Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Almighty Buck Entertainment Games

Best Buy vs. The Game Makers 197

Posted by Zonk from the who-needs-friends-when-you-have-money dept.
An anonymous reader writes "CNN's excellent Game Over column brings word that Best Buy has begun selling used games in select locations as part of a test program. If successful, all of the store's 700 stores could begin doing so in the not-too-distant future. Not so happy about this are developers, including Epic's Mark Rein, who resurrects his 'no used game sales' argument, saying 'To have them resell the games, with developers having no participation, that's just wrong. That's just fleecing us.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Best Buy vs. The Game Makers More

Best Buy vs. The Game Makers

Comments Filter:

  • Maybe some competition finally (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sycomonkey ( 666153 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @01:42PM (#13687358) Homepage
    The used game market is way overvalued, margins are huge. Maybe this will make things a bit more reasonable. And the developers have nothing to complain about, reselling something you bought is very clearly defined as fair use in every copyright law ever.
    • Well, to be fair, Epic provides a lot of free support for their games after initial release. This includes additional content, server browsers, modding contests (with large prizes provided by epic) that lead to more value added to the game, etc. When a game has a large online component, you're buying more than just the game. Yes, they don't run the actual game servers - but they do provide other things.

      I'm betting because of things like that more companies will be moving over to the MMO subscription mode
      • So the copy they originally sold is out there, does it matter to them who is playing it.
      • THis is a strawman. They would still be providing the same support to the original user if he kept the game. Thus it costs them no additional money.

        I'm not worried about them moving to a subscription- it won't work. People won't pay a recurring fee to play their games. MMOs make money, but they're a tiny segment of the overall gaming population. Xbox live is the closest to that idea for normal games, and only a small percentage (far less that 25%) of Xbox owners subscribe to it. Going subscription wou
        • That's not really true.

          Customers play a game for a limited amount of time. Then they either put the game on the shelf (unlikely to touch it again) or they sell/give it to someone else.

          Those that sell/give it to someone else keeps the support commitment for that CD key alive longer than the typical customer that stops playing the game and puts it away,
          • Phone support is a tiny portion of support to begin with- most support money is spend on the game servers. On top fo that, a small portion of the rebuyers will actually make support calls. So the effect is negligible. If they have a problem with that, they should charge per call- its not my job to fix their buisness model. If they did that and cut 5 bucks off the price of the game I'd be estatic. I don't think I've ever called tech support on a game. Or known anyone who has, for that matter.
            • Phone support. Email support. Website support. Bandwidth for master servers, patch servers, websites, forums, other servers, etc.

              This adds up to a tangible amount per person. If 25% of users are playing resold copies, that IS a large extra expense that wouldn't normally be there.

              Think about this; the stores pay 10% for a used game, and resell it for 90% of retail cost. They're pocketing 80% of the retail value of the game, way more than they do with a retail game. Because the stores make so much more money
    • what does "fair use" have to do with commerce and the right to sell your property?

      yeah, you own the discs and other media.

      i didn't know mark rein was such a corporate whore.

      only a complete prick would complain about people selling their own property.

      you want a cut of other people's sales?

      why don't you "F*** O**", miserable piece of garbage.

      "intellectual property" indeed.

  • Oh sit down in your corner. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @01:44PM (#13687381)
    To have them resell the games, with developers having no participation, that's just wrong. That's just fleecing us.

    You already made money on the sale the first time. Regardless of your personal feelings about the issue you have absolutely no rights to money made on subsequent sales. I'm sure your opinion would change drastically if you were charged extra, on top of the sale price, for a used car.

    Granted, you probably aren't buying used cars but you get the idea.
    • Did you RTFA?

      "We pay to be in Best Buy's flyers," he said. "We pay market development funds. Publishers drive gaming traffic to these stores. To have them resell the games, with developers having no participation, that's just wrong. That's just fleecing us."


      Taking Epic's advertising money but then selling a similar product (the used game) that they make no profit on is ripping them off.

      • Taking Epic's advertising money but then selling a similar product (the used game) that they make no profit on is ripping them off.

