News - Asda And Tesco trial pre-owned game scheme and trade-ins

[finlay666]

Why?

There's a need for them to properly price their products in the first place to make the business viable, or to adjust their cost structures to fit what they can charge, but I see no justification at all for expecting a chunk of second hand sales. If I sell a second hand Ka, Ford don't expect to get a chunk of the proceeds.

Because this is a market where an item can be bought once then it typically sold up to 10 more times before reaching the end of the life. That means the company gets less than 1/10 of what they should from releases especially with pre-owned games available at a similar price shortly after release.

But they will from the next customer who may take it to be serviced with them.

It's a terrible analogy to use simply because the depreciation and maintenance cost on a car are not like that of a game (or at least all games)

If I could afford to buy new games, I would.
But, I can't hence I buy used games 2-3 months later after release date.

Do the devs expect me to pay full price after 2-3 months?

And DLC's don't work. I for one don't buy them.

If they decide to completely abolish purchase of USED games, I'll just become a pirate! Now, is that better than what I am doing now?

Why not buy new games on offers? I haven't bought many pre-owned games and I have gotten some of my games very cheaply. If you don't buy them why not use a rental service like gameswap? They pay the companies direct a higher price for the game so the game companies still get a higher percentage of revenue.

You TOTALLY missed the point on the DLC, 0 day DLC is designed to be for those that buy the game new as an incentive to buy it. And you have never bought an expansion pack or anything like that? That is essentially DLC just in an older form.

If they abolish used games as I suggested game rental services, they usually work out a LOT cheaper if you either play a lot of games each month or even just 1

[Saracen]

Your second hand ka isn't a pristine 100% accurate copy of the original experience either. There's a built in incentive to buy a new car, publishers need to create similar measures for games, which is happening with day 0 DLC etc.

As others have said, you have to wait for a second-hand copy, and you also get no guarantee that all the original bits will be there, or in good condition.

Moreover, you've bought the ability to experience the game. Once you've done so, why should you not be able to sell it, just like you can anything else. You buy a book for the experience of reading it, and can then sell it. You buy an audio CD, and it you then decide you don't want it any more more, you sell it.

If publishers want to provide an incentive for initial buyers in the form of a one-use code for a free DLC, then I don't see a problem with that. If they want to charge for subsequent downloads I don't see a problem with that. The same principle often appies to warranties on hardware - often they are non-transferable so part of what you get when you buy new and often don't get when you buy second-hand is the warranty .... which is partly why I rarely buy second-hand.

In summation, I see no problem with publishers providing incentives to first buyers. What I do see as a problem is them telling those buyers that they can't see the game on ... and by and large, the courts have agreed.

[Saracen]

So, if I've understood what you're saying correctly...

Once you've bought an item, the previous owner no longer holds any rights over what you do with that particular specimen. They may well retain rights over copying it, etc, but the actual physical specimen is no longer under their control - and as a result they can't ban you from selling it.
....

More or less. The irght they lose is the distribution rightm, which is the right to control distribution of the product .... and it gets complicated when you start to talk about exporting or importing the product. But within the initial jurisdiction, yes, that seems to be the preponderance of what isn't an entirely settled legal situation.

....

However, you may sign a contract with the previous owner that binds you - perhaps someone sells you an item on the condition that you retain it for the next 50 years, and you sign a contract saying that - and in that case it's the contract that binds you. However, an EULA is theoretically unenforceable because you don't read and agree to it before purchase (I've seen that argued before in other cases as well) - so it's possibly irrelevant here.

Not so much that you don't read or agree to it but that you often don't get the chance to read it. A basic tenet of contract law is that you can't introduce conditions to a contract after it's made. It goes back at least to the "ticket" cases, where exclusion of liability was printed on the back of a ticket that you only got after the contract was concluded .... i.e. you made an offer, it was accepted and you paid money and got a ticket, only to find purported limitation.

