No used games, but all new games retail at $39.99

To be completely honest, if we go fully digital than game prices need to be $20.

Runic Games states in this article that by selling Torchlight II at $20 on Steam they would receive just as much money from each sale if they sold a $60 boxed copy.

So if used are games are out of the question than I want discs out as well. If they make the same amount from each copy sold at a third of the price when going digital than we need more of these pricing models. Anything higher is just stupid. (I do not pay $60 for games, and always wait for the next sale, because this crap is way too overpriced).

NeonNinja

How do you determine what is overpriced? Most sp only games average about 20hrs long. Thats $3 per hour. Thats cheaper than going to the movies and about the same price as a rental. Plus games are more replayable.

Unless this means every single game stays in print or is put up on the online shops, my answer to this idea is no.

I tend to buy my systems several years into their lifespans, and this would destroy any chance of me being older titles and catching up on the games that I missed.   No matter how anyone tries to twist it, blocking used games is a stupid idea.    I'll be the one spending my money on the system.  I expect to get my money's worth and be allowed to play both new and used games.

lol, seems like some are niave.

If they really blocked used games, the price per game retail would skyrocket. Those be greedy a-holes out there.

[QUOTE="silversix_"]69.99 per game and not able to play used games is more what is likely to happen. Just move to pc's if you aren't a 12 year old...Cranler

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="silversix_"]69.99 per game and not able to play used games is more what is likely to happen. Just move to pc's if you aren't a 12 year old...faizan_faizan

lol, seems like some are niave.

If they really blocked used games, the price per game retail would skyrocket. Those be greedy a-holes out there.

ristactionjakso

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

lol, seems like some are niave.

If they really blocked used games, the price per game retail would skyrocket. Those be greedy a-holes out there.

Cranler

 

This basic math you are doing is flawed. Retailers don't make much more than 7-8 dollars on games SOLD AT $60 and due to the fact that in general they will not sell an entire shipment of a game at full price selling games is a break even at best model. Used games exist so that they can still actually profit off of the concept of selling games at all. You kill used games and lower the average price all you are going to see is that games are going to be in a lot lower stock because selling 800k of a game over 500k is a 60% increase in sales just to reach the same milestone. You think that stores are going to carry 60% more titles that they make less money on per title that they can't subsize at all? Are you serious. What the hell are you failing to grasp about thist? You make the games cost $40 and they have absolutely no profit margin regardless. 

ActicEdge

Save the fact that that's only going to be problematic for Xbox, since Sony has a store of their own. Besides, M$ and Sony are trying to kill off Gamestop. The used gaming market is a billion dollar industry right now. Heck, Gamestop is a publicly-traded company and is in the Fortune 500. Having little profit is better than having no profit at all. So Gamestop has to either diversify their portfolio and just suck it up. They can't do anything once Sony and M$ stop using used games. What are they gonna do, protest? Lulz. They're entirely dependent of the two companies. Either they get a little less profit and Sony/M$ just has to own up whatever remaining "revenue lost", or they completely not sell anything therefore destroying their own business. There are a lot more stores that will carry these games: Walmart, Target, Costco, etc. It doesn't always have to be Gamestop/FutureShop/Bestbuy. Online retailers will even greatly benefit from this, because they don't distribute their inventory that widely compared to retailers, plus you have to pay shipping to them.

Also, LOL @ breaking even by using the used market. I call Gamestop hardly breaking even, their profits are sky high. For every used game they sell, they can profit upwards of $30. Not only that, but it also eliminates shipping, handling, and distribution costs since you yourself bring the games to them. On top of that, they even have policies in place that can refuse you to sell your games to them, and there's no regulation of the amount that they charge or give you. It's funny because they have complete control, regardless of whatever the free market dictates. That's just crazy.

Yeah man. 

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

To be completely honest, if we go fully digital than game prices need to be $20.

Runic Games states in this article that by selling Torchlight II at $20 on Steam they would receive just as much money from each sale if they sold a $60 boxed copy.

So if used are games are out of the question than I want discs out as well. If they make the same amount from each copy sold at a third of the price when going digital than we need more of these pricing models. Anything higher is just stupid. (I do not pay $60 for games, and always wait for the next sale, because this crap is way too overpriced).

Cranler

How do you determine what is overpriced? Most sp only games average about 20hrs long. Thats $3 per hour. Thats cheaper than going to the movies and about the same price as a rental. Plus games are more replayable.

what single player only game you know is 20 hrs?

That would never happen, if anything the new console games would hit $70nutcrackr

Lol $40. I'm used to paying <$10 so no.tagyhag

Never happen? Minecraft sold CoD numbers at $10. rumbalumba

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

To be completely honest, if we go fully digital than game prices need to be $20.