        The short answer is "don't buy advertising if you aren't happy with what you are getting". And you'll know exactly what you're getting, down to a third-party-audited study of how many people typically walk past your ad in a given spot in a given store. End caps and shelf placement are a competitive market, and if Epic doesn't want to pay for them, someone else certainly will. Su

  • Doesn't this happen a lot anyway? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kazzahdrane ( 882423 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @01:46PM (#13687404)
    What about selling used cars or selling houses? Should the original manufacturer/builder get a percentage of the sale? Of course not. Of course those License Agreements we accept might have some small print stuff in them... Over here in the UK GAME and Gamestation stores have been selling used console games for years. My understanding was that used PC Games were much more legally ambiguous/completely illegal which is why GAME doesn't sell them. However, the Gamestation in my city does which would be pretty good except their whole PC range is about 1/12 of their stock.
    • currently, copying a house or car costs about the same amount of money as building the original house or car. houses and cars are not digital media. neither are the vast majority of books currently sold.

      that said, perhaps the game companies have some "business model" work to do, such as licensing vs. selling the games, implementing even more draconian copy restrictions, etc, etc. the reason that booksellers generally aren't getting "fleeced" by used book sales is because there isn't vast book piracy going o
    • The main problem with reselling PC games is that many of them use CD keys which register with some server and cause the subsequent purchaser all sorts of problems. That in turn causes the store problems, so they stop carrying them (the sales are pretty low compared to consoles anyway). There's no legal issue, provided it's a genuine copy (and you've uninstalled it) you're fully entitled to resell it.

  • Oh, how horrible (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kawika ( 87069 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @01:47PM (#13687410)
    'To have them resell the games, with developers having no participation, that's just wrong. That's just fleecing us.'"

    Yes, the only fleecing that should be done is first-generation fleecing, where the game developers and distributors get a good chunk of the money before the buyer realizes the game is boring and unplayable.

    So why would someone be selling a game? Perhaps because it is no longer interesting to them? Maybe because it became boring to play after a few weeks? Whose fault is that? If the buyer can't even resell the thing without some sort of permission from the game company it sounds like there is less incentive for them to make a "keeper".

  • Is selling a used car wrong too? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by prezkennedy.org ( 786501 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @01:48PM (#13687426) Homepage Journal
    Sure, developers aren't making any money the second time around, but neither is a car maker when a used car is sold.

    Mark Rein has a point about reselling Microsoft Office and how the MS legal department would attack voraciously, while reselling Halo is just fine.

    Personally, I like finding older games I missed the first time around. The used game market simply isn't the same market as the new game market, and developers just need to get over it.

    • Re:Is selling a used car wrong too? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by duffbeer703 ( 177751 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @02:03PM (#13687570)
      Buying used cars is unethical as well. How are autoworkers expected to feed their families if you're out there buying cars that were manufactured years ago?

      I propose a levy for every car sale, so that the rightful creators of automobiles get their just reward.
      • First off I feel that reselling games 100% applies to the first sale doctrine. Having said that want to address the comments comparing this to used cars. A car will experience "wear". Assuming the game media stays is good shape the game will have contast quality. For example it will not crash more often and the visuals will not degrade over time like a used car will break down more often and the paint will fade. (Used care propents please insert your personal stories of having the greatest used car ever
      • Some countries have policies designed to force older cars off the road and encourage the purchase of new cars. They can increase taxes on older cars and require stringent "safety" inspections.
      • Good idea, but I don't think you go far enough. After all, the nuts, bolts, tires, glass, bauxite etc that went into the car were probably made by a supplier to the auto company - surely they're entitled to their cut from subsequent sales as well? ;)
    • and toyota never make a dime off of auto parts....

    • Sure, developers aren't making any money the second time around, but neither is a car maker when a used car is sold.

      Actually, the manufacturer has some ways of making money off a used car. Service and parts.

      Here, we begin to see what the problem with Mark Rein's business model is. It's a small problem, really: the people supporting his software (the publisher supports it, not his company, his whining not withstanding) might have to support it for each person who buys the software, which in some universe cou

      • Actually, the manufacturer has some ways of making money off a used car. Service and parts.

        Possibly, but not necessarily. Do you take your car to the dealership for service after the warranty expires? Even then, the manufacturer isn't getting money because you chose their dealership. The simply get dealerships with more resources for supporting their warranties.