A friend of mine is a fairly unusual combination .... an IP rights lawyer and a software developer. I asked him about the EULA he puts on his software and challenged him on this point. His answer was .... "you may well be right and the theory is sound .... but until it's tested in court, we won't know. Anyway, putting the EULA in can't hurt me, so in it goes". There have been some cases on this, but generally in relation to custom-developed software or bespoke/tailored systems, where the relationship between seller and buyer is very different to a small retail purchase

....

But because the EULA for Steam/similar systems probably get you to agree to a contract prior to purchase that changes everything around a bit?...

That's one of the areas that is most unclear, but yeah. If, and I repeat IF the argument that because you explicitly agree before buying were to hold, and/or IF the argument that for a download with no physical object were to hold, then the point at which first sale occurs could well change and that affects the exhaustion principle, or it could turn the purchase from a good to a service and again, that would affect the right to resell. All this, in relation to downloaded software, is an area that is currently unclear and, as far as I can tell, virtually untested in courts, especially in the UK.

.....

I thought your comment about "licensing" vs "owning" was a fairly moot point since the software companies always explicitly only licensed software rather than selling you ownership of it. Or are you saying that their opinions on that may not be grounded in law? I have to admit I always thought it was ridiculous that they could sell you a box and a disc and then claim it wasn't really yours... next Ikea will be licensing me a table design - but nonetheless I always considered it to be true.

I'm saying that there are doubts, one of which is that a EULA that may be enforceable under US law may not be under UK law. The legal systems are similar in many ways, but very far from identical.

But ..... I wasn't saying that the "licensing" argument was false. I was saying that not all of it is necessarily binding, and that the other prong of the software publishers approach, that of IP distribution rights, has problems too, mainly with the first sale doctrine/exhaustion principle.

My main point was that nobody can say with certainty that you can or can't sell a game on, because the law is unclear, though there's a fair bit of evidence that you can. Publishers can say you can't because of IP rights but it doesn't make it true, and they can put it in a EULA but that doesn't mean it's necessarily enforceable.

[Hicks12]

Because this is a market where an item can be bought once then it typically sold up to 10 more times before reaching the end of the life. That means the company gets less than 1/10 of what they should from releases especially with pre-owned games available at a similar price shortly after release.

But they will from the next customer who may take it to be serviced with them.

It's a terrible analogy to use simply because the depreciation and maintenance cost on a car are not like that of a game (or at least all games)

But if you think about it, those pre-owned sales help fund the person who sold it pay for a new game from publishers. They get most of the money from games IMO, because they are essentially getting part of say the £10 someone paid for a pre-owned title because originally they would never have been able to offer the game new so they didnt get a customer, however the person who had it new now has that extra cash to pay the games he/she buys new all the time.

Thats how i see it anyway, providing DLC at the start for free is no problem and yes its certainly a good choice for them and i support them all the way with it, however i dont support them selling DLC on the first day to all their "users" as that to me is cheap, your paying for their development and the game is having features removed and yet you need to pay for them to be added etc. Other than that i dont see the problem with DLC.

[finlay666]

But if you think about it, those pre-owned sales help fund the person who sold it pay for a new game from publishers. They get most of the money from games IMO, because they are essentially getting part of say the £10 someone paid for a pre-owned title because originally they would never have been able to offer the game new so they didnt get a customer, however the person who had it new now has that extra cash to pay the games he/she buys new all the time.

But they don't, the spending usually goes on a used game/promo trade in which sees the price of the game sale reduced

The price of a pre-owned game from the retailers is usually more than new if you shop around. They have you suckered as you get pittance of cash sales and only as fair amount on trade in

http://www.game.co.uk/Games/Xbox-360...etta/~r336360/
£30 pre owned
http://www.thehut.com/games/platform...5c8&affil=awin
£20 new

The £20 game will also mean the publishers get their cut

[Saracen]

Because this is a market where an item can be bought once then it typically sold up to 10 more times before reaching the end of the life. That means the company gets less than 1/10 of what they should from releases especially with pre-owned games available at a similar price shortly after release.
....

You say they get 1/10th of what they "should".

Why the hell should they?