Runic Games states in this article that by selling Torchlight II at $20 on Steam they would receive just as much money from each sale if they sold a $60 boxed copy.

So if used are games are out of the question than I want discs out as well. If they make the same amount from each copy sold at a third of the price when going digital than we need more of these pricing models. Anything higher is just stupid. (I do not pay $60 for games, and always wait for the next sale, because this crap is way too overpriced).

Mario1331

How do you determine what is overpriced? Most sp only games average about 20hrs long. Thats $3 per hour. Thats cheaper than going to the movies and about the same price as a rental. Plus games are more replayable.

what single player only game you know is 20 hrs?

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"]No. It still stops me from selling games I don't want, stops me from borrowing games, and stops me from loaning games.xhawk27

If you sell them to Gamestop they will cheat you. 

That would be fine by mean.

How would Gamefly handle if Microsoft and Sony banned used games?

15strong

Why would the price of new games be reduced if the increased supply and competition from used games was cut off? The simple rules of supply and demand suggest prices would increase if the manufacturer could have more control over supply and retailers control over price. There would still be competition but less competition and the supply could be more controlled as the manufacturer currently has no control over how many people sell their games or when. If it's a really bad game for example lots of people sell which floods the market and that drops the price quickly as the larger number of people wanting to sell compete for the smaller number of people wanting to buy.

No. Take one look at the future, and there is no guarantee things will pan out favorably for anybody. Let's assume there is a system similar to online passes; that still leaves you screwed in the future if & when the servers go down to support these codes. If a game becomes hard to find, you're likely going to be left out in the rain. People can still look back at legacy games & systems, buy said items, and they can play them with no worries. Who's to say they wont shut down the possibility to do that when the next systems roll around. Used games also help the sales of of new games, and can introduce people to a series they wouldn't have bought into otherwise.

As it has been, and as it is now, the second hand market can be just as important, but short sighted devs & publishers don't care how many people traded other companies titles to get their's. At that price point, it wouldn't be about the cost for me. It'd be about the unforeseeable future. I don't see how anyone with a passion for older systems can support such a wild card investment.

Unless they start making out of print games always available, Always Used games.

Considering that I hardly have any used for new games (buying, selling, renting) this would be an awesome idea.

Why would the price of new games be reduced if the increased supply and competition from used games was cut off? The simple rules of supply and demand suggest prices would increase if the manufacturer could have more control over supply and retailers control over price.KingKinect

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

 

This basic math you are doing is flawed. Retailers don't make much more than 7-8 dollars on games SOLD AT $60 and due to the fact that in general they will not sell an entire shipment of a game at full price selling games is a break even at best model. Used games exist so that they can still actually profit off of the concept of selling games at all. You kill used games and lower the average price all you are going to see is that games are going to be in a lot lower stock because selling 800k of a game over 500k is a 60% increase in sales just to reach the same milestone. You think that stores are going to carry 60% more titles that they make less money on per title that they can't subsize at all? Are you serious. What the hell are you failing to grasp about thist? You make the games cost $40 and they have absolutely no profit margin regardless. 

rumbalumba

Save the fact that that's only going to be problematic for Xbox, since Sony has a store of their own. Besides, M$ and Sony are trying to kill off Gamestop. The used gaming market is a billion dollar industry right now. Heck, Gamestop is a publicly-traded company and is in the Fortune 500. Having little profit is better than having no profit at all. So Gamestop has to either diversify their portfolio and just suck it up. They can't do anything once Sony and M$ stop using used games. What are they gonna do, protest? Lulz. They're entirely dependent of the two companies. Either they get a little less profit and Sony/M$ just has to own up whatever remaining "revenue lost", or they completely not sell anything therefore destroying their own business. There are a lot more stores that will carry these games: Walmart, Target, Costco, etc. It doesn't always have to be Gamestop/FutureShop/Bestbuy. Online retailers will even greatly benefit from this, because they don't distribute their inventory that widely compared to retailers, plus you have to pay shipping to them.

Also, LOL @ breaking even by using the used market. I call Gamestop hardly breaking even, their profits are sky high. For every used game they sell, they can profit upwards of $30. Not only that, but it also eliminates shipping, handling, and distribution costs since you yourself bring the games to them. On top of that, they even have policies in place that can refuse you to sell your games to them, and there's no regulation of the amount that they charge or give you. It's funny because they have complete control, regardless of whatever the free market dictates. That's just crazy.

You are hilarious. The reason Sony and MS have not killed off GS yet is because they literally dictate the majority of game sales. They are the number one place that sells NEW GAMES. Carrying games for most places besides gamestop is literally not a worthwhile venture compared to other forms of electronics and product in general. If your beef is against gamestop that's your problem, they aren't doing anything illegal nor morally wrong and should any company want to cut off GS, they could do it EASILY. They choose not to and so as a consumer I don't see why I need to choose to still inherently give a shiiittitt especially when they are passing the blame to me. This whole conversation is going to completely die once DD takes over anyway so it doesn't really matter. 