        And again, unless you are going to a dealership you probably are not buying parts from the manufacturer. You're buying from the OE supplier.
        • Well, yes. We can take analogies a bit too far. :)

          Possibly, but not necessarily. Do you take your car to the dealership for service after the warranty expires?

          Depends on a lot of factors. I tend not to, but a lot of people do.

          Even then, the manufacturer isn't getting money because you chose their dealership. The simply get dealerships with more resources for supporting their warranties.

          Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that, though I think you've got it right. There's the bizarre price-fixing relat

          • Who will generally have their own relationship with the auto manufacturer. Getting true aftermarket parts where the auto manufacturer or their loyal henchmen did not get any kind of cut is awfully difficult. My understanding is that everyone concerned kind of plays ball and lets the money trickle down, and when they don't, there tend to be legal consequences.

            Nice conspiracy theory. I'll give it 4 stars. It would be 5, but you didn't have any links to nefarious activities by auto makers.

            You might know an awf

            • It would be 5, but you didn't have any links to nefarious activities by auto makers.

              I take it all back, auto makers would never do anything nefarious.

              You've never read about the various "counterfeit parts" cases? I don't pretend to understand all the issues, but the "fraud" asserted in a lot of those cases seems to be nothing more than "they tried to enter a market we happily control."

              It's much easier to cut costs up front to increase your profit margin than it is to try and maintain a bunch of back room d

              • You've never read about the various "counterfeit parts" cases?

                Counterfeit parts and non-OEM sanctioned parts are two different things. For instance, if you made a bunch of head lights and labeled them 'Genuine GM', you would be quite likely get sued. OTOH, if you made them to spec and marketed them as Justins' Miracle Headlights, they would have no reason to. Assuming there were no patent issues.

                The company I work for has done extensive R&D on ABS systems. Currently they are doing an educational progr

  • Are they selling used PC games? Or just console? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JimTheta ( 115513 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @01:49PM (#13687430) Homepage

    "Are they going to sell used copies of Microsoft Office and if not why not?," asked Rein. "Why is that Microsoft (Research) has no objections to you reselling a copy of 'Halo,' but if you try it with Office, they'll come down on you like a ton on bricks?"

    That is one of the coolest things I've ever heard. And not really novel; why haven't I heard or thought of this argument before?

    Though I'm not sure if it applies to this case. Is Best Buy selling used PC games also? The article is not clear.

    • Of course the reason for this is that for a number of PC Games, you don't NEED the CD/DVD to play the game (or can be cracked with software) and most require a serial number of some sort that is checked against blacklisted serials, players currently playing online (in the case of online games), and in the case of MMORPGs used to activate the users account...so you would end up with a lot of users installing the game only to find that their serial had been blacklisted, the former owner was still playing it,
    • It's perfectly legal to sell your retail copy of office, and no Microsoft isn't going to sue you. It's grey area whether you can sell OEM (the license agreement may or may not prevent that). OTOH, there are lots of small businesses that can't sell Microsoft Products because Microsoft's legal team bullied them after catching them selling a few pirate copies.
    • how about microsoft fucks off and dies.

      NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO WITH YOUR PROPERTY.

      anyone who does is an obvious god damn shill and greedy motherfucker.

      the above post has been cleared by the Family Values Association and is recommended for readers 15 years and under.

      respecting copyright laws is like respecting satan. it'll work for a while but eventually you get wise to what's going on.

  • Options galore (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yotto ( 590067 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @01:50PM (#13687449) Homepage
    Great! Now I can choose between pay $10 off the price of a new game for a scratched CD, ripped or missing manual, and no box from EBGames, OR paying $10 off the price of a new game for a scratched CD, ripped or missing manual, and no box from Best Buy!

  • No used game sales? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by chman ( 746363 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @01:53PM (#13687477)
    That's just fleecing us
    And annual rehashes of pre-existing content at full retail price isn't fleecing the consumers? Oh dear. I suppose you'd rather we consider ourselves as not taking ownership of the CD/DVD when we buy it from the store? Would you rather we saw your game not as an item we purchase, but as an experience that one can indulge in for a nominal fee just like those found on darkened street corners? After all, once we're finished with your underwhelming offerings, we would be stuck with something we can't get rid of.