They sold a game, and I buy it. I play it, get bored after a while and decide to sell it, to some one else that can play it. Now, they get the experience instead oif me ... just like with a CD or a DVD.

How many products can you think of where the original seller gets a cut every time the product subsequently changes hands on the second hand market?

Most of my income comes from writing these days. Suppose I write an article and you buy the magazine (or book, or whatever). Do you think either I or the publisher get paid every time that book or magazine changes hands? I kinda wish I did, but frankly, I don't think I've ever heard a more ludicrous assertion.

This does not mean that you can take my work and use it in another form or for another purpose. If my work appears on your website or in your publications, I'll expect to get paid again. So do that, and if I find out, my solicitors will be in touch. I've had to resort to that on occasion. But there's nothing to stop you selling, or giving away, the original magazine or book, and I don't see a penny for that, nor do I expect to.

So if you don't like the car analogy, try a book ... or a CD.

[finlay666]

You say they get 1/10th of what they "should".

Why the hell should they?

They sold a game, and I buy it. I play it, get bored after a while and decide to sell it, to some one else that can play it. Now, they get the experience instead oif me ... just like with a CD or a DVD.

How many services can you think of where the original seller gets a cut every time the product subsequently changes hands on the second hand market?

Most of my income comes from writing these days. Suppose I write an article and you buy the magazine (or book, or whatever). Do you think either I or the publisher get paid every time that book or magazine changes hands? I kinda wish I did, but frankly, I don't think I've ever heard a more ludicrous assertion.

This does not mean that you can take my work and use it in another form or for another purpose. If my work appears on your website or in your publications, I'll expect to get paid again. So do that, and if I find out, my solicitors will be in touch. I've had to resort to that on occasion. But there's nothing to stop you selling, or giving away, the original magazine or book, and I don't see a penny for that, nor do I expect to.

So if you don't like the car analogy, try a book ... or a CD.

Neither of those reflect games, games are technically services, not products, you do not own it if you buy it, you own a licence of use, which the games retailers are selling on without being authorised from the copyright owner.

You cant bonk a prosititute, then sell on that experience. It's a service, not a tangible product (well... maybe the medication you might need after is... but that is entirely different)

You can't watch a film at a cinema then trade in your experience for a different film because you have nothing tangible except a ticket, a ticket that gives you permission to watch that film once. The only way these companies can get away with it is by not having distribution systems where the content the end user purchased is worthless after purchase. The only way to do this is to make the game unavailable to sell on.

My issue is not private sales, my issue is companies doing this en masse and generating the vast majority (as in of their profit from buying and selling used games shafting both the customer in giving them an unfair price for their item with respect to their resale cost and to the original IP owner by generating more profit without them seeing any loyalties.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/new...hp?story=23396

These companies no longer specialise in selling new games, they are designed to buy and sell pre owned games, especially when a new pre owned release will go for near enough RRP. The only arguement for the 2nd hand market is that the sale of pre-owned goods facilitates users to get into an IP which means they will buy more games from that IP, and trading in games enables purchases of other games (such as trading in an 09 game to get a 10 game), this has not been proven yet though.

You can't use an analogy because there simply isnt an analogy there to be used. You are trying to compare fundamentally different things and define them as a tangible item when in truth they aren't. All you pay for is a DVD/Blu ray, some printed paper and a plastic box that is a tangible item. The true value lies in the contents of the disc which you have a licence to use, not to reproduce or use in any other way than to play.


My proposed solution which (may seem silly but will become clear) is for all games (steam, xbox 360, ps3, gfwl) is to have a redeemable code inside the box (like a cd key), this enables you to get things such as achievements, online play, 0 day DLC etc on your account. If you sell on the game you can, however the next user may pay to unlock these features (priced to sell, as in reduced price on DLC etc, or a one time charge of say £5 to get all the additional features,) so you could play the game, see you enjoy it, then pop up your marketplace, register your game then get access to the additional material.

It may seem like shareware, but the approach is actually quite successful in selling products. Especially on games such as Fallout 3 on the PC, where you can play the game, but dont get any achievements unless you register it.

