I've never been comfortable with used games. I've bought some, sure, but I always felt like the $10 or $20 bucks saved were not really worth it. The game packaging is important to me. Supporting my favourite developers is important to me.

So, I've resorted to playing games 1 or 2 years past their time. I can buy the games new, and for cheap (and Portal was still awesome last year, when I played it for the first time). It's not perfect, and you're bound to lose a bit of "free" "DLC," but it's done me well.

I'm not convinced that there's a major problem with this policy. Do you think this will dissuade people from buying games at all? People who buy used still get the core game; new buyers simply get an added bonus. If the used buyers end up loving the game and want to pay for the extra content, they can. If they bought the game used for $40 and end up paying $10 for the extra content, they're still saving money.

And if the policy does in fact drive people to buy more games new, couldn't one argue that including codes in new games is important to new game sales?

Personally, I prefer this option to other measures to curb second-hand sales, like excessive DRM or increased prices.

 I am with the publishers on this one. I have never been one to buy many games used, but I rarely buy my games day 1. Often I will wait a few weeks, check the newspaper, go to Slickdeals or CAG, and purchase the game new (usually cheaper then a used copy). You have to remember a publisher gets zero revenue on a used game purchase. If the retail industry provided the publishers with some of that revenue, things like this may not be so prevalent but the major retailer in the industry caused this mess. 

Brett -- No, I don't think this will completely dissuade people from buying games at all, but I do think it'll result in people buying fewer new games.

It's not exactly true that used buyers will get the whole experience anymore. EA's Online Pass has changed the game. This is the slippery slope many warned about when these single-use codes first started popping up. You're not just rewarding the new-game buyer -- you're punishing the used-game buyer, too.

I don't prefer any measures to curb secondhand sales, and I think publishers who attack this market will eventually undercut the new-game market, too.

Alex, I infer that you're talking about GameStop -- it's more than $5 savings. Most heavy used-game buyers are also going to have an Edge card, which gives an additional 10% off. $49.49 for a nearly brand-new game within the first week of sale -- without needing to do any research -- is a good deal to many.

Well, the problem is, for Xbox 360 owners, we already pay $50 or more for the right to play games online. That is the entire reason we purchase and continue our subscriptions. Now we are being told that not only do we have to pay Microsoft for the right to play games online on their system we also have to pay anyone else who feels the need to charge more money to play their games online??

 I have been talking to a lot of people about this for the past week or so. I was undecided on the matter. I have finally reached a decision. It is disgusting, and we should fight it. They industry is allowed to want more money, but essentially attacking their customers is NOT THE WAY to do it. They receive the money from the initial purchase. However, any purchase after the initial one is no longer their concern. They have no right to interfere with any subsequent purchases. No other business in this country would dare try what EA and even Ubisoft are doing.

Right now, I can get Alan Wake at either Amazon or Wal-mart for $49.99 and I get a $10 gift card towards a future purchase. Why would any sane person want to buy a used copy at Gamestop with this kind of deal so readily available? With these offers becoming more prevalent, are used game sales in the first few weeks even an issue?

I'm not sure I buy Rothman's theory. People with enough disposable income are just going to buy new, and people who have to carefully monitor their expenditures are probably just going to gravitate towards the Amazon/Wal-mart deals or they are just going to have to show some restraint and wait a few weeks for it to go on sale everywhere. I don't see how this would hurt new sales at all. It seems to me like it would bolster new sales.

Honestly, I don't see any reason to ever buy a used copy at Gamestop right now. I think most of that market is coming from lazy and/or impatient people who don't bother to shop around. As someone who already shops smart (S-MART!), these new policies don't affect me one iota.

Jay, people consider more than just price when making a purchase, though. Even with the Amazon deal, you're looking at one of two options -- waiting for a week (or more) to play the game or paying for shipping to get the game sooner (still a several day wait). If you want the game today, Amazon may not be your best choice.

Also, it's the same price at GameStop, and if you have an Edge card, it's actually cheaper (not counting the $10 gift card).