  • I won't buy a used game anyway... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ajservo ( 708572 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @02:02PM (#13687558)
    I know from experience at Gamestop, whenever I buy a used game, despite them having oodles of cases around, they'll never give you one. Even if that's the last one they have in stock, all I ever get is the DVD. I insisted on getting full cases when I bought DDR, seeing as how I was paying $5 under full retail on a no longer made product.

    Seriously. This isn't like the NES or SNES days. Who trades in games with JUST a disc?
    What happened to the case? Where did it go? There should at least be that. The PS2/Xbox cases should be the most generic freakin cases in the world.

    I'll take a beat up case, that's fine, but I'm not paying $5 under retail just because you have a disc. That's what chipped systems are for. Anyone can do that, and go play reburnable ISO's all day long as they get scratched. If I'm buying THE actual game, I expect a case at the very least. New cases are 50 cents a piece (or cheaper in bulk) for chrissake.
    • Just so you know, the Best Buy near where I live is one of the ones selling (and buying) used games and they aren't just current generation used games. I've bought several NES, SNES, DC, and PS games as well as seen Genesis, Gameboy, GBA, Saturn, and Atari games on the shelves. The cartridge games almost always come without the box or manual. The disc games always have at least a case (sometimes even the original huge PS cases) and usually have the manual with it. The current generation used games they sell
    • here's something you may not know.

      gamestop/EB/generic gamestores sell used games as new.

      they use shrinkwrap machines to package up used/returned games as new.

      it's better not to shop those stores and buy it online, like amazon (even though amazon is evil they're big enough not to screw with their customers).

  • Counter-arguments (Score:4, Interesting)

    by alphaseven ( 540122 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @02:08PM (#13687620)
    The New York Times ran an article about Amazon selling used books (Reading Beteween the Lines) [nytimes.com] arguing True, consumers probably save a few dollars while authors and publishers may lose some sales from a used book market. Yet the evidence suggests that the costs to publishers are not large, and also suggests that the overall gains from such secondhand markets outweigh any losses.

    This is the paper cited [ssrn.com], it's about used books but I wonder if the same arguments could be applied to used video games.

    • Data point (Score:3, Interesting)

      by metamatic ( 202216 )
      I buy quite a few new video games. When I've played the game through, I sell it second hand, generally on eBay. Since I look after my stuff, the games are usually in "like new" condition, and I get 50-75% of the initial outlay back.

      What happens to the money? Without exception, I use it to buy another game. When someone bought my copy of "Ratchet and Clank: Going Commando" for about $15, every penny immediately went to the game industry when I used the cash to purchase "Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal".

      Su

  • Death of the Game Store (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @02:08PM (#13687622) Homepage
    Of course Mark Rein's comments are self-serving greed. But the importnat thing is that when the Big Boxes start selling used games, small local game stores are dead (if they arnt already).
    • So what? If, as revealed by consumers' own choices, the big stores can better serve consumers than the small stores, why do the small stores deserve to stay in business?
      • To support the economy and local employment? If you're fine with a world where there are no small employers or retail businesses, where each town has 3 or 4 huge Big Boxes run buy huge faceless corporations like Wal-Mart (paying Wal-Mart wages), good for you. But most people have other ideas about quality of life and such.
        • "To support the economy and local employment"

          I don't think this holds up to actual economic analysis.

          The Big Boxes will hire locally -- you don't think they fly in cashiers from Bangladesh, do you? -- and the economy is supported by having cheaper goods. With elastic demand curves, cheaper widgets mean people buy more widgets which boosts the economy. With inelastic demand curves, cheaper widgets means a decreased cost of living in the area, which is roughly equivalent to giving everyone in town a raise. Th
    • If they can't compete, let them die. I'm a little less sympathetic than I would be to the shops and small stores displaced by a Wal-Mart arriving in a small town or something. Those little game shops tend to be dirty, stupid little places where people who don't know about ebay and amazon.com get ripped off by losers who do.

      OH MY GOD, SAVE THEM! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

  • mmm hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @02:11PM (#13687643) Homepage Journal
    "including Epic's Mark Rein, who resurrects his 'no used game sales' argument, saying 'To have them resell the games, with developers having no participation, that's just wrong. That's just fleecing us.'"