Another game it worked extremely well on was Trials 2 on the PC, they released the game on a torrent site without the leaderboard functionality, and saw a notable increase in sales due to the new user base. I hate the current demo scene as they are usually too short and unrepresentative of the game (probably because the games are too short themselves) but I think on games that have a decent amount of content this is a great way to encourage people to support the developers.

[Saracen]

You buy a game on a disc in a shop. Then you sell it. It's a product you buy, that includes a licence, and you get benefit from the contents of the disc, and you don't own the IP to those contents.

You buy an audio CD on a disc in a shop. Then you sell it. It's a product you buy, that includes a licence, and you get benefit from the contents of the disc, and you don't own the IP to those contents.

You buy a DVD of a film or concert on a disc in a shop. Then you sell it. It's a product you buy, that includes a licence, and you get benefit from the contents of the disc, and you don't own the IP to those contents.

See the similarity? In each case, the disc and packaging is the medium, the transport mechanism, but you're buying the benefit of the intellectual property to use and enjoy, but not to copy, or adapt, etc.

In one case, the benefit is playing a game. In the others, it's watching the movie or listening to the music. And it's exactly the same principle when you buy a book or a magazine - you are buying the benefit you derive from the IP, the knowledge of an expert, or the pleasure of a novel. The medium varies, but the principle does not.

Games are not services in the true sense of the word, any more than the music on a disc is, or the words in a book are. If you hire someone to cut your grass, or wash your house windows, or service your car, that is a service.

Software houses might be able to get providing a game via Steam categorized as a service, but not when you buy a disc, because when you buy a disc, you are buying a tangible product. When you download, they may be able to argue it's a service as the whole thing is intangible, but not with a boxed product.

[aidanjt]

...

...... Wow, IPtards really have seriously brain-damaged folk.

That just wouldn't stand up in court at all. Which is why nobody has ever challenged GAME's second hand market in court.

Saracen pretty much hit the nail on the head as to why, so I don't think I need to add much more.

[OilSheikh]

Why not buy new games on offers? I haven't bought many pre-owned games and I have gotten some of my games very cheaply. If you don't buy them why not use a rental service like gameswap? They pay the companies direct a higher price for the game so the game companies still get a higher percentage of revenue.

You TOTALLY missed the point on the DLC, 0 day DLC is designed to be for those that buy the game new as an incentive to buy it. And you have never bought an expansion pack or anything like that? That is essentially DLC just in an older form.

If they abolish used games as I suggested game rental services, they usually work out a LOT cheaper if you either play a lot of games each month or even just 1

The only games I have bought when they were just released are the ones I am a big fan of ( Kingdom Hearts 2, COD MW2 and upcoming FFXIII ).
New games just cost too much.All I want is the experience of playing the game.. I am not going to keep it like a collector.

I buy games, play them and then sell them off. And, selling on a game also gives me ca$h to invest towards other games. So, for example.. Bayonetta .. I bought it for £24 ( when new ones were selling for £35-40). My younger brother has played and finished it. I'll play it a week later once I have finished what I am playing now. I'll look up the price on ebay after I have finished it as well and I see it selling for £20. I sell it for £20 and use this to buy another game! If I rented it from swapgame, I would pay £4 and this is lost for me.

I was talking about later DLC's that are released. Resident Evil 5 DLC's are being released after so many months. I bought it looong ago, finished it and sold it. Do they expect me to buy it again?

Devs need to look at some other way to get money off us.. perhaps voluntary contribution? If a game is real good, we are happy to chip in our donations.

[finlay666]

...... Wow, IPtards really have seriously brain-damaged folk.

That just wouldn't stand up in court at all. Which is why nobody has ever challenged GAME's second hand market in court.

Saracen pretty much hit the nail on the head as to why, so I don't think I need to add much more.

Yes I'm an IP tard, seeing as I work in the industry and I'm currently trying to gain another job in the industry as I love working in it.

