Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Entertainment Games

Wal-Mart Enters the Used Game Fray 129

eldavojohn writes "It's a simple model — you buy used games for a third of the price of a new one from patrons. Then you turn around and sell the game for two-thirds the normal price to other patrons that have not yet enjoyed the title. Such has been the model for stores like GameStop. The great part about that business is a recession can sometimes help their market, as gamers look to save a few bucks any way possible. Well, today Wal-Mart launched kiosks in 77 of its stores that vend used video games. Looking like a RedBox DVD kiosk, these automated machines are full of bugs, but spell trouble for businesses like GameStop. This should also pique the interest of used-game opponents and provide a bigger target for them to go after if they get the politicians on their side."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wal-Mart Enters the Used Game Fray

Comments Filter:
  • Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The_mad_linguist ( 1019680 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2009 @01:05AM (#28007393)

    Excellent. With Walmart now financially committed to reducing the amount of DRM that would interfere in resale, the amount of anti-DRM political lobbying money should increase dramatically.

  • by landaishan ( 1537821 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2009 @01:20AM (#28007507)
    i would never want someone else to have my serials especially if its an online game, making the second hand purchase useless
  • by Aranykai ( 1053846 ) <slgonserNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday May 19, 2009 @01:27AM (#28007555)

    Your logic is like a half-baked cake. I suppose printing your own copies of books from the library is ok too, cause you aren't paying anything to look at the book anyways right?

  • by elashish14 ( 1302231 ) <profcalc4@nOsPAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday May 19, 2009 @01:38AM (#28007631)
    I, too, enjoy forming an extremely strong opinion about some person/company from entirely one source. Above all, from a webcomic with no references and no legitimate claim against the group in question. Besides, this is Wal-Mart - I was brought up being taught that they're well, not the best guys around... dunno whether I really believe it though, nor do I care as I never shop there.
  • by houstonbofh ( 602064 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2009 @01:52AM (#28007719)

    I don't buy used games on principle. (Wait... so I'm paying someone for a game and simultaneously not giving the content creators any money? Why not just pirate it and spend more money on new games if I'm not going to pay the creators?)

    But even if I wasn't against the concept of used games I still don't see the financial incentive. Gamestop will pay me less than the parking fee to go in and sell them a game. If I were to drive to a free-parking gamestop it would cost more in gas than they would give me. The used prices of new games tend to be almost the same as new. ~$45-50 for new releases and games on steam tend to be priced as low or lower for older games.

    If you aren't going to buy it new you might as well just pirate it and save the money going to Wal-Mart.

    By giving money to someone who purchases new games, you are providing them with more resources to purchase more new games, and support new content creators. Or to put it another way, would you buy a car that you knew would have no value on the used car market? Auto companies like good resale value, so that one guy will buy a new car every year.

    Also, if you save up a few games, it might just cover your parking. And give you cash for a new game. (Which is the point)

  • Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by interkin3tic ( 1469267 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2009 @02:05AM (#28007795)

    Except its only for consoles, which means the DRM wont be an issue.

    There's been some rumblings from console devs that they're wanting to put DRM on it to prevent used sales. Seems they're convinced that somehow, because they only profit once, that's unfair if the game trades hands again. You know, just like how car manufacturers couldn't survive if people bought used cars.

    ... I guess now is not the best time to make that sarcastic comment, but before anyone says anything to that end, I think we can agree that the big problem for the american auto industry is not used car sales.

  • by interkin3tic ( 1469267 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2009 @02:09AM (#28007817)

    Wait... so I'm paying someone for a game and simultaneously not giving the content creators any money?

    If they make games that are good enough that people don't want to sell them back, this wouldn't be happening to them.

  • by Blue_Wombat ( 737891 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2009 @02:37AM (#28007981)
    That logic is whacky. So does that mean that you won't buy a house or a car second-hand (or sell your own after you have bought it) because this would mean that neither GM or the Architect got paid again? If so, I assume that you want to make sales of used cars illegal, and require that people raze their houses sell when they move so that architects and construction firms get paid again by the new person who buys the land? If not, please explain why you think that the first sale doctrine apply to everyone except game makers?
  • Re:Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kuroji ( 990107 ) <kuroji@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 19, 2009 @02:39AM (#28007999)

    Yes, but that's not the RIAA's problem either. Their lawyers just claim it is.