    Uh huh. I can play this game, too: "By preventing the sale of used games and forcing customers to only be able to buy new games, Epic is fleecing everybody."

    I'm growing concerned that a business with the expressed purpose of entertaining people is fussing over entitlements they think they have. It's bad enough that the RIAA and MPAA do it. "Those people with boom boxes are costing us money because other people who haven't paid for the music can ear it."
  • The CNN article alludes to an interesting question.

    A substantial rise in used game sales may lead to the expansion of digital distribution - in other words, downloading games rather than buying a disc.

    At first glance, one would think that solves the problem. But even if we buy software online, downloading it rather than receiving physical media, aren't we still allowed to make a backup copy of that software onto removable media? Why wouldn't the first sale doctrine apply to software paid for, downloaded,

    • the difference is very simple.

      they will use technical means to prevent your lawful rights.

      do you have 50k and several years of time to go before the courts and argue for your rights?

      that's the dirty secret of 'DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION".

      it is complete and utter control of what you buy, including but not limited to the right to sell your property (STEAM), monitoring and logging everything you do (STEAM) and being able to cut you off from your purchase on a whim (STEAM again).

      for the slight convenience of not havi

  • No fleecing here (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Jtheletter ( 686279 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @02:14PM (#13687671)
    It's the doctrine of first sale. Once you sold it, it's out of your hands. Does that mean you have to like it? No. But there's nothing that says you should get another slice of the pie.

    Ok, having said that, I can see hwo this is potentially a huge blow to the already struggling games industry, at least as far as smaller develoeprs go. Right now there seems to be this boom or bust tendency with games, and if you don't hit one out of the park on the first try there's little chance of getting another shot. In addition huge development and advertising costs can be hard to recoup for smaller companies, and having such a major outlet as BestBuy resell used games makes it even harder for them to make those all-important first-sales.

    As a consumer this also worries me, given the used games policy of GamesStop and EB (before it was bought out) we can probably expect BestBuy to buy abysmally low and sell insultingly high. I'm sorry, but when I know a business is making outrageous margins of upwards of 80% (I did RTFA but my personal experience has been that their margins are much better than the 40% quoted) on these used games it sickens me. Basically the consumer is getting shorted on both ends. Will BestBuy reverse this and actually keep used games margins more reasonable? Probably not. Although even a $5 difference in price between them and GameStop would be a blwo to GS's used game income, and I don't doubt BB has the clout and Money to start a price war, however I do doubt that they could overcome the greed of the high margins to truly start one.

    In summary to a lot of rambling, I think this could possibly be slightly good for the used games consumer, bad for the games industry, but totally inline with supply/demand economics and doctrines of first sale. I want the games publishers to do well, but if their only recourse is to legislate against reselling of used games (or reselling w/o a cut to them) I have to draw the line, once I own it I can do what I liek with it, including getting ripped off reselling it to BestBuy.

    • That's a good question. Which company is the best one for selling/buying used games? If EB/Game Stop are no good, who is more reasonable?
    • The struggling games industry?

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=4172753 [npr.org]

      I'm sure they cry themselves to sleep on their mattresses made of money every night.
  • The used games are higher than EB or Gamestop. They don't have the pulse on the market and sell used titles higher than the competition sells them new. They also don't make any attempt at sorting the titles, except by system. This could work if they tweaked it a lot!

  • "Are they going to sell used copies of Microsoft Office and if not why not?,"

    I already tried. The reason they gave me was they couldn't resell a CD-R with just a printout of astalavista.box.sk

  • Stop with the flawed car analogies!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by meanfriend ( 704312 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @02:21PM (#13687731)
    Can you make a copy of a car, download a 'car crack', then sell the car while still retaining the full use of said car? No? Then stop comparing this with selling a used car. A slightly closer analogy would be buying Harry Potter, then scanning / photocopying it before reselling it. And even that's a poor comparison because it takes a lot of effort to scan a huge novel and the resulting copy is less convienent to use than the original.