I'm against it purely on the principle, seeing as you clearly don't have anything of any value to contribute, why post?


Saracen, apologies in advance for disecting your post, it's only because I have a lot to comment on it.

You buy a game on a disc in a shop. Then you sell it. It's a product you buy, that includes a licence, and you get benefit from the contents of the disc, and you don't own the IP to those contents.

You buy a audio CD on a disc in a shop. Then you sell it. It's a product you buy, that includes a licence, and you get benefit from the contents of the disc, and you don't own the IP to those contents.

You buy a DVD of a film or concert on a disc in a shop. Then you sell it. It's a product you buy, that includes a licence, and you get benefit from the contents of the disc, and you don't own the IP to those contents.

See the similarity? In each case, the disc and packaging is the medium, the transport mechanism, buy you're buying the benefit of the intellectual property to use and enjoy, but not to copy, or adapt, etc.

Absolutely. However each of those other examples you give the original IP owners have other ways of generating revenue than those streams, such as Cinema releases, live gigs, radio play. Games do not have that luxury of being available in multiple formats at differing times.

On the same subject it is partly why cinema ticket prices are so high, that you do not have to wait for it to be cheaper or come out on TV, the other down side is you get a single use licence.

In one case, the benefit is playing a gamer. In the others, it's watching the movie or listening to the music. And it's exactly the same principle when you buy a book or a magazine - you are buying the benefit you derive from the IP, the knowledge of an expert, or the pleasure of a novel. The medium varies, but the principle does not.

As I said previously games cannot be directly compared as there are alternative means of obtaining the benefit of those IPs that do benefit the creators, going to a gig, watching a film at the cinema, watching a film adaptation of a book. All those benefit the creator yet are not using the original medium and do generate the creator more money. Nine Inch Nails stopped charging for their music as they made more from gig sales than they did from records because of piracy.

Games are not services in the true sense of the word, any more than the music on a disc is, or the words in a book are. If you hire someone to cut your grass, or wash your house windows, or service your car, that is a service.

Software houses might be able to get providing a game via Steam categorized as a service, but not when you buy a disc, because when you buy a disc, you are buying a tangible product. When you download, they may be able to argue it's a service as the whole thing is intangible, but not with a boxed product.

They may not be however software/games are a lot more like a service than a tangible product. You get an interactive experience, not a physical object

The only games I have bought when they were just released are the ones I am a big fan of ( Kingdom Hearts 2, COD MW2 and upcoming FFXIII ).
New games just cost too much.All I want is the experience of playing the game.. I am not going to keep it like a collector.

as I said if you have no interest of possessing a game after you finish it why not use a rental service?

I buy games, play them and then sell them off. And, selling on a game also gives me ca$h to invest towards other games. So, for example.. Bayonetta .. I bought it for £24 ( when new ones were selling for £35-40). My younger brother has played and finished it. I'll play it a week later once I have finished what I am playing now. I'll look up the price on ebay after I have finished it as well and I see it selling for £20. I sell it for £20 and use this to buy another game! If I rented it from swapgame, I would pay £4 and this is lost for me.

Do you see how flawed that statement is? That £4 you 'lost' to swapgame is the same as the £20 you 'gain' from selling it on ebay, either way you are £4 down from never buying the game.

Why not use a brand new title as an example, not a game you bought pre owned, and include the ebay fees etc.

And again don't use a private sale if you wish to disprove my argument, that is not my complaint in this. My complaint is with the companies where 50p of every £1 of a used game sale is profit.

I was talking about later DLC's that are released. Resident Evil 5 DLC's are being released after so many months. I bought it looong ago, finished it and sold it. Do they expect me to buy it again?

No for you to still own it, buy it for the first time or rebuy it if you want the DLC enough

Devs need to look at some other way to get money off us.. perhaps voluntary contribution? If a game is real good, we are happy to chip in our donations.