    However, if GM were to cry foul on used car sales, everyone and their mother would jump on them.

  • by tiggertaebo ( 1480739 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2009 @04:23AM (#28008645)

    IMHO game publishers are coming at this from the wrong angle - they should be looking at the second hand market as an opportunity rather than a threat. Over the last year or two there has been a growing trend for games to have paid-for DLC (see Guitar Hero/Rock Band as prime examples). Since this content doesn't get resold when the game does the new owner may well then re-buy the DLC.

    So although yes they might miss out on the profit from the original game sale (assuming that the person who bought it second hand would otherwise have bought a new copy) they ARE still making money.

    Also don't forget trade ins - many console owners I know (myself included) will trade old games for money off new ones, often allowing us to buy more NEW games then we would have done otherwise. Why not embrace this? Publishers could offer incentives if people trade in one their older games for a sequel, or a direct competitor to their game - say trading in Guitar Hero for Rock Band etc.

    When the music market changed under them (i.e. the internet) the industry tried to fight the change rather than embracing it as a new opportunity, that didn't work out too well did it?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19, 2009 @04:30AM (#28008689)

    I'm just saying I would rather as a book publisher have you save your limited resources to spend on one of my books instead of going to a used book store and spending money there.

    75% of the used game price disappears into Gamestop. As far as the game ecosystem is concerned that money is gone. Your customers are expending their limited teen dollars on a product that in no way what so ever brings a profit.

    If instead of buying and reselling 2 games these teens pirated those 2 games and simply purchased a third new the publisher would make more money than if they threw their money into the big bonfire that is the used game market.

    And I would love everyone of you to send me all your money without anything whatsoever in return.

    Used games are part of the game ecosystem. The limited teen dollars might not be spent on a 60$ new game without the option to get some of that money back to begin wtih. So you'd end up with 3 pirated games and no sale at all. Sounds much better to me. At least publishers still would have something to bitch about. Oh and it's not their fault ... ever.

  • by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2009 @05:02AM (#28008839)

    I don't buy used games on principle. (Wait... so I'm paying someone for a game and simultaneously not giving the content creators any money? Why not just pirate it and spend more money on new games if I'm not going to pay the creators?)

    Except that when you buy used your money IS going to the creator (or at least his publisher). It goes to the publisher by proxy of the original purchaser who may not have considered the original selling price to be reasonable without the ability to resell it and recoup some of that cost. Similarly for all additional sales on down the line until the game eventually ends up in somebody's trash can.

    But even if I wasn't against the concept of used games I still don't see the financial incentive. Gamestop will pay me less than the parking fee to go in and sell them a game.

    Even if your characterization of Gamestop's pricing is accurate, they are by no means the only way to buy and sell used games (or used books, or used CDs, etc).

    If you aren't going to buy it new you might as well just pirate it and save the money going to Wal-Mart.

    Wal-mart provides a service - they get paid for that service, just as a book publisher provides a service to an author. You don't think that YOU personally are responsible for the money that goes to the authors that you publish do you? That would be the height of hubris - you provide them distribution and revenue handling in exchange for a fee. Kind of like the way Wal-mart, et al, provide buyers the service of distributing used copies.

    Either you buy into the artificial scarcity of copyright or you don't, but don't think you can justly have the best of both the copyright-scarcity model and the non-scarce freedom of speech model without the downsides of either.

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday May 19, 2009 @05:24AM (#28008947)

    Pending legislation change, that is... don't assume anything that's legal today will remain so, especially when copyright is somehow involved.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 19, 2009 @08:19AM (#28009975)

    Faulty logic.

    The money spent on used games does not vanish as you claim. When an individual sells a game, they receive cash back (or trade in value on something else). This means that the outlay for the original purchase of the game is effectively reduced, making it more affordable. Second, buying used games is a good way to cheaply (and currently legal way) of getting exposure to games. This exposure can and does encourage the purchase of new games in the same genre or publisher or series, assuming the games are good and worth purchasing. And third those teens (or anyone else) with limited dollars may be purchasing used games now but if they enjoyed those games, when they are no longer as limited they have a much higher chance of purchasing new games. All of these effects are useful and beneficial to game publishers.

    Even a forest fire every now and then can be good for the ecosystem.
     

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Working...