    That said, I dont think publishers should have any say in what happens to a copy of a brand new game that somone bought. Nor do they deserve any of the revenue generated by the resale. But if they think that profits are being seriously impacted by second hand sales, that's just going to make them move all the quicker to Steam type DRM. Where 'one custumer = one sale' and transferring ownership is nigh impossible.

    It's not that far off. Look how gamers have eaten up HL2 and Steam in droves and are begging for more.
    • Can you make a copy of a car, download a 'car crack', then sell the car while still retaining the full use of said car? No? Then stop comparing this with selling a used car. A slightly closer analogy would be buying Harry Potter, then scanning / photocopying it before reselling it. And even that's a poor comparison because it takes a lot of effort to scan a huge novel and the resulting copy is less convienent to use than the original.
      Ok, lets look at something which is even easier to copy than games - music
    • It's not that far off. Look how gamers have eaten up HL2 and Steam in droves and are begging for more.

      Look at how gamers are downloading HL2 ISOs in droves and patching it to be Steam-free faster than you can say "Draconian DRM."

      One-customer=One-sale is a marketing myth. It's not going to happen. Large crowds of people might accept it for one product, but larger crowds will find ways to circumvent any copy protection system. The more difficult it is to be a customer, the easier it is to be a pirate.

      Pirac

      • Hm, I don't know, but I honestly have to say that Half-Life 2 is about the only game ever about which I can say that all my friends (with the exception of non-gamers and Linux freaks without a Cedega subscription) bought. Really bought, via Steam or retail, as opposed to downloading? No one donwloaded the cracked version, even though many of them download every other game released on this planet "because". From my personal experience (this is not universal truth, remember) I would just say the Steam experim

    • Then stop comparing this with selling a used car. A slightly closer analogy would be buying Harry Potter, then scanning / photocopying it before reselling it.

      And a better analogy still would be buying Harry Potter, reading Harry Potter, and then selling Harry Potter. Which is perfectly legal, oddly enough.
  • I know my opinion might strike many of you as unpopular, but I think retailers should be restricted from selling used games for 60 days after the release date of a title.

    I also believe being able to buy used games is very important, as it enables consumers to buy legacy games that are out of print. But it is vital that developers make a profit, so that they are able to develop more games in the future.
  • The games industry lost a lot of money from used PC games being sold, when they were simply copied and kept and shared among friends. But that's why consoles are popular, and that's why copy protection exists.

    But the idea that software makers exert any kind of control over used marketplaces is ridiculous. Best Buy doesn't sell used appliances because they actually age. But my Warcraft disc will pretty much be the same 5 years from now. Same with the DVDs and CDs. Publishers have to understand that this
  • The right of first sale is a pretty important consideration wrt personal property.

    I don't know what gives software developers the idea that they are somehow special because they have this unenforceable thing called an EULA.

    If you buy a book and there's a EULA inside the cover that says you can't sell it to anyone after you read it, or your car has that printed on the dash, or you girlfriend has it tatooed on her stomach ...
    • From wikipedia...

      "US copyright case law supports that consumers cannot make copies of computer programs contrary to a license, but may resell what they own. This however is conflicting with both section 117 and 109, and the case law itself is conflicting depending on which circuit the case was heard in."

      Looks like Lawyer food! mmm

  • Developer's best bet (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xenocide2 ( 231786 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @03:09PM (#13688186) Homepage
    Nintendo is probably the first of the large vocal companies who figured out how to deal with rentals and used games. For a long time, they were very upset with the american practice of game rentals. Apparently in their home country of Japan rentals and resale are illegal (without permission, presumably). A very nice priviledge, but it certainly draws much ire from the consumers who discover that they're being denied a second-hand market. Nintendo of Japan's wrath was such that they sued Blockbuster, denouncing the practice as unhealthy to the game market (technically, their legal recourse was only reguarding copying of instruction manuals). They've since made up and become good friends, much in the same way that movie companies now tolerate rental stores because they comprise a heavy section of demand for their product. A couple companies have even released rental only versions of their software! I can't recall whether Nintendo themselves has engaged in the practice, although I do recall a Clayfighters game getting such treatment.

