MOBAFire's second Mini Guide Contest of Season 14 is here! Create or update guides for the 30 featured champions and compete for up to $200 in prizes! 🏆
Doing away with used games is unlikely to change the price of new games, and Total Biscuit did not ever state or imply that it would.
What Total Biscuit did say is that doing away with used games is likely to result in more sales on console games, deeper sales on console games, and earlier sales on console games. The net result of which is that it will be possible to acquire cheap console games even if used copies aren't available. I doubt TB actually thinks that the removal of used games is going to impact the day one price of most console games, however; while it certainly could (if removing used games results in better profits), people are used to US$60 games on day one and will continue to pay it, so there's little incentive for companies to change that price.
As to why used games are sold aggressively at Gamestop and similar stores, the reason is simply profit margin. Why sell someone a new copy of the game, on which you'll make US$10 or less, when you could sell a used copy, on which you'll make US$20? Especially if the used copy is cheaper for the consumer, as pretty much no consumer is going to pass up paying less for basically the same product. The cost of new games has something to do with it (in that perhaps fewer people buy new games), but is ultimately not actually relevant; Gamestop would aggressively sell used copies no matter what the price points actually are, as long as the company makes more money by doing so.
Also, to address Darcurse's first reply in this thread, you're actually wrong. The aggressive sale of used games directly impacts how much money the developers can make off of their game. If the developers cannot make as much money, they are not able to spend as much money making their game or supporting it after the fact. So:
What Total Biscuit did say is that doing away with used games is likely to result in more sales on console games, deeper sales on console games, and earlier sales on console games. The net result of which is that it will be possible to acquire cheap console games even if used copies aren't available. I doubt TB actually thinks that the removal of used games is going to impact the day one price of most console games, however; while it certainly could (if removing used games results in better profits), people are used to US$60 games on day one and will continue to pay it, so there's little incentive for companies to change that price.
As to why used games are sold aggressively at Gamestop and similar stores, the reason is simply profit margin. Why sell someone a new copy of the game, on which you'll make US$10 or less, when you could sell a used copy, on which you'll make US$20? Especially if the used copy is cheaper for the consumer, as pretty much no consumer is going to pass up paying less for basically the same product. The cost of new games has something to do with it (in that perhaps fewer people buy new games), but is ultimately not actually relevant; Gamestop would aggressively sell used copies no matter what the price points actually are, as long as the company makes more money by doing so.
Also, to address Darcurse's first reply in this thread, you're actually wrong. The aggressive sale of used games directly impacts how much money the developers can make off of their game. If the developers cannot make as much money, they are not able to spend as much money making their game or supporting it after the fact. So:
- As there is at least a loose correlation between the money spent making a game and its quality, it's reasonable to conclude that the aggressive sale of used games probably does result in worse games.
- As online services and tech support services cost money, it's reasonable to conclude that the aggressive sale of used games probably does result in inferior online services for games at launch.
- As the cost of developing large, AAA titles is not decreasing, it's reasonable to conclude that the aggressive sale of used games probably has resulted in higher day one prices on video games.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
lifebaka wrote:
Doing away with used games is unlikely to change the price of new games, and Total Biscuit did not ever state or imply that it would.
What Total Biscuit did say is that doing away with used games is likely to result in more sales on console games, deeper sales on console games, and earlier sales on console games. The net result of which is that it will be possible to acquire cheap console games even if used copies aren't available. I doubt TB actually thinks that the removal of used games is going to impact the day one price of most console games, however; while it certainly could (if removing used games results in better profits), people are used to US$60 games on day one and will continue to pay it, so there's little incentive for companies to change that price.
Ah, that might be true. I took away from it that games would become cheaper in any case.
We're already seeing prices of 40€(1$=1€ with most Steam games) day 1 on digital AAA games like Remember Me on Steam. All games will probably not sink to this price point, but it does seem pretty likely that a few big names will be debuting at below 60$/€.
Quoted:
Also, to address Darcurse's first reply in this thread, you're actually wrong. The aggressive sale of used games directly impacts how much money the developers can make off of their game. If the developers cannot make as much money, they are not able to spend as much money making their game or supporting it after the fact. So:
- As there is at least a loose correlation between the money spent making a game and its quality, it's reasonable to conclude that the aggressive sale of used games probably does result in worse games.
- As online services and tech support services cost money, it's reasonable to conclude that the aggressive sale of used games probably does result in inferior online services for games at launch.
- As the cost of developing large, AAA titles is not decreasing, it's reasonable to conclude that the aggressive sale of used games probably has resulted in higher day one prices on video games.
Precisely.
"We've had a few gloomy years with bad console ports, and what do we get in the light at the end of the console-tunnel? A tablet OS ported to PC." - Atlas Tasume, on Windows 8
xXShadowAssassinXx
<Member>
<Member>
people are angry at microsoft because this is ahead of the current time, and the way theyre doing it is making people angry too
yes its good as a businessman but as someone like say me that has to get food with food stamps and such due to financial problems i -cant- buy games new i have to get the used
yes its good as a businessman but as someone like say me that has to get food with food stamps and such due to financial problems i -cant- buy games new i have to get the used
Thanks to TheNamelessBard for the signature
You need to log in before commenting.
Aggressive sale of used game -> high prices on new games.
Either by gaming industry trying to counter the lose they made through the sale of used games or by GS and friends artificially blowing them up simply because they have the "dominance" to do it.
That's what he subliminally introduced.
And I just countered that statement taking Blizz as the poster child.
And your reasoning is still not working.
He did that subliminally? How so?
I remember him clearly saying that we might see a drop in standard pricing with the death of used games and the advent of digital sales.
You've got it the wrong way around.
We don't have high prices because of used games, they're just REMAINING high because of it AND other factors.