The real cost of used games is the damage that is being wrought on the creativity and variety of games available to the consumer, and it's directly a result of these practices. Developers and publishers alike now spend many hours working on constructs, systems and game design elements to try and eliminate the churn of a game. Whether this be online passes, copious amounts of DLC, or gating mechanisms, one thing is for sure - it doesn't benefit the consumer. Do I really want to have to type in a token code when I buy a game? No, you've just added annoyance and friction to my experience. But more to the point - do I really want talented studios spending their time designing and implementing this rather than polishing the game? No, I really don't. But there's a much bigger, much more expensive way of trying to stop churn and it's the one that everyone has flooded to. - Industry veteran Richard Browne

They'd be doing these same practices though even if we didn't buy games used.

They should be worrying more about piracy: buying an already bought game is no where near as bad as completing pirating a game.

It is equally bad. The companies and developers don't get any money either way.

Someone would've had to buy it if it's in a used game store.

Someone would have had to have bought it to rip it for the internet, too.

I have friends that don't have the money to buy new games like I do so they have to get used if they want to play.

Also I have a question for you Johnny, are you fine with people buying used games that are no longer in production?

How about we tweak the question a bit.

Are you fine with people pirating games that are no longer in production?

Yes to both. I mean, it's still illegal as piracy and I don't really CONDONE it, but... if there's no other option, I'd be a hypocrite to blame. I mean, I've got EarthBound and I sure as hell didn't pay for it.

And of course buying used games that are no longer in production or otherwise available is peachy-keen. The companies won't be making a profit either way.

I only get used games if they're out of production. I don't like adding filthyass games to my collection.

I have to agree. Developers just want used game stores dead so they can make gamers pay for old games again via Virtual Console, PSN, Xbox Arcade, etc. That's why I pirate older games.

I'll only pay for a game again if it fixes up the original's irks and keeps it fresh, but releasing the exact same game again is blasphemy.

Or at the least, be able to download it once then be able to transfer/redownload it to future devices under the same account for free, once they know you're the same person.

Developers don't have much of a problem with used games when they're old games - insofar as I can tell. The problem is people buying used NEW games. If a game isn't successful out of the gate... it may or may not be screwed.

This is why I see consoles in the future being download-only, like what was initially rumored for the next gen PS Orbis console... or was it the XBOX "720"? I mean, it may not be the case for next gen, but I fear we will eventually get to that point.

This is why I stick with Nintendo consoles.

930s - "Radio is killing live music!"
1950s - "Television is killing the theater business!"
1970s - "VCRs are killing the movie business!"
1980s - "Home taping is killing the music business!"
1990s - "Used CDs are killing the music business!"
2000s - "File sharing is killing everything!"
2010s - "Used games are killing the game industry!"

Keep crying wolf entertainment industry.


Some guy on Gamespot in the comment section said this and it's completely true

The only things there that really apply are home videos (which have contributed to the decline of theatres), file sharing (which is piracy and I think we all agree is a massive problem), and used CDs (which I'm not familiar with).

Where does "video killed the radio star" fit in?

That could also be thrown in for the 80's

The whole idea that individuals aren't entitled to share something they buy is asinine. Be happy capitalism works both ways; Sony, for example, will go bankrupt for taking anti-consumerist measures with the PS4. It's easy for them to say "used games aren't profitable", but people will boycott the console unless they have access to used games.

I severely doubt it. I expect the PS4 would be equally successful and more profitable than the PS3.

I thought the bit about the PS4 not taking used games was a false rumor?

This^

This might not be a thought out opinion but, I love being able to buy older games from second-hand or discount stores. Sometimes you can find a game that is 'rare' to an extent or is no longer in production. I don't think that they will put EVERY game that ever existed (to an extent) in downloadable form. I can see that they would be loosing a little profits here and there, but does it matter that much? I feel like they gain profit of downloadable copies of games and extra-content that you can purchase for you avatar, etc. In addition, people who do not have a lot of money have the ability to purchase an older game for a lower price.