    Nintendo has come to the realization that the best strategy against the second hand market was to make games that people want to keep. Most single player games outlast any interest the owner has in the game. Eventually, you've collected all the shines, beaten the final boss and found all the secret endings. Nintendo tries to add multiplayer to every game, whether it makes sense (Metriod Prime) or not (Pikmin 2). The other tactic they've taken is their Player's Choice games. Once demand falls off for a game, lower the price to 20 dollars. This pretty much destroys the used game market margins for the games in the list. For all I know, Best Buy could be trying to get their suppliers (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft) to extract more cheap titles by threatening to sell used games. The test run would then be a method of verifying their estimated profits on the endevor. The used game market becomes a form of blackmail whenever wholesale channels can't meet asking price.

    So basically, Nintendo's strategy is to trot out Miyamato to talk about innovation and quality, while quietly fighting the second hand market with every available resource. Whether they succeed on either front is an individual opinion.
    • I think that your player's choice point is on the mark, but the rest it is not. Also, Nintendo doesn't put every title into player's choice after some months. Only first party titles and some third party titles make it into player's choice.

      And Sony and Microsoft also have their own equivalent programs (platinum titles for the playstation, and I don't know what for the Xbox). And some games in player's choice aren't so cheap either, the main offender is the great game Super Smash Brothers Melee, which has be
      • Actually you do know the Xbox program as that is the one called Platinum Hits, Sony calls their program Greatest Hits. I believe I heard something about Super Smash Brothers Melee finally dropping in price though I don't notice any change yet, but price is one area Nintendo's Players Choice games could really use improvement. With Xbox and PS2 games I know any of the titles in the program I can pick up for $20 or even less during a sale, but not so with Nintendo's titles as different titles get different
        • It's kind of a tangent, but...I think "local" multiplayer is almost a whole 'nother animal than online.

          For what little I've dabbled with it I find online irritating, full of highly skilled jerks and also cheaters and I can't always tell one from the other.

          "Couch" gaming is my favorite, keeping it social, knowing who you're gaming against. It's like a making love in a committed relationship vs. anonymous sex in a restroom.
    • Apparently in their home country of Japan rentals and resale are illegal (without permission, presumably).
      Nope, wrong on both counts. Even in the little town I stayed in(which had the highest prostitute to resident ratio of any place in the world I think, but I digress) there was a place where you could actually rent cds and a really awesome used/new video game store. You could buy used games on any system imaginable, they even had a (suprisingly) large collection of famicom games and a HUGE collection
  • I suppose this whinging money-crazed fucktard is the first to go whinging about copyright law when some warez kid sticks his games up on a Bittorrent site. Well guess what, dude, copyright law works both ways. It gives the developers some rights, and it gives the consumers some rights. In the case of USIAN consumers, 17 USC 109 [bitlaw.com] grants anyone the statutory right to alienate themselves of any physical copy of a copyrighted work, by giving it away, reselling it, selling it on Ebay or whatever. That's the law,

  • Well compete then (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bluGill ( 862 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @03:31PM (#13688415)

    I'm cheap. I admit that flat out. I have no interest in pay $40+ for a game, any game no matter how good. I have no interest in paying $20 for a junk game.

    Go ahead, charge what you want for the popular games when they come out. Lower the prices when sales drop off. I'm in no hurry, I'd rather have a new game (on a disk that isn't scratched), than a used one, but not at your prices. If I knew the game was going to come down I'd wait, and you would at least get something from me.

    Now maybe you don't want my money. Fine with me, I'll buy books instead, a paperback is a lot less than a game anyway. (Though in fact I'd pay more for books than games, but I'm weird that way)

    When there is no option to get your products at a price I'm willing to pay, don't be surprised when I don't buy. This is basic economics, as price goes up, demand goes down. Apply the rules as you wish.

  • I Dissent. Ever see a used copy of Gamboy Tetris? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LordZardoz ( 155141 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @03:36PM (#13688458)
    While I am a game programmer, I think that the opinion that banning the sale of used games is foolhardy. Of course it will likey cost the game publishers, and in turn the developers, a non trivial amount of money. The game industry has a vested intrest in preventing this.

    However, the sale of used games most directly impacts 2nd and 3rd tier titles. Or at least, it the effect is much reduced for first tier titles.

    If a game is worth keeping, it will likely be held onto. Many gamers like to reply games that they liked. But of a game turns out to be a less then perfect play experience, why hold onto it?