Gamestop is an anomaly in terms of carrying games because they actually have a good business model. They took advantage of the flaws in the system and are reaping the rewards, its a free market despite what you want to claim as unfair. Its not my fault that people just jump at a $5 cheaper used copy and I don't sell my games to GS because they give you peanuts for it in return. I would rather give my game away than let GS exploit me for it and so that's what I do. Regardless though, this is irrelevant to the topic. A $40 new games policy with no used games is by and large, destined to fail if game development stays in its current form given that manufacturing, distribution and marketing aren't going to decrease any time soon.

What if all next-gen consoles blocked the ability to play used games, but all new games launch at $39 or less. Is that a compromise everyone is willing to agree on??

rumbalumba

I'd do $40 digital, MS and Sony should consider this as their best way to combat used games, consumers will purchase digital to save money, that's a benefit since it cuts down on production, distribution, retailer cut, and most importantly that's one less used tangible copy that may end up on the used game market that will later cut them out of revenues.lamprey263

Nope. I lend and borrow games from my brother all the time. Hell, I just borrowed DmC. 

That would be fine with me. I'm done selling games as I always end up regretting selling them.

I will adjust my gaming to whatever is required by PS4. 

Or you just go to Steam/Amazon/greenmangaming and buy a game for 5-10 bucks 

Why would the price of new games be reduced if the increased supply and competition from used games was cut off? The simple rules of supply and demand suggest prices would increase if the manufacturer could have more control over supply and retailers control over price. There would still be competition but less competition and the supply could be more controlled as the manufacturer currently has no control over how many people sell their games or when. If it's a really bad game for example lots of people sell which floods the market and that drops the price quickly as the larger number of people wanting to sell compete for the smaller number of people wanting to buy.

KingKinect

Because then the game makers would know that they would be making more money from each sale. If I make a game and know I will sell a lot less at full price because people can rent and buy used I know I'm going to make less than if they all have to buy it new at full price because they have to in order to play it. 

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]Lol $40. I'm used to paying <$10 so no.YoshiYogurt

[QUOTE="YoshiYogurt"][QUOTE="tagyhag"]Lol $40. I'm used to paying <$10 so no.tagyhag

In January, I got Sleeping Dogs for 5$, Mark of Ninja in a budle with other 4Indie games for 5$, Devil May Cry at launch 20$, Walking Dead the Game 7$, Need for Speed Collection (5 games) 7$, Borderlands 2 17$.

I could have gotten Hitman: Absolution for 12$ but my PC was already crammed with games. 

I'd do $40 digital, MS and Sony should consider this as their best way to combat used games, consumers will purchase digital to save money, that's a benefit since it cuts down on production, distribution, retailer cut, and most importantly that's one less used tangible copy that may end up on the used game market that will later cut them out of revenues.lamprey263

how about 20 , the same price as a movie then id be fine but  40 no way sorry ,some games just are not worth 40 -except nintendos and a select few third party games 

Seriously i really don't understand these companies. Does everyone even realise how bad it will cripple the shops and peoples lives. Just like the cuts the government do to try save money its called a chain reaction and no one is seeming to get this, most of the shops now survive on second hand games sales its what keeps these shops open and pays the wages if they decide to stop used games this will make most shops close and that isnt even over thinking, this is reality, then what will happen is so many people will be out of the job, which means they will have less money to spend on new games.

If they introduce this, it's basicly were renting the game and cannot sell it on even tho we have bought it and its ours, people won't buy used games knowing there going to have to pay a fee to actually play the game. How many people do you think buy new cars over second cars, the second hand car market is huge and you don't see them complaining.

I believe the solution which is already happening now is, if you use the online features then you should pay so they have money to keep the servers going, but the offline mode shoul;d be completely free, this way everyone benefits.

No because if a game goes out of print youre ****ed

[QUOTE="YoshiYogurt"][QUOTE="tagyhag"]Lol $40. I'm used to paying <$10 so no.tagyhag

Mfw I paid 2.49 for Spec Ops the Line, $5 for Darkness II + Borderlands GOTY + DNF

Games on PC are dirt cheap

I'm not going to vote on such an awful idea. Prices are going up, not down. End of story. Might as well ask if you would prefer that consoles to be sold for zero dollars.

You are going to pay more for games than you are now on the ps4/720, and you won't have used games either.   You say you hate it but when the right game comes out you'll buy it anyway

[QUOTE="silversix_"]69.99 per game and not able to play used games is more what is likely to happen. Just move to pc's if you aren't a 12 year old...Cranler