Used game retailers respond to 'Project Ten Dollar'

This anti-resale stuff seems like it's trying to increase EA's share of the pie while also decreasing the size of the pie in total.

i hvae the solution to the problem, to bring games inline with other products we need to make the discs less durable, we need to have them get scratched up and break and require maintenance every couple of months.

that way, a game is like any other product, the moment you buy it, it begins to depreciate, just like cars or laptops.

but to me, a game is like a tire for your car; not something that should be resold.

No company, no matter what they are selling, should have a say in what I do with a product I have purchased from them. They already made that sale and got paid. I understand your argument, but once I purchase something it's mine to do as I please. There is no way that the used game market is hurting new release games. It only really effects games that have been out for at least a little while (people have to buy it, play it, then trade it in). I just see this as another "defective by design" ploy to screw over people who are already purchasing a product. I can all but guarantee you that there will not be any kind of notice on the retail packaging that says this product is incomplete if not purchased new.

Used is used, If I buy a used game I know that I probably wont get a manual or original case, and I know that I have to deal with whatever scratches the original owner put on the disk. A used car that is a couple of years is old exactly the same, you deal with the original owners wear and tear. Warranties on cars are usually transferable so most major things are covered, unless the car is over seven years old (some models even longer). So while they have their differences it is still a valid comparison.

Good for EA, I hope this works out for them. Especially if people do feel compelled to pay the $10 for DL content when they buy used--this will actually bring in more money for EA who can bypass Gamestop and the distributors.

Given what EA saw with the sales volume on Dead Space compared with the actual number of folks who played it (users were double the sales volume), EA has to figure out some way to recoup their investment, esp on new IP. If you support new IP, you have to support moves like this--it puts money into the wallets of the companies that make the games you love, and let's them keep their staff on payroll so they can feed their families.

Think about it: You loved Dead Space with a passion, but some of the folks who worked on it have already lost their jobs due to low sales and cut backs within the company. And if one of those who lost their job was related to you, or a close friend?

While there may be pirated DLC for the consoles floating around out there, it's infintessimal compared to PCs. There's an article at The Escapist that discusses piracy in great depth and compares numbers of pirated copies of MW2 for consoles and PCs. The hoops you have to jump through to play pirated content on your console great discourages people from doing so.

"When it comes to DLC games you must transfer this to your HD. This takes a XSATA etc... "

"Jtag Xbox360 here! I guess you also can copy via USB the DLC... but you need an exploited Xbox360... DONT UPDATE TO ANYTHING OVER THAN 7371 IF YOU CAN... otherwise you lose the chance to get advantage of the exploit "

Right now there are 7 seeders and 2 leechers for X360 Dragon Age DLC.

Stupid retailers! I mean at least EA is protecting themselves from trading in used games. I mean look at what happened to GM and Chrysler and all from people being able to trade in their cars instead of forcing people to always have to buy new cars - Bankruptcy.

Think of all of the money that DR Horten, Cortex Toll Brothers (major home builders) would have made if we could not sell our houses and every time had to buy a new house. I mean its not fair for these manufacturers to make these great products and not reap the benefits every time they are resold.

Hell Ebay only exists to undermine manufacturers. I mean if customers are able to get purchase products and then resale them to other people then just think of what would happen to capitalism.

Seriously people! Would you want other products follow the same plan that EA has proposed for games? Next time you go to a car dealer to get a new car tell them that you will not be trading in your car for credit to a new car because you don't want to hurt GM.

Give me a break.

What exactly is the problem people have with this?

All these comparisons to cars with no engines etc etc, what a load of BS. It's not like that at all. You still get the full car, but they throw in extra stuff. You cannot compare it to cars, it's just stupidity. Cars are things people have for years, not days or weeks. How is it right that 1 copy is sold to a retailer, 5 people end up having it at various intervals, and the retailer pockets 4 of those sales profits?

They aren't cutting bits out and making you pay extra, you just get free stuff if you buy new.

It's not killing the second hand market at all, and if it does it will be for the simple reason that the "free" stuff is worth the extra money for a new copy. If it's not worth it in your opinion you have the choice to buy 2nd hand and not buy access to the service that provides the extras. From a sellers point of view, it could cut out your ability to sell but then that would be for the same reason, good content, otherwise people will not pay the extra and the 2nd hand market will be fine.

It's not like the price of a new game has gone up because of this.

Simply put, this is gonna explode in EA's face. Sean Malstrom recently wrote a post stating that the game industry would soon begin attacking its customers to look out for its own bottom line, and that's exactly what is happening here. Here is the ugly truth that EA and many other game companies must face:

Your games suck. There is a used game market because there is a demand for used games. Simple as can be stated. Why are there used games? Because people think that your games are not worth their initial retail value. Or because people become dissatisified with your games and trade them in towards a new game that may satisfy them. Games nowadays are mostly crap. That's why they get traded in. They sell based off of hype but never deliver on that hype.

