Commentary

Best Buy Enters Used Game Market As Devs Rail Against It

by Shankar Gupta , August 27, 2010

Game publishers and developers hate it when people buy pre-owned games. Most of them keep relatively quiet about it, but this week, THQ's Cory Ledesma called out patrons of Gamestop and other used game sellers when he announced that people who buy used games will have to pay a fee for many features of upcoming THQ games, including online play. He pre-empted the shouts of outrage by telling used game buyers that he just doesn't care. "If used game buyers are upset they don't get the online feature set I don't really have much sympathy for them," he said. "That's a little blunt but we hope it doesn't disappoint people. We hope people understand that when the game's bought used we get cheated."

Ledesma picked a great week to enter the fray.Yesterday, Best Buy announced that, like Gamestop, it would begin accepting used game trade-ins in exchange for Best Buy gift cards, which can be spent on anything in the store. Once the store has built up a large enough stock of used games, it will start selling them, too -- a great deal for Best Buy, since it's creating a brand new revenue stream at a comparatively small cost.

For game developers and publishers, the used game market, though perfectly legitimate, has been as big, or an even bigger problem, as piracy. Many of the innovations in the video game distribution system, including DLC and digitial distribution, were developed in part to ensure that people bought games new, rather than getting them used or copying them illegally. Developers hate when their sales are cannibalized, regardless of whether it's done legally or not.

THQ's move has produced two fairly polarized camps. On one side are the gamers who hate the $60 price point of new titles, and think that developers are already gouging them enough. On the other side, developers and gamer loyalists who point out that buying games used provides exactly zero dollars to the people who actually produced the game.

It doesn't really seem as if there's a moral imperative anywhere here. Everyone, from consumers to retailers to developers, is just looking to protect their own bottom line. I tend to think that if you have the cash to buy new, you should, to support the developers who are bringing you original entertainment experiences. What do you think? Is selling used games stealing from developers? Or do we all have the right to dispense with our old games however we choose, regardless of the effect it has on THQ's bottom line?

gaming

5 comments about "Best Buy Enters Used Game Market As Devs Rail Against It".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Ric Steiner from Bakersfield Californian, August 27, 2010 at 1:29 p.m.
I just have to wonder if any of the developers have ever bought or sold a used car.
Reply

Christopher Bian from Dynamic Logic, August 27, 2010 at 1:45 p.m.

For each camp to criticize the other is unfair and to a certain extent, child-like. As an avid gamer of console games, and thus, belonging to the "consumer" camp, I do believe the $60 pricetag is rather high. Do or have I bought used? Of course. Have I bought just as many new? Yep. However, despite my belief, I also understand that it's a business where that pricepoint has been set to cover all overhead as well as allow a profit margin. On the other hand, Devs need to understand that it IS a right for the consumer to do what with their videogame they choose, providing its legal. Complaining that they feel cheated is akin to whining. Simply put, it's a "cost of doing business, i.e., it comes with the territory - instead, push further to innovate, add value to buying new games and look forward - that will be the best way to combat (but not eliminate) the issue.

Greg Stricklin from Filtered Space, August 27, 2010 at 1:45 p.m.

I do not see where a debate or discussion on this subject is warranted. Please ask these developers how many cars have they either purchased or, sold? If memory of my own experiences serves me well, I did not pay GM when I sold my 1974 4 door Chevy Imapala in 1982 to upgrade, utilizing the side of the road as my store. Did GM lose money or, did they refuse to service the car for the next owner? I also do not remember paying the original company who constructed my first house when I sold, again, to upgrade.

Instead of selling their product, it seems that THQ would like to license their product to the end user. If this is/not the case, why not charge a FAIR fee to "used gamers" that would enable the special features. Seems the same as selling new factory parts for a used car.

Do business no longer account for "The cost of doing business" in their business plans?

After all, how fair is it to the consumer that the game could be obsolete in a "minute."

David Wilson from AMN Healthcare, August 27, 2010 at 3:55 p.m.

Why not move to a digital distribution model, where games are just downloaded every time for a lesser fee? The lower price would be possible because of the lower cost (not have to produce a CPG). As long as you could keep people from copying the games, you would get paid for every download. People without internet connectivity could download to a disc at a library.

Nelson Yuen from Stereotypical Mid Sized Services Corp., August 28, 2010 at 1:44 p.m.

@David @ Ric & @David are all right.

THQ and other companies don't have much of a right to criticize Gamestop or Bestbuy on the buying and selling of used games - it's an econ issue from the fundamentals.

There are a NUMBER of titles that never get traded heavily used - citing titles like BORDERLANDS or COD games. It's because the game itself produces enough value to the end consumer for people to keep the title. Fundamental supply and demand. If you produce a game with limited value (I.E. SHORT titles that gamers are constantly frustrated over) then the end consumer has little reason to keep the title or purchase the game at a 60.00 price point.

Think of multi-player titles with lots of downloadable content, or immersible single player titles with hours of original content; consumers are less likely to sell these titles because they are less likely to derive the full value out of them. With less titles on the market used, closer the price point from used to new. (Ever visited a Gamestop? A hot and good new title sells ONLY 5 dollars less than the new.)

If big publishers want to complain about having a used game market - they should be prepared for people flocking to rental services like Gamefly as a cost effective alternative. If your game sucks, the value of your game should be worth less. I.E. there will be more of your titles on sale used at the store which means a significantly lower price point.

Ironically, THQ is one of the bottom performing blockbuster producers of game titles. The company complaining about people buying used games is actually putting out the worst games in the market today.