GameStop Wants to Sell... Pre-Owned Software Keys?

[xtc28]

Our margins on new games are better than you think. And our margins on used/pre-owned games are no where near that of Gamestop. It is not the markup that Gamestop has that I'm fighting for. Just the right to be able to sell said product. I agree that their prices can be overwhelming, which I use as a sales tactic. The fact is they can set their own prices and they just that. If you don't like it go to their competition.

 

[xtc28]

I guess I must say this again.

The devs would not get said royalty payment as it would go to the publisher. The publishers are the parasites. Us consumers along with companies such as Gamestop and identify are more like symbiotes in mutually beneficial relationships. The fact that some publishers release trash and refuse to let us sell what we purchased is rediculous. Here is the the issue. These gaming companies are just like any other tech company, they develop a technology and then use that technology to create a product. When we buy the product it is the product that we own not the technology that was used to create it. Therefor we own the product. As with any product we purchase we own that product and have the right to sell it. In the case of licensing for use of a product......... This should not be allowed unless the purchased software is used to create another product in which the intended creation directly relies on the software licensed. Now since we are not licensing the game engine to create a new game but we are purchasing the end product we should have the right to claim ownership of our individual copy of said purchase. This is not saying that we own the technology or the game itself, but the copy we bought. Just as we purchase a flat screen TV. That individual unit becomes the purchasers property after the exchange of currency. Again we didn't purchase the patent for the technology itself but an individual unit of an end product that becomes the purchasers property, Therefore when the owner sees fit to sell the property that is owned it is

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]xtc28[/nom]The only reason the game prices drop is for volume sales. More sales at a lower price means more money. companies are there to make money. Period...[/citation]
So use that business degree to work out that if a publisher gets sales 3 times higher because every sale goes to them, that the new retail price drops for everyone
...
And again, many thanks for stooping to childish name calling, you disagreed with the maths just to make a point but didn't say if you agreed with the principle, obviously not

 

[xtc28]

Are you a developer?
The principle is true only in theory. I am not arguing that in a perfect honest world that it would work the way suggested, but in businesses that thrive in corporate environments with monopolies that is never the case. Prices continue to climb. Consumer rights must mean nothing to people like you. I just don't get it. If you think that prices will go down if you roommate the competition you are wrong. Now they have no competition and can charge whatever they want.

 

[SDSUMarcus01]

[citation][nom]xtc28[/nom]I guess I must say this again. The devs would not get said royalty payment as it would go to the publisher. The publishers are the parasites. Us consumers along with companies such as Gamestop and identify are more like symbiotes in mutually beneficial relationships. The fact that some publishers release trash and refuse to let us sell what we purchased is rediculous. Here is the the issue. These gaming companies are just like any other tech company, they develop a technology and then use that technology to create a product. When we buy the product it is the product that we own not the technology that was used to create it. Therefor we own the product. As with any product we purchase we own that product and have the right to sell it. In the case of licensing for use of a product......... This should not be allowed unless the purchased software is used to create another product in which the intended creation directly relies on the software licensed. Now since we are not licensing the game engine to create a new game but we are purchasing the end product we should have the right to claim ownership of our individual copy of said purchase. This is not saying that we own the technology or the game itself, but the copy we bought. Just as we purchase a flat screen TV. That individual unit becomes the purchasers property after the exchange of currency. Again we didn't purchase the patent for the technology itself but an individual unit of an end product that becomes the purchasers property, Therefore when the owner sees fit to sell the property that is owned it is[/citation]

Game publishers are often intertwined with developers and maintain their own internal development departments. Other times, they often finance the development of a video game. As such, they retain, substantially, the risk in the development of the game. As such, I don't believe your comment about royalties being paid to developers is relevant. The publisher is the one taking the risk and financing the production.

As for your comment about trash, free markets are effective at dealing with low quality products. Nobody buys them once they learn that they are low quality. I don't see how being able to resell crappy games does anything to prevent crappy games from being made. If anything, trying to dump crappy games on other unsuspecting consumers sounds a whole lot like what happened during the initial stages of the mortgage crises, but that's digressing.

Overall, as a whole, I disagree with relating used games to other used items because of durability and the frequency of resales. Since you own your video game store, you know how quickly some video games are resold, and that they can often be resold several times over.

Used video games are also one of the few items that you are allowed to sell on the same premises as new items. You are not allowed to sell new movies and used movies in the same store.

Can you answer a question to me honestly, if you had to choose between only selling new games or only selling used games, which would you choose? Please base your answer on business reasons only, and not ideology over rights.

 

[SDSUMarcus01]

[citation][nom]xtc28[/nom]Are you a developer?The principle is true only in theory. I am not arguing that in a perfect honest world that it would work the way suggested, but in businesses that thrive in corporate environments with monopolies that is never the case. Prices continue to climb. Consumer rights must mean nothing to people like you. I just don't get it. If you think that prices will go down if you roommate the competition you are wrong. Now they have no competition and can charge whatever they want.[/citation]

Used games don't create true competition because you have a single product competing with itself. Competition comes from different products and different manufacturers. Game studios compete with other game studios. You compete with other game stores. You are not competing with game studios because you don't make video games (unless you do and haven't mentioned that).

As it stands now, the more risky a venture is, the less people are interested in entering the market. I'm of the opinion that video games have become increasingly risky with decreasing payouts. I base this on reviewing EA, THQ, and Ubisoft's annual reports over the past few years.

Eliminating used games would give studios more chances to capture the market meaning less risk. This would make it more appealing for competitors to enter the market, and thus increase overall competition and better prices.