I think what Rothman is ultimately saying is that when a game retains its resale value, people are more likely to buy more new games. The trade-in value fuels further new sales, and things like EA's Online Pass lower that value (new and used). Doing so will limit how much people are willing to spend on games in general in the long-term.

I'm glad you wrote this article, though it seems that some people still don't understand how used game sales help new game sales. It bothers me that people continue to think that used video game sales are actually a detriment to publishers. It bothers me even more that publishers think it hurts them.

The simple truth of the matter is that new games would not be sold in their current volume and at their current prices without a used video game market. Sure, there are a few gamers who buy all new games and never resell those games. They may not benefit as much from a used games market. However, gamers that buy new and then resell the games for cash or credit have vastly increased buying power. Without the ability to resell a new game, such gamers have much less available capital for buying new games. If games were sold at their current prices and there was no option to resell, many gamers would have to spend much more money in order to buy the same amount of games. This seems to be what publishers want, but in reality it doesn't happen that way. People are not going to spend more money on games, they will simply buy less games or find substitutes.

I can't state the concept in any simpler terms, and I have nothing more to say other than that anyone who thinks the used games market hurts the videogame industry is sorely mistaken.

I refuse to embrace this practice that EA and now Ubisoft is implementing, even if it means no longer buying their games (yeah, I'll skip Beyond Good and Evil 2 if it ever comes out). Day one DLC is bad enough when many already believe that it should be on the disc from the start.

When games go completely digital (it'll be a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG time before that happens), what do you think is going to happen? Price hikes, and you won't be able to do anything about it either, there won't be any competition. 

Do companies honestly believe they'll boost sales up higher? What if this plan backfires in the long run? It'll run the cost of games higher. I've always questioned why I should pay $60 for a 5-10 hour game. It's not worth it, that so called "experience" will be forgotten after you play the next game, because far too many games today are not worth playing a second, third, or fourth time. That's not what I call a good purchase.

I will stand by my statement that companies should revolve around the consumer, not the other way around. Game companies are no different to me. By trying to turn used games, and used game buyers into some sort of evil person, you'll lose customers, possibly for good. This "Oh woe is me! I don't get a dime from used game sales!" is getting old, FAST. If they have to cut the price of new games, and therefore have to cut out content, I'd be for it. But greed is a powerful thing, and I don't expect many if at all any companies to do this.

Keep hiking the price of games and screwing customers over, and we'll see how much "growth" results from it. Pachter and all the other game "analysts" won't be able to spin that.

This future of DLC and online gaming has not been some glorious golden road, it's full of pot holes and BS.

Honestly, I already now find it hard to spend 60$ (in Sweden it's more like 100$) on a new game when it comes out. If prices keep going up I'll probably spend less money on games and just buy a few every year or borrow from friends.

I find the argument that they are not getting paid for their work by used-game sales as complete nonsense. It's the same with everything that's sold secondhand. If I buy a used car or used furniture none of the money I pay will go to the maker of that chair, but they did get paid when they sold the product to the first consumer.

The same basic concept is what the commerce system is based on, goods exchange hand multiple times but that does not mean that the original seller/producer should get paid. What would the world look like if every time you sold your car or your house you needed to pay the building company or car manufacturer? It's complete nonsense and that's why I avoid games that go in the wrong direction. I haven't bought a single Activision game in four years. Sure, I've missed out on some great games but my ethics mean more to me. Although I did borrow CoD4 from a friend. 

Vote with your money, It's that simple.

Do we actually have any hard evidence or studies that show people who trade in games buy new? Because in my personal experience (I worked at EB Games/Gamestop for a number of years as a senior) people who trade in used games, have an EDGE card, etc. buy used games.

There were very few customers in the two stores I worked at around here who put those trade-ins towards a new game or a reservation towards a new game (and the latter only happened when the company was running a special deal i.e "trade in games towards the reservation of x and get 20% extra!"). I'm not saying this is the norm, but after talking with a few fellow ex-coworkers and friends of mine who are still in the region (Southern region of the United States, which goes from Texas to Georgia) most of them chimed the same idea: things like this don't hurt the publishers, it hurts used retailers.