Think of it as 'we don't gain money for used games, but let's squeeze even more profit that we couldn't do before by making people pay more for old games they've owned before'

People just need to be more selective with their purchases. If something isn't worth $60 to them, they shouldn't buy it and wait until the price drops. It's no different than today. Budget yourself - don't complain about not wanting to buy something that is being sold to you as a product. Either you want it enough to pay what its producer asks or you don't.

Unless the price never drops, like with Nintendo, in which case you're screwed!

Feels like classic capitalism.

This sentence cannot be stressed enough.

I suppose that's true in some ways. I am usually very selective in the games that I buy; I rarely buy them.

Then software sales would drop for another reason other than used games :P

Yeah, but profits would stay even or increase. Thus is the goal.

*sigh*

Not necessarily. Hardware sales are just as important, and I know several people, including me, who would reject any console that forbids them from playing used games. As proven by the PS3, strong software sales aren't enough to save a sinking ship. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony left the gaming industry altogether within the next few years.

Hardware sales are nowhere near as important as software sales - each console sold for Sony is at a loss. The more they sell the worse off they are. It's software where they get the profits.

They'd rather you buy one of their products at retail than five used. If they lose four used buyers in the process that's still better overall.

They lose four used, buy don't necessarily gain four retail. There are some games which toe the line between great and excellent which people just can't find reason enough to buy new.

It'll only make the AAA mentality even worse, with people only picking 0.1% of the top and everything else getting ignored.

If there is a game that I want and in my budget, I'll get it new, unless it's like a Gamecube game, where you can't buy new. I think used games should stay, but just for older systems.

Yeah, but production of the console also costs them money. It's a lose lose situation.

Exactly - there's five gamers who buy used all the time. They switch to no used games. They lose four customers, but gain one who now buys games new - that is a profit for them. They neither need nor want customers who buy used games.

And yes, producing and selling the console is a loss. If they didn't sell software it wouldn't EVER turn a profit - production costs on consoles are way above what people are willing to buy them for. Which is why someone buying a console (so Sony loses money) and then not buying new games (so Sony never gets that money back) is the worst case scenario.

If there's one thing about technology it's that things always start off expensive and then get cheaper and cheaper after a replacement has been made for it. Prices of hardware components and the methods used to make them depreciate with time. Most companies sell the hardware at a loss, and then they 'start making profit' from the hardware sales a few years after release.

I wouldn't necessarily count on that. Yes, Sony has lost a lot of money from the PS3, but that's because there were so much into the first several models of the system including backwards compatibility with PS1 and PS2 games, effectively making three systems in one. Couple that with the fact that it can read CDs, DVDs and - bigger still - blue-rays, and you've got yourself a beast system that costs less than it actually should, even at 600 U.S. dollars, when other blue-ray players at the time - keeping in mind that they play ONLY blue-rays - cost around 500-1000 U.S. dollars. So a backwards compatible PS3 with all the works, and the fact you can go online with it was a real steal at $600. This is why they removed backwards compatibility, to make the system more affordable to manufacture, and they can sell it for a lower price and not lose profit, especially with blue-ray players being more standard, and thus more affordable. Yes, Sony has lost money (approximately $200 U.S. per console sold), but it's not something they cannot recover from, and there's a good chance they'll be in the console wars for much longer, provided they make the right decisions with the PS4/Orbis and not add too many unnecessary things to it, like being able to do taxes, make phone calls, or things along those lines. If they can keep it mostly as a gaming console, they'll survive.

Bottom line is I'm a 60-40 New-Used buyer and I think people like me are important for Sony to please, and if they'd go completely used free for a system I wouldn't buy it because I WILL Buy new but not all the damn time I just buy new games a little more than used.

Who strictly buys used anyways? Many times that $5 for the new copy is well worth it.