 

[xtc28]

If I had to choose one or the other it would be new games. There are many incentives that my business gets for selling new games. The only incentive for selling used games is lower overhead cost. The incentives I get are there specifically to deter used sales and promotion of a companies end product. Yes the video game industry is getting very risky. This is because of a highly fragmented industry not used games sales. The publishing companies see used games as threat because if they weren't there then they would get that revenue in place of others they have lost due to the continued fragmentation of the industry.

Also I will apologize to back by demand for calling him a moron.

 

[xtc28]

Now by your logic used games sales don't create true competition. Then tell me why is it that publishers push for banning of used game sales. Competition that's why. There is no other explanation. Other than greed. As for other software---
In the case of licensing for use of a product......... This should not be allowed unless the purchased software is used to create another product in which the intended creation directly relies on the software licensed. This includes office software, Autodesk, adobe, and so on. I am not advocating resell of these types of programs. Only games since they are the end product of a technology and not to be used in creation of new products. Now the line gets a bit blurred when it comes to MMO-RPG games where you can produce in game items for real profit. I believe these should not be transferable.

 

[SDSUMarcus01]

[citation][nom]xtc28[/nom]Now by your logic used games sales don't create true competition. Then tell me why is it that publishers push for banning of used game sales. Competition that's why.[/citation]

I said it's not true competition in the way that most effectively stimulates price equilibriums. Used games drastically limit the pool of potential customers because one a gamer has played a used game, there is very little reason to buy a new game. This limits their ability to price their games lower to capture those with more elasticity of demand in the future. Companies now need to price their games higher in an attempt to capture as much as they can from the initial sales of a game.

This is quite different from the standard free market competition that I believe you are thinking of.

 

[xtc28]

No. I know exactly what you mean. I never said I didn't I am simply stating that there are more angles to be looked at.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]xtc28[/nom]Are you a developer?The principle is true only in theory. I am not arguing that in a perfect honest world that it would work the way suggested, but in businesses that thrive in corporate environments with monopolies that is never the case. Prices continue to climb. Consumer rights must mean nothing to people like you. I just don't get it. If you think that prices will go down if you roommate the competition you are wrong. Now they have no competition and can charge whatever they want.[/citation]
Plenty of competition, there are enough studios, publishers, developers, etc already, they compete with each other. And it's not a theory, every single one of these competing entities has games out on Steam and they prove that a lower sale generates a higher revenue.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/02/20/valve-steam-is-making-us-rich/1

Discount offers over short periods have a huge impact too, apparently. That recent half-price weekend on Left 4 Dead? That caused a 3000 percent increase in sales, plus a 1600 percent increase in Steam registrations.

By analysing the figures Valve's been able to make some interesting predictions too. A 10 percent price reduction creates an average income increase (not just in sales) of 35 percent, while a 25 percent discount gives an increase of 245 percent. 50 percent discounts create average increases of 320 percent, while a price slash of 75 percent off will push income up by a staggering 1470 percent.

The single most impressive figure though is that one (unfortunately unnamed) third-party game saw an increase in sales of 36,000 percent in a single sale weekend. Wow.

I will reiterate the point, if a game is only bought from the publisher once, then spends the next 6 months going from person to person as a used item, the retail cost of games will only ever stay high, the number of game studios/publishers/developers will decrease as no-one has the money to keep making games anymore and choice and quality will diminish.
...
Yes, I understand the point about what you think are your consumer rights, but there is something called "cutting your nose off to spite your face" and that is a classic example.

 

[eddieroolz]

The pre-owned license key is a nifty idea, but I don't see the publishers and developers signing on, and even if they did, they'd have to sell games cheaper than Steam can.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]xtc28[/nom]If I had to choose one or the other it would be new games. There are many incentives that my business gets for selling new games. The only incentive for selling used games is lower overhead cost. The incentives I get are there specifically to deter used sales and promotion of a companies end product. Yes the video game industry is getting very risky. This is because of a highly fragmented industry not used games sales. The publishing companies see used games as threat because if they weren't there then they would get that revenue in place of others they have lost due to the continued fragmentation of the industry. Also I will apologize to back by demand for calling him a moron.[/citation]
Thanks dude, wasn't that hard was it? I concede that there is a trust issue around some publishers, that if the number of sales increases would they drop prices accordingly? I wouldn't trust EA as far as I could throw it, but if they were man enough to make the first step and release their next AAA title at $30 instead of $60, but somehow enforced a single copy per user, how many additional sales would it create? Steam already has these figures at around 320% increase and the only people unhappy are the ones making bank from multiple used resale. Retail of course is much different from digital distribution so maybe they should do an experiment and have 2 versions of the same game in the retail channel at the same time, one version at $30 for single use only and one at $60 that can be traded in. I don't think anyone has done that before and it would be very interesting to see where it goes.

In the end customers don't care about sales rights, a single customer might, but customers as a whole only care about one thing - is it cheaper, will it cost me less money?

 

[xtc28]

I agree that people care more about the price but I disagree about them not caring about sales rights. Yes I make money on pre-owned game sales, but it would behoove me as a retail games dealer to sale nothing but new games. My customers on the other hand will.be greatly disappointed that they can't trade in their old games against a new purchase. A very large percentage of my customers are kids with no real income. They rely on game trades and used game sales. As do many other customers. I don't agree with the thought process of having to spend all a person has to play the game. The counter argument is if you don't have the money you can't play. I have drawings where I give away used games daily. If this comes about where games are non transferable this won't be a possibility. I know that I am one of very few that may do this, but the same thing applies if I wanted to give my brother or other person one of my games I no longer play. Then it's locked to me and they will never even get to play it unless they pay.

 

[zak_mckraken]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]The pre-owned license key is a nifty idea, but I don't see the publishers and developers signing on, and even if they did, they'd have to sell games cheaper than Steam can.[/citation]
If such a scenario ever exists, they could at least receive some kind of loyalties, which is not possible with the actual used games market. It would be about the same as buying music online.