Core gaming is already eroding, but all this will do for EA is drive away what little Core gamers they have left to milk. They have tried and mostly failed to tap into the Expanded Market (the Wii and DS audience of gamers), and so now they aim to try and get every ounce of revenue they can out of Core gamers. But Core gamers are already at their breaking point with this kind of use and abuse. They are realizing that gaming is not about the gamer, but about the industry. The industry does not care about gaming or the gamers. They only care about their profits and bottom line. They don't care about what the gamers want. Only what they want. They have their heads up their asses and they can't be bothered to listen to what their customers want.

Music went towards digital distribution because that's what the customers wanted. There was a benefit to the customer. Digital distribution as EA and the rest of the game industry would have it is not beneficial to the customer. That's why gamers will never seriously gravitate towards digital distribution as it is right now, which is just a poorly veiled attempt at taking away a gamer's right to the ownership of their games.

The one console that they really would like to push DD on, the WIi, is incapable of doing so, and Nintendo itself has no intention of taking DD seriously, because they realize that used games are the symptom of the overall poor quality of games these days. And the Expanded Market will never embrace DD because they see it for what it is: Bullshit.

Core gamers are already fed up with this crap. If game companies try to devalue their right to sell their used games (be it at Gamestop, Amazon, eBay, or anywhere else), then they will simply stop buying their games. Right now the industry is making profits but not making new customers with these shady practices. They are driving their shrinking pool of customers away. There will reach a critical mass where there will no longer be enough gamers to prop up the game industry. And then it will crash. And it will be well-deserved.

I do get a laugh about these people playing the violin for EA. Gaming is not about the companies, but the gamers. Go to Gamestop (or any other place or site where there are used games), and see what is still re-selling for a high amount. It will be one of two things: Rare games like Fatal Frame and Shin Megami Tensei, or games like NSMB Wii and NSMB DS which still sell for a lot in trade-in, and still resell for a high amount used. Why is this? Because those games are in high demand and sold out in many places. Around two years after it came out, Mario Kart Wii still sells for 50 dollars. The third party game that came out at the same time, GTA 4, sells for 20 dollars new, and less used. The market is showing how much they really value their games.

Another thing to consider is that many gamers who primarily buys and sells used games may in fact be funneling the same amount of money into the game industry than a gamer who only buys brand new games (and never sells them).

Buyer 1 may have $100 to spend on games per year. He might buy a $65 game, then sell it at $50 on Ebay a month later, losing $15. Assuming he loses just $15 on every brand new game he buys and then resells, he can buy about 6.6 games a year.

Buyer 2 may decide to spend $100 as well. But buying only brand new games at release, he can only get about 1.5 games. 6.6 vs 1.5. Huge difference for the consumer! Ultimately it's the same amount of money going into the industry though.

Take away the used games market entirely though, and everyone with a $100 per year game budget is going to be stuck with just 1.5 games per year. Right now that's not happening, but publishers seem to talk like it should happen, and that's kinda scary.

So why target the average used game sellers and buyers? Go after Gamestop if you have to, but leave the average guy out of this. I wouldn't mind seeing Gamestop taken down a few pegs. They rip gamers and, ultimately, the publishers off. And the only reason they do so is because not enough gamers are aware of the merits of Ebay, Craigslist, and Cheapassgamer's Marketplace (the latter two are free!). More money in the hands of gamers means more games will be bought, used or new. Gamestop is taking too much money out of the hands of ignorant or far too lazy gamers.

Cars and Houses are completely invalid comparisons IMO.

Not so much because they are not duarble like games.

More because they are not something that people will use for 30 days and then usage suddenly drops off. Once a game is beaten it will sit on the shelf unless the user wants to replay it. Thus the temptation to sell it is high because it is going unused.

You need your car every day to drive to work. You need your house everyday to sleep in. The only time you don't need it anymore is when you actually re;place it, which is on a much slower cycle than games.

If producing video games wasn't profitable, companies like Activision, EA and Ubisoft would not exist. These publishers are obviously successful regardless of the used game resale business, as they yearly buy out smaller competitors and put out new games. I really find it hard to believe that EA is threatened by companies like GameStop who probably benefit game sales more than harm them. Trying to nickle-and-dime consumers into buying more content which should have been included in development is sleazy. I'd really like to know what the financial circumstances of these companies are, and whether or not they are truly hurting for money or just greedy.

People who buy used will continue to buy used until people think digital distribution is the way to go. Until such a time, maybe EA should think about not giving Gamestop free advertising by handing out pre-order bonuses for all their games there. Seriously, if people don't go into Gamestop to get their pre-orders they won't know if a game they really wanted is available used there. If they don't know the used version is in their Gamestop they are more likely to find it used somewhere else, or *gasp* buy it new from another retailer.

Some retail experience should be a requirement for all CEOs who deal in physical goods.

Firstly, it's my right under law that if I buy an item I have the right to sell it on. Companies have regularly tried to use the "you only buy a license" argument in many countries and halve always failed.

What they are effectively doing now is they are giving you something "free" which it utter rubbish. Everyone with half a brain knows they're charging people for something which should be part of the game. Sadly, we'll have as much luck taking action against them as they will taking action against us. i.e. none.

The problem is that when games fall in price the consumer is stuffed. We can always refuse to take the trade-in value but the simple fact is, if the game costs A to buy new, and the DLC costs B to purchase, the trade in value is always going to be limited to A-B and that's before you count the discount for deterioration.