    Good games that are sold as used are not going to sit on a shelf in a store very long, but mediocre games will sit for quite some time, be sold back soon, and will have a large effect on the total raw sales of a game.

    Its pretty much impossible to buy a used copy of Tetris for exactly this reason.

    END COMMUNICATION
    • Its pretty much impossible to buy a used copy of Tetris for exactly this reason.

      Actually...no, it's not. I don't know how long it's been since I've gone into an EB or GameStop and haven't been able to find a copy of the original Tetris for sale.

      Admittedly, I live in an area with a lot of game stores and an (at times) oversaturated market. Still, it's definitely out there, and it's affordable to boot - EB had it for under $10, last I checked.

  • 1. Make a crappy game knowing all retailers refuse refunds on opened software. 2. Eliminate used game market, so consumers can't even sell at a loss a crappy game, thus sucker #2 has to buy it new, giving you the profit. 3. ??? 4. Profit!
  • Let me understand this.... Best Buy, like pretty much every big retailer, refuses to allow returns or refunds on software. Usually they lay out that old canard about it being "because of copyright laws".

    Now though they'll happily sell used game software.

    Am I missing somthing?

  • I used to manage for Best Buy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CTD ( 615278 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @08:49PM (#13690926) Homepage
    Until just earlier this summer.

    This is a slick move that I didn't know was coming, it's the right move to make as BBY looks to penetrate the growing gaming market, and you can bet that more things like this will happen in that chain.

    Fact: People buy used games. The smaller retail chains based on gaming earn most of their profit from the lure/sale of used merchandise. Need a second controller? Why not get it used? Want to try a game that you know is not great, but may hold your interest for a week? Why not get it used? Used sales happen. There is a market for them.

    Fact: BBY is a publically traded company with a bottom line need to protect and grow shareholder value. So they are going to make moves that allow them to gain 40% more margin on product sales. That's good profits and good for the bottom line.

    Fact: BBY is currently in a program that is targeting customers and adapting the stores to fit their needs. Doubt me? Do a bit of google on Best Buy and the Demon Customers that made headlines last year. The company is focusing on customers, meeting their needs, getting their loyalty, keeping their sales. Gamers spend money. Crazy video card upgrades, consoles, and games, games, games. Moving to a used games model makes sense. Sell the game, buy it back cheaper than you sold it, then sell it again for profit. Wash, rinse, repeat. It makes sense in the capitalistic world.

    Fact: Traditional boxed sale publishers can gnash their teeth all they want, but they will not boycott Best Buy or another major retailer that has hundreds of outlets to push the 'new' boxes out in.

    Bottom Line: It's good for pofits, will draw in more repeat customers who will buy used, new, and whatever else they see on the way through the store as they shop, and you have a winning prospect.

    The largest hurdle I see here is getting the stores on a program that is adequate for showcasing the used games available, and getting the manuals and cases together when a purchase is intended.

    It works easy at GameStop for them to keep the manuals, etc. at the counter, there are two of them tops in any given GameStop. At Best Buy you have a bank of registers so there is some convenience factor to work out... beyond that it is gravy.

    Expect this to roll out, not to every Best Buy, but to a good number of them.
  • Fair use seems to allow it, if there are no usable backup copies. So if CD copy protection works as game publishers intend, I don't expect those same game publishers can successfully argue that Best Buy is willfully supporting copyright infringement.
  • Of the price of a $40 game (new) the store makes, what, $25 and the publisher gets closer to $15. On a used game, the publisher gets $0, the store makes $30, and the customer-turned-supplier makes about $5 (or credit with a cash value of about $5). So its easy to see why stores love this system. But where does the value to the customer come from? Its either from the publisher, or from the customer-turned-supplier -- they had the game, and thats all the customer cares about. The store is just a convinie
  • or to any other used game store for that matter? They give you pennies on the dollar for your game. It only took me one experience at the local game store trying to sell my used Dreamcast games to realize I was cheating myself. I was offered $5 - $10 for my games when I glanced at the showcase and noticed the same games for $40 - $50 dollars. If they can sell the games for that much why couldn't I do the same? A want add in the paper is all it took to sell my games at a reasonable price for both the buyer a

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close