Writer: Obama Should Regulate Sales of Used Games... GP: No

so the devs are to be considered goblins?

Not everyone has internet and not everyone has a great enough connection to receive such titles within a reasonable timeframe especially if their internet connection has caps (which many do).

DD will be a sad day for many consumers that prefer the reliability an actual copy with possibility of resale.

Game sizes are likely going to be huge next gen, we already have PC titles pushing 14~18GBs, some people only get a monthly cap of 20 in some countries. It'd be a bad business model to focus on it currently, as much as they'd like it, that perceived value of resale being gone would likely have customers demanding the price for a game drop to the $30~40 range, and publishers are extremely stingy about selling at $60 currently b/c of their huge expenses on developing titles they feel they need to spend in order to feel they have a AAA title.

The car industry does it well...  Pretty much used games become negotiable on price...

---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls

This is exactly my concern as outlined above.

If publishers want to keep making money off their games they would continue to offer those games for sale. But no, they would rather release a limited supply and try to rape the used market.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091

The Wii VC and similiar services are actually an example of why the game industry fights both the second hand market and the abandonware piracy... so that demand can build over time and if they so choose they can re-release thier IP years later like this.

Kinda a mixed bag for consumers but it does explain why they care so much about games they don't even publish anymore.

Having kids is killing the adoption industry.

---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

The companies already got their profit from the original though.  Here, let me explain why this is not logical.

Someone buys their game, so the company who made it got the money for that copy of the game, and all is good.  Then they sell the game, therefore they no longer own or use that game.  Then someone else buys the game.  If the company gets profit off of that too, then they are getting income because of it being sold a second time, when they already got profit from that item with no additional items on the street.

If the company that made it actually got money taken away from them because of someone selling the game to EB or GS, then that would be logical, but no one did and no additional copies of that game are on the street by it being sold to a second person, legally. (if that is the case, then they have legal actions they can pursue)

So I bought my 2009 Corolla for $16,000 (rounding) from Toyota back in March or April.  Now if I turn around and sell my car to someone, Toyota has no right to take a percentage of that money from me that I get from selling it to another person, and if I sell it to a dealership for $12,000, and they turn around and sell it to someone else for $14,000, then Toyota asked them for a percentage of the money they profited, that is not fair to the dealership. 

Now if I or the dealership had the ability to duplicate the car at no cost to us, then sell 2 cars, I could see them taking a profit, but if these games are sticking with the original disc, then no one other than the people directly involved with the transaction has no right for any money to be transferred to them other than the government who is going to rape us on taxes no matter what.

Consumers are taking at least some form of risk of getting a used game through any location, may it be online or EB/GameStop.  The game could be scratched and you not be able to play a side quest or section of the game.  It could smell like smoke because of the past owner being a smoker, it could not have the booklet, and plenty of other things that encourage people to buy a new copy instead.  If the original price wouldn't have gotten so ass raping high, then people would still be buying new copies instead of used ones.  There are extremely few games worth $60, and even more if it is a PC game that has an expansion pack.

I am okay with the blue book idea, but it needs to go into such detail that it would have to figure in condition of the disc and case, if the booklet is included, and so on.  So it would have to be exactly like edmunds uses to figure out car values given the car condition, what features it has and so on.  I don't see all that labor paying off for anyone though, and Ebay would be better still for anyone unless they dont want to deal with it.  You only get ripped off as much as your laziness lets you.
---
Nido Web Flash Tutorials AS2 and AS3 Tutorials for anyone interested.
How to set Xbox 360 Parental Controls

THere is already a way for customers to prevent being screwed like that. It is called ebay and Craigslist. Honestly. The only reason customers are willing to seel their games to Gamestop for the meager price they get is that they find it easier than dealing with online services or other means of selling it themselves. If more people sold their games themselves, GS would be forced to alter their used game market to look more appealing to customers who want unload a bunch of games.

I also don't like the idea of a bluebook system. Will such a system actually represent the value of the game or will it only deal in depreciation. THere are many games out there that are selling for much more than MSRP now due to the fac they are so rare and sought after. Will a Bluebook system honestly represent that. Also, who would be in charge of managing bluebook prices? It can't be the industry as they would be in the position to directly control the game market. It can't be the retailers as they would directly benefit from it. So it would have to be an independent group. But who?

My next concern, why do we even need a bluebook system? The only other industry I know of that has one is the auto industry. They have one because cars are large investments and calculating depreciation of a car is a lot tougher than most low priced products such as games. The price of games would make a bluebook system almost worthless. $60 is not something that needs regulated as much as $10,000.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
MySpace Page: http://www.myspace.com/okceca
Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1325674091

"Like when you trade in a game for a dollar store credit that is sold for $15. Helluva mark-up and regulation would keep that from happening."

Umm. Why? If people want to trade in their games for a dollar when it's no secret that the store will mark it up like that, shouldn't they be allowed to? If they think it's a bad deal, wouldn't they just, you know, not sell the game, or try to find a better price elsewhere?

Scary thing is, there have been laws passed that speak like that.  I can recall reading a case study of a national law that limited what farmers could grow, including what you grew for your own family, partly under the idea that if you were self suffient then you hurt the industry.

There have been plenty of examples of industries that got powerful enough make life difficult for people doing it for themselves.  Healthcare is another example.. it wasn't all that long ago that having your baby without a doctor was basicly illegal.... so one of the most basic human activites was religated to 'you can't do that yourself'