When games fall in value as they get older or go to platinum price the value falls even lower. And that's not the retailers fault. It's simple economics.

Neither of them is in the right.

There i said it.

Consumers eh? You are morons. Case in point: consumers lobbied Bioware to remove the lift-loading screens from Mass Effect. Hooray, victory for the consumer! Now I have to stare a loading screens, instead of Ashley's round pert behind.

Now consumers are congratulating EA for devaluing a product that they are paying the same price for. Wow. Consumers forget that used access to games is what keeps young/poorer people in gaming. I for sure spent my teens almost exclusively buying used games. Now I'm well paid and can afford new ones, but that doesn't make me oblivious to those less fortunate.

Ah consumers.

Cars and houses are valid comparisons. The durability or longevity of a product has nothing to do with my right to sell a good I paid for. If it does then what is the cut off? When is a good durable enough or has been owned long enough to be resold without the manufacturer whining about it? Last time I checked there was nothing to prevent me from selling a house the same day I purchased it (and some condo owners were doing just that during the real estate boom in Florida). So per your logic that person owes the condo developer money and if so when would they not owe the condo developer money? 48 hours, 3 months? The fact of the matter is that many goods have vibrant secondary markets and in many cases supported by the manufacturers. Since the manufacturers realize that a consumer's ability to monetize this current product towards the purchase of a new product decreases the cost threshold for the consumer. Consequently the consumer can purchase more of or better quality NEW products.

For the used game market to function successfully (or any used market) there needs to be a section of consumers for whom deferring the purchase of a new product is ok. Or they are unwilling to pay the initial price of the new product. If everyone had to have the product initially then there would no used game market since everyone would buy it right away. But instead many consumers have decided they can wait for someone to sell the game cheaper. In other words those people do not believe the game is worth $60. So if they do not believe it is worth $60 they would not have purchased the game even if no secondary market exists. Therefore no lose of sales. (read: supply and demand, price elasticity, and consumer utility)

EA is the only distributer driving on this point and that has more to do with the fact that they cannot figure out how to make any money while their main competition (Activision) is rolling in money. This is called scapegoating and is just trying to buy an ineffective management team time before the board of directors cans their assess.

What the used game vendors are crying?!? GOOD! I am glad EA is finding a way to recoup some of the money they(and other publishers) are losing to these venders. I mean how much must it suck to have your game not only having to compete against competitors for sales, but also its self. I see most publishers following this now that EA has made the first big move.

This revealed a point I hadn't seen before. Used games drive the sale of new games for alot of kids. I would imagine there are people that trade in 2 or 3 games just to get a new one. Without the ability to trade in those games they wouldn't get the new ones, and thusly not even play games at all.

So good job on figuring out a way to make your customers NOT want to play your games.

My gripe with digital distribution is that I wouldn't have the physical copy of a game and thus would not be able to resell it like I usually do with games I get bored of. It's also just my preference that having something that doesn't exist only on a hard-drive is much more satisfying when purchased. It makes you feel like you got something for your money. I just feel better about it and it makes me want to play the game more for some reason. I would probably never buy a full-priced game digitally and I certainly don't look forward to the day when things turn purely digital. The only games at the moment that I'll purchase digitally are the ones that cost $5-10 because it's a low enough price to dissolve feelings that I didn't get a physical copy of something. Plus you wouldn't get nearly anything for reselling a $5-10 game.

I'm not sure that this will harm second hand sales.

I've owned both Dragon Age and Mass Effects 2 recently and had access to the extra content. While the content was well made and both Zaeed and Shale fitted into the main stories well, it was not exactly a huge amount of content. So if you bought either of those games pre-owned, you still get a massive and detailed game. You would not miss anything.

I can't see how someone that buys either of those games several months later pre-owned is going to be bothered about not having access to the extra content. It's just not that much or that great. I don't see second hand owners being bothered about DLC period. It's the people the pre-order that buy DLC not second hand owners.

I'd still be prepared to buy DA:O second hand, the game took me 85 hours and Shale accounted for about 1-2 hours of that.

So no one in the press noticed that the whole Cerberus deal with ME2 was just a scheme by EA to reap money from used-games sales? I think most of us gamers knew what it was from the get-go. It's one thing to bundle in DLC like with DA:O, but to make the ENTIRE DLC purchasing system something that has to be re-bought when you buy a used game...seems rather shady. I mean, go check it out, the "Cerberus Network" on the 360 Marketplace sells for 1200 points (aka $15). This means, if you buy a used copy of Mass Effect 2, you have to pay $15 just to have the system in place that allows you to download the DLC. Then you have to pay again for the DLC. EA is trying to have it's cake and eat it too (and in this situation, the cake is not a lie).

@WREturns With A Vengeance:

Maybe you should f*ing read what I wrote. Even assuming your original premise was true and Toyota got something from Toyota dealers, THAT'S NOT THE ONLY PLACE TO TRADE.

Publishers don't like trade ins with Gamestop? Why don't they offer a trade-in? Apple has a store, MS has a store, why not EA or Activision?