Even on that note, stores like Gamestop will not lose much money. If they have to drop their used price by 10$ (which is still more profit than they make off of new titles) and have special $10 MS-Points cards right next to their used sections they will (in fact, if I remember correctly Gamestop has already said they have a solution for this). This will hurt consumers who buy used games but not in their pockets -- they'll just have to go through a bit more footwork in order to save some money. But, publishers don't make money off of those gamers and you can't expect them to tiptoe around those people. Publishers see places like Gamestop as a necessary evil -- the second they can find a better solution (digital distribution or whatever it ends up being) they will very quickly shed that bad skin.

Why this measures keep advancing if so many people feel hurt? if the business is so bad why they keep making these games and not investing somewhere else? The abuses of the publishers go unchecked as long as those millions of people let them be, and we won't change it, my theory? we are already obsessed consumers, unable to show the littlest restraint, we will be abused more and more each year, I mean, it's unbelievable how people on this very site talk about buying used games like some kind of crime, that is the level of indoctrination we got? this is how deep corporate mentality is grained in our minds? if so, I will be waiting for the Crisis and the Gaming Crash, I guess that's the problem right now with all of us, we are fed of lies so much that we can no longer discern truth from corporate propaganda

Mark, how do used games exist on the market if people who buy new aren't trading in? From where else would they originate? Maybe you never saw store credit from trade-ins used for new video games because all the new video games that were traded in at the store were bought elsewhere. If people are buying new from retailers like Wal-Mart and Target and trading in at GameStop and buying used games with their credit, you may never see much store credit being used for new games, regardless of the fact that people are obviously buying new games somewhere and trading them in at the store at which you worked.

I just can't wrap my head around the idea that used games appear out of nowhere.

Rob - I'm not so sure that the numbers bear this theory out. If you look at the end of this analysis of Gamestop sales - http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2010/04/indepth_inside_the_business_of.php - used game unit sales increased a significant amount from Jan 2009 to Jan 2010, but unit sales of new games actually decreased. This is supported by the fact that the average sale price of a new game increased by $2 per unit (4.8% increase), but gross revenue for new games only increased by 1.2%. By way of comparison, used video game sales (in units and dollar amount) increased 18% in the same period.

Sure, some of these numbers are estimates but, if you read the explanation, they seem reasonable to me.

Jay, but this is only one retail outlet -- Rothman is discussing the market as a whole, i.e., all new-game sales, not just new-game sales from GameStop. His experience is with used cars, and if you've ever bought a vehicle, you'll know that resale value is incredibly important in determining the retail price of new cars. New vehicles which retain a higher resale value longer are much more likely to sell more than those that don't, too.

What I think is more important for the discussion of the effect of used games on new games (specifically for GameStop as a retailer) are the sales and profits charts.

The sales chart shows that GameStop consistently sells more dollars worth of new games than used games. Put that into context with the profit chart, and we see that GameStop relies on used product (software and hardware) revenue to maintain operations.

Cutting into that profit margin means fewer GameStop locations, which means fewer retailers, which means fewer new-game sales. This is a different argument, but it's still relevant.

[Edit]: This is interesting, too -- GamesIndustry.biz reports that new-software sales for GameStop increased by 13.3%, driving up total sales by 5.1% in the first quarter of this year.

This is unrelated to my comment to Jay, so I'll start a new one -- GamesIndustry.biz reports that THQ is following in EA's Online Pass footsteps. UFC Undisputed 2010 will require secondhand buyers to pay an extra $5 to access online features. We may be slipping already, Brett.

For more on this kind of thing, see my GamePro article in the June issue.

Gamestop COO Paul Raines weighs in on this topic:

"We are pleased to participate in the launch of electronic arts online pass and sales of DLC on new titles."

"We support the creation of added downloadable content for popular franchises, as we see that as extending the life of titles and broadening the base of game players."

"We do not anticipate an impact to our used margins due to this program. The amount of used game buyers currently playing online is low, and as it grows, our proprietary models will manage trade and sale pricing to reach margin goals.

"Lastly, we believe that the online pass process will allow publishers to better leverage their IP content through DLC sales to both used players and new game buyers." 

Eh, of course he's going to say that. The end result is still the same, though -- consumers end up paying more for less.