Perhaps the retailers and the game companies should begin pricing games based on sound market concepts like "demand" rather than a static price for every new game. Of course EA is starting to take note- many of their latest games are dropping to $40 and $50, but it may be too little too late. As long as the used market is the only place for gamers to pay what they perceive as the true worth of the game, the used market will continue to exist.
5 years from now none of it may matter, if the concept of a packaged game goes away, which it likely will.

@LJ So you're saying that if games were $10 cheaper people wouldn't buy used games, even if they were cheaper? I highly doubt that.

Many new titles are priced around $5 cheaper for used copies, and they sell like hotcakes. I think it's less about musing over "perceived worth" than "what is the cheapest price I can find at the time that I want to buy?"

If there were a significant savings, I could at least understand the impulse. But choosing not to support a developer over a lousy fin is nuts.

I noticed that all the games pictured are PS2. Hmmmmmmm

There's a lot of pressure on buying used copies when you go to a store, too -- try and buy a new one, and they'll immediately note "Hey, we have a used copy for $(x-5), would you like that instead?"

That's kind of already been there on Amazon as well, through the "More Buying Choices" sidebar, and Amazon's just automating more parts of the process now. It'll be interesting to see if they try and be more aggressive with pushing the used copies, though, now that they have more of a vested interest in it -- I could see them sticking in a "Have you considered these used options..." interstitial page when you go and try to add a new copy to your cart.

Valve's L4D sale shows publishers have only one correct choice: digital distribution and lower prices. I have no doubt there will be a lot of the stuff Tom suggests (especially harsh language) before critical mass gets on the digital distribution bandwagon.

"In fact, they'll lose the money they would have made when someone buys your used copy from Gamestop instead of the brand new $60 copy sitting on the new releases shelf."

Come on Tom. It's not that simple and you know it.

For example, do you take that money from Dead Space and buy another game? Would the guy who bought your copy of Dead Space used buy a full price new one in the complete absence of used ones? Etc.

"Valve's L4D sale shows publishers have only one correct choice: digital distribution and lower prices."

I don't like Steam and DD because I do like selling my games when I am done with them. Yes this goes for Valve games. I would've gotten rid of Orange Box by now (beat Portal, don't like TF2, hated HLE2), I would've gotten rid of DoD Source (over it), I would've gotten rid of a few other games I bought on the service. But I'm stuck with them. I don't think I am the only one, and this is outside of a formalized selling process like GameStop provides (I only trade in to GS when they offer deals).

Replace "videogame" with anything else, the anti-used-games argument comes off as utterly insane.

"When you sell that pair of jeans you no longer need, Levi's won't see another dime. In fact, they'll lose the money they would have made when someone buys your used jeans from a secondhand shop instead of the brand new $20 pair sitting on the rack."

@Joshua
"Would the guy who bought your copy of Dead Space used buy a full price new one in the complete absence of used ones?"
If that guy is the one buying it for $5 less a week after it comes out, yes.

I've perused many a bargain bin in my day, so I get wanting a deal. But the difference is that the price drops I found would come after the initial buying frenzy had worn off, i.e. the period when most games make most of their money.

What's happening now is that used games are cannibalizing new sales almost immediately, resulting in no money for the publisher/developer, a meager reduction in cost for the consumer, and 90% profit for the retailer.

@ Zeus
How many people wear their new jeans for only a week or a month? And how many department stores have stalls from secondhand shops next to their own displays, selling almost pristine used jeans for a minor price break?

You have to account for *all* the circumstances, not just that both products are “used.”

This could be the single most important fork in the road for videogaming. Are videogames like movies, jeans, books, and cars in that we physically own them when we buy them? Or are they services we pay to access?

The people who sell you videogames have a vested interest in the former. The people who make and publish videogames have a vested interest in the latter. And historically, the people who sell you videogames -- the retailers -- have held all the cards. It seems the rest of the industry has finally figured out how to get those cards back: digital distribution, but only on the PC. Retailers are probably going to keep their stranglehold on the console market for the foreseeable future.

It's a huge issue and it's going to change the industry irrevocably.

If there is a flood of used games within a few weeks of release, should the retailers really be blamed for that? Isn't that really an issue of the developers/publishers for not providing a product that players would want to keep and replay? With piracy concerns, returning software is near impossible, even soon after purchase (as opposed to almost every other product), so what do you suggest we do with games that don't work on our systems or that we just don't like?

Baseball card shops sell both packs and single cards. The card makers only see money from the pack purchases. However, because the purchasers want to KEEP the cards, the secondary market (singles) is a benefit to the primary market (packs) since speculators and singles suppliers purchase more packs to get the singles that they can turn around and use to make money.

The issue is not with the secondary markets existence, it's that the primary market isn't meeting the long-term needs of the consumer. Stop making games that players get tired of within a month, and the secondary market won't be nearly as bad as it seems to be now.

Well, they could be the "wave of the future" except that physical media will be entirely dead in 10 years, with digital download being the standard. How are you going to sell your used digital downloads? That's just silliness. Or is it? Only time will tell.

Either way, retail games are just way too expensive, generally they're about 200% the price they should be.

HMV have just started selling used games in the UK (well, in London anyway - I haven't checked anywhere else).

"Either way, retail games are just way too expensive, generally they're about 200% the price they should be."

I'd love to see the statistics supporting this, especially considering only 20% of games make a profit.

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/only-four-percent-of-video-games-make-a-profit-ndash-eedar-/?biz=1

What everyone here is forgetting is the money you save is only 1 part of why people buy used.
People have a hard time paying 60 dollars and finding out the game is horrible and not being able to return or exchange the game. If they buy it used they or thier kids have 7 days to decide it is a bad game and return or exchange it with no lose of value.

The complaint from developers about losing money is not well thought out by them just as the music industry reacted to mp3 sales. If you are a gamer and you buy 1,2 3 games a month you are talking about 180 dollars you have to shell out. If your budget allows for 100 a month you will have to cut out 1 or 2 of those games. However if you are able to trade in your last game or 2 you can save 20-50 dollars(depends on titles) and get those 3 games in your budget.
The same concept goes for cars as half the nation would be unable to purchase new cars if they could not trade in thier old car.

Please excuse any mispellings as it is really early.

@Justin Fletcher

"What's happening now is that used games are cannibalizing new sales almost immediately, resulting in no money for the publisher/developer, a meager reduction in cost for the consumer, and 90% profit for the retailer."

But why is the game returned? As you may or may not know, retailers don't take back new games if they "sucked" or they were "too short" or whatever (GameStop does, however, take back used games within 7 days, so that by itself is probably a major draw for a lot of people). If I buy a $60 game and am left with *no* options if I don't like it then I will be very very very careful about doing that in the future. I bought Gears of War 2 and hated it, so I tossed it on eBay and got a little under $50. Did Epic lose a sale? Maybe. But is that really my problem? Should people really be concerned with them after they already gave them their money? Is it really preferable to have NO recourse after spending $60 on a bug filled disaster of a game?

I can understand why people don't like a giant pawn shop like GS, but its hard to draw the line somewhere such that it keeps stuff like what I describe with Gears 2 and a place like GS formalizing the process.