they are hurting GM and Ford! Look at their stock prices!!!

with pre-used games, who makes the money? the store, not the industry. So, if there is only demand of two actual new copies, but they are selling the used copies like mad, only gamestop/eb games is making money. buying used games is bad for the gaming industry as the gaming companies don't get the money from it.



DON'T BUY USED GAMES....over and out

His point seemed to be that there are stores that are promoting their used copies as new, ripping off customers and the rest of the industry while making an additional few bucks.



And to that extent I agree, it is very misleading and is a bad business practice. But beyond that, saying used games hurts the industry, is too extreme of a view for me to even consider. And as I am tired I will leave it at that rather then spend more time on a rant.

My main point is the fact that EB Games/GameStop sell new games with them ALREADY OPENED!! Used games aren't hurting the gaming industry because they were bought new at one point you know!!!! This is just completely absurd that used games should never exist. The game stores need to make money to stay open. This guy is just a douche bag who has money and doesn't see the point of SAVING MONEY!!!

I'm not particularily saddened by the fact that multi-million dollar companies do not get my sixty dollars. Call me cold-hearted. Or just middle-class.



Besides-- don't stores buy them from the game developers and publishers anyway? In order to truly support the industry you'd have to walk into the EA(example) warehouse and hand them your money and walk out with the game.

GM and Ford also make money off of replacement parts and services as well. Game developers, once the game is made, do not have any other ways to make money (besides DLC of course).



So, I see his point, but for a consumer it benefits to have choices like Gamestop.

First-off, I think QJ has done a little bit of disservice to the main comment that the developer made (that stores should not be re-packaging Used as if it were New). I would agree that Used (on a $60 game) should always start around $10 cheaper. However, the more severe notion that Used games automatically equate to profit-loss for a Studio is 100% BS. 1) Not everyone will be able to constantly afford buying brand-new $60 games. 2) But for those that can, it makes the investment of $60 seem more logical if there is believed to be a reasonable Resale value in the product. 3) For those who do buy Used (just as with music or movies), it might expose someone to that Studio's product (who might otherwise not have done so) and encourage them to buy that Studio's NEXT release as New. 4) Lastly, something big is being omitted here: printing software is the next most lucrative thing to printing money. Once you invest in the original development of the software, making replicas is essentially gravy. It's not like these Studios are in the business of making homes. That would take real raw materials and continued man-hours and effort to produce more homes. Software? --Just fire up the presses for another printing. Yes, there is some cost. But nowhere near what it costs for "real" products. --That's why they call it "IP" (Intellectual Property); because it's NOT physical property.

The title of this artcile is wrong. Do devs make LESS money because of re-sells? Yes. Do they make LESS money because of RENTALS? Yes.



Are they HURT by it? Hell NO!!!!



Games have been available for rent for as long as I can remember. I'd say more people rent then buy used games. So this artcile is attacking the wrong industry. GameFly is making much more then Gamestop on game rentals.



With that said, the gaming industry has been doing just fine for the past 18+ years.

Yeah - selling used games as new is a disgusting practice, and while used game sales as a whole do hurt the industry a bit, I'll stop buying used games when a new game doesn't cost me a hundred Australian dollars or more a pop. I can see fifty movies (ok.. with my friend's employee discount :P) for that price.

dev's make games and games are sold so dev's earn money. Thats normal.

I buy a game for 60 bucks and find its' not to my liking, or I play once or twice and decide I want something new. I therefore sell my game second hand.

I am always in favour of the lowest price for the consumer (me) but I also want value for my money. As games are expensive then I try to be selective and have no worries about second hand. However for myself I have never bought a game second hand in a store! I normally buy from another gamer and have on occasion swapped what I have purchased with someone else. This I also see as normal. I bought a racing game and just got fed up with it. Another gamer has a shooter but likes racing. Fair swap, no one suffers, 2 buyers 2 games and 2 happy clients. What dev's must remember even though I support some of their arguments is that not all gamers buy every game.

"Are they HURT by it? Hell NO!!!!"



How on earth can you say that they do make less money, but they're not hurt by it? Making less money is HOW THEY'RE HURT BY IT.

I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if the distributors could force the stores to only sell new games for a certain period of time before selling the used copies. Sounds like something that could be written into a distribution contract.



I do know that EB/GameStop makes a mint off their pre-played discs (I used to work in EB's refurbishing facility when it was in West Chester, PA). The stores buy the games back at low cost. Only if the discs are badly scratched do they send the discs back to the refurbishment center, and those take pennies to refurbish per disc. Based on that I can see EB/GameStop not agreeing with a cessation of used sales, but they might be able to be convinced to delay used game sales.