 back by its DVD format (GTA 4 could have been bigger and better). Used games are not good for the game industry, so they should be blocked.GamerwillzPS

They won't block used games. Think of how many jobs that would terminate. Plus the fact that most people I know buy their games used, which is usually what I do. I also like to sell games after a while so I can get a different one. If Microsoft did this, people wouldn't buy games and thusly, probably wouldn't buy the console. Not when they want to get around 6 games a year, each priced at 60 bucks or more since they would be forced to buy them new at that point. I would not buy the next console EVER if Microsoft did this, and I'm positive that a lot of other people would do the exact same thing.

If 1 of the big 3 companies chose to implement this into their next console, like for example's sake, if Microsoft chose to implement this but Nintendo and Sony didn't, I think it would result in extreme self-inflicted damage. No one would choose the Microsoft console if the competition allowed used games to be played. The only way I could see this potentially happening is if it was a universal choice across all 3 companies, which I really don't see happening. I know these are all rumors, but this is really a bogus idea if you think about it. Any additional sales they could possibly attain from implementing such a feature would be drastically overshadowed by the amount of people who would choose not to buy the console in the first place because of it. If 1 company implemented it and the others didn't, the 1 console that did use it would be talked about everywhere, made fun of, singled out, and seen as the system that no one wants to buy, sort of like the joke system.

With the next Xbox system using blu-rays is a nice improvement over the Xbox 360. The downfall of the new system will be it blocking the use of used games.HadronVulture