Topic: Next XBox: always online, no used games

Used games help the industry. Gamestop also sells new games, and is one of the primary retailers that people flock to when it comes to brand new games. People get in-store credit when they sell their games to Gamestop, which they can (and, according to the company's mouth, often) use in the purchase of a brand new game by the consumer. If used games didn't happen, then people wouldn't bother with the system for the simple fact that they can't use the money they got off of selling their games to directly buy a game in the store (since the in-store credit they get is greater than the direct cash they can get, not to mention power-up rewards points and the like). Games would not sell as well, meaning that Publishers, in particular Microsoft, wouldn't get as much money, since Microsoft makes a lot of money off of third party sales. That's without taking into account how used games lead to greater brand awareness (lots of people get into a series starting used. Once they know they like it, they then buy the next in the series new.)

Looks like we can all count on Sony and Microsoft to invent new reasons to buy a Wii U.

As much as you hate me to say this....wut?

lol exactly, be it from piracy or used game, one can not be the worse then the other because either way a developer dont see any money from both pratice, so both are equally bad if one is to lump these 2 together.

its just used game option is legal compared to piracy if i understand it correctly. take away a safe legal option to force another onto the customers, then bye bye "extra profit they could andi mean COULD" make

Think of it this way.

Piracy = You steal a game. No physical product or anything, but it's still digital theft. Nobody makes any profit.
Used games (for new consoles, not collectables and stuff like that) = A game sits on the shelf, someone chooses a used game for $5 cheaper, the game makers the same profit in piracy, but now someone is profiting off of that.

Considering someone else is making a profit, I'd argue that's worse. Also moomoo, you raise a valid point, but

A. You sell that game, it's put back on the shelf for more used games. Not much help. And with those trade-in calues, it's like one new game sale for every 4 used games.
B. GameStop deliberately makes a monopoly off of used games because they make more profit off of that. That's why almost all promotions are based off of pre-owned games.
C. I acknowledged consoles wouldn't sell as well. Games would have the exact same sales numbers, or higher, because used games don't count towards game sales since the devs and publishers don't profit in any way.

@rayword45 what about games that have been out for more than 4 months? Most of the sales numbers for games can be found within the first four months of release, with the exception of obvious ones that last a while like Nintendo mainstrays, Halo, and somehow Call of Duty. For many game series used games are quite beneficial to the publisher. Take people purchasing Assassin's Creed 2 pre-owned a year or two after the game's release and then buying AC3 at release day. If the pre-owned game wasn't available, with all the benefits of cheaper price and consumer rewards intact, then that purchase would not have been made towards the predecessor nor Assassin's Creed 3.

Also, based on all the Gamestop newsletters I've received, Gamestop heavily advertises new games. Heck, just look at any of their stores. They're probably advertising Dead Space 3 in the window.

As for games selling as well... they wouldn't. People wouldn't be buying as many games since they're going to be pretty expensive, meaning that they become less dedicated to the console, thus meaning they're less likely to buy more games. There's a reason why Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft try to find incentives for users to turn their systems on or, in the case of the handhelds, bring them around is to make the user constantly want something to use the system for. Streetpass and the like incites people to take out their 3DS systems, reminding them that they can use it to play games, like Fire Emblem Awakening.
An even better example, however, lies in Steam sales. People, by purchasing more games through cheap games on Steam, are using Steam more. This means they are playing games more, maximizing the potential for users to be interested in buying something brand new. Steam revived PC gaming by crafting millions of dedicated PC games through easy to get games. There wouldn't be nearly as many PC gamers if Steam wasn't around giving cheap options for consumers. If games were only new on MS's system, then the amount of dedicated users would not be as high as on Sony's or Nintendo's systems. That is, unless Microsoft decides to act like Valve in regards to business practices. I doubt that'll happen though.

Do you have any proof of this at all? Aside from what GameStop itself says - which has a vested interest in proving used games are good for the industry. That is what we in journalism call a bad source.

There's a big problem with your logic. Someone has to buy the new game in order for a used game to exist. No one has to buy a new game to get it pirated.

Additionally, 1 new game could = 5 used sales, whereas 1 new game could = 1000s of pirated copies.

Also, you must have forgotten about that man in Europe (forgot his name) who got arrested for selling pirated copies of games. He profited (until his arrest of course).

Explain how used games are worse again.

Bah, Rayword hasn't done a good job of explaining himself, but he has a point.

The simple reality is that with used games retailers make greater margin than selling new games. That means that there is incentive for retailers to sell the second-hand copy of the game rather than the new one.

In Australia, EB Games has a loyalty card - get points for buying stuff and so on. You get 1 point per dollar for new games, and 2 points per dollar for second hand games. EB Games is actively encouraging people to buy the second hand game.

It's on the shelf, right next to the new game, and EB Games (and other retailers) are telling people "buy this! It's cheaper and you get more points for doing so).

It becomes a passive choice for many people to buy the second hand game - there's essential no real reason to buy the game new.

Pirating games meanwhile is an active choice. A person has to actively hunt out the game to steal it. That kind of person is never going to buy a game.

So yes, it is worse for a second hand game to take money away from people who would buy a game new, than for someone who would never give money in the first place to steal it. The piracy is someone that developers have to live with because it's unavoidable. There will always be a small percentage of people that steal. The second hand games are actively taking money away from the industry (retailers aside).

Used games were once new. The game developers did get money from that copy at one point. Also, once someone buys a game, they should be able to sell it or do whatever they want with it..

Pirates games were once new. Where do you think people got the files?

And people who sell pirated games? Do you realize how rare that is? To compare that to used games is completely unfair.

First off, when I buy a physical game, it's my property, not anyone elses. If I want to sell it, I have the right to, just like I have the right to sell other objects that I own. Also, the idea that we shouldn't be allowed to sell used games just seems too overbearing and infringes on my personal freedoms..

I've got no problem with people selling used games. That's the second hand trade.

The problem that most consumers consistently fail to realise is that when a second hand game is sold by a retailer that also stocks new games, and that second hand game is cheaper than the new game, then the retailer is directly competing with the game publisher.

And, frankly, the game publisher and developer - the people who, y'know, make the game, shouldn't have to compete with their own flipping games to keep the doors open.

You're not understanding at all. No one is saying that you shouldn't have the right to sell your own games. What we are saying is that game publishers have every right to make competitive decisions to deal with retailers and individuals who are undercutting their business.

And for the record, no one is stopping you selling your games if a console blocks a second hand game. It's just that the person that you're selling it to is going to feel ripped off.

As they should.

I'm iffy about this. While no used games is good for the developers and such. There's no denying the used game
market is huge. I myself prefer to buy games new, however many people rather not. Microsoft is taking a huge risk if they go through with this.

I'd stop buying games if I cant sell them, similar reason I am not into downloading, I want exchange or resale value from my purchases. Also, as I collect retro games, second hand is the only way to get them!

Oh sorry.. I guess I misread a few statements up there.. IMO I agree that a publisher or other game company should be allowed to do some stuff to keep competitive with used games sellers..

Thats kind of rediculous, it's like saying no one is preventing you from pirating games. I can't sell a game if I know it won't work.

Yeah, know one with half a brain would buy it, and I don't know how you can feel good about yourself if someone did.

So not only would you need internet to play the system, you must have membership in order to use it? even if it is a rumor I still wouldn't want a xbox.