Look how that worked for the devs behind World of Goo, 99% paid less than $1 for the game yet said it was worth more than $10. And again with the piracy on that game of 90+% piracy regardless of DRM on that game. People seem really happy to chip in for a good game

[Blastuk]

Look how that worked for the devs behind World of Goo, 99% paid less than $1 for the game yet said it was worth more than $10. And again with the piracy on that game of 90+% piracy regardless of DRM on that game. People seem really happy to chip in for a good game

I paid like 1p for world of goo, I played it once and didn't touch it again.
Would I have bought it otherwise? No.

That's just me though.

[Saracen]

....

Saracen, apologies in advance for disecting your post, it's only because I have a lot to comment on it.
....

No problem. Dissect away.

I disagree with your logic though.

If game companies have no other revenue streams, then all that means is that they need a business model with a price and cost structure that allows them to operate. It does not mean they have any right to chisel more out of customers by trying to deny that they can sell a game once finished with.

But I don't agree they have no other revenue streams. One is to charge to additional content. Another is to provide sequels .... you may have noticed companies doing that. Another is merchandising or derivative products, be it books based on a theme, or plastic models. Another would be to develop premium services.

And before you say that they all (or mostly) incur additional costs, well, so it incurs additional costs if a band goes on tour. Oh boy, does it.

Even I develop additional revenue streams from a given project. For instance, I review an item of hardware for HEXUS (if I worked for them commercially, which I don't and never have). Most of the work goes into researching the product, and a relatively small amount to writing the review. For argument's sake, call it 70:30. So .... I write a review for someone else as well. The 70% has been done and only needs doing once, so I get paid the second time for 30% of the effort, more or less. Then I do another one for someone else. And get paid again.

Note that the review is different. I'm not selling the same review multiple times, but leveraging the intellectual effort. And, clearly, you don't do it behind people's backs. For a long time, if you worked for PC Magazine, you didn't work for PC Pro or Personal Computer World, because PC Mag wouldn't use you if you did. Unless you used a pseudonym and hoped they didn't find our ... but editors aren't generally stupid and see through that. But they had no objection to you writing for mags they didn't see as competitors, either because they were in the same publishing group, or targeted different readers. So you wouldn't write the review in the same way for the Telegraph as you would for PC Pro, for instance. And then you can look at mags in the US. Or Australia. And combine the basic knowledge you accumulate and do an industry analysis piece for Computer Weekly. Or a spot on a local radio shop as a tech expert. Or write a book. Or offer consultancy services to corporates.

Each of these draws on the same basic knowledge, the same IP, but packages and combines it in different ways. In my case, I might be doing a group test of laser printers for a magazine one week, but a consultancy project on lasers for a supermarket the next.

I use expertise and imagination to gain from repackaging, and derivative works. So do games companies. For instance, they take a success, build a new storyline and new maps, and release a sequel. Maybe they tweak the game engine, and maybe next time they do a massive overhaul/upgrade. Maybe they produce limited editions with "nice" cloth maps, or a novella, or a fancy metal box.

There's all sorts of ways they can derive additional revenue streams from their works, and as I'm sure you know, they do most or all of these every chance they get.

Sur,e bands get a chance to do live concerts and movies get DVD releases. Well, games get those limited edition versions, or they do an Orange Box exercise and bundle several games together for those that missed some or all first time. And they re-release later in budget form. I've bought half a dozen of those in the last couple of years, for games that I'll pay a fiver for but wouldn't buy at full price. So ... by that device, they get a revenue stream from me personally that they wouldn't get at full price.

Again, the marketing strategy uses the same principles as, for instance, movies. The control what is released, where and at what price, and they release phases designed to address different user demographics, like me picking up a cut-price game or a cut-price movie in the bargain bin. I've done both.

Obviously, a band, a game and a movie are different products and the exact mechanisms are different, but they all have similar options available and they all use them.

[Saracen]

....

as I said if you have no interest of possessing a game after you finish it why not use a rental service?

....

Personally, I'm pretty sure I've never sold a game on. I might have given a few away, and I might have dumped some, but most of them (and it's hundreds) I've still got, boxed and stored. That includes going back to things like the original Wizardry, or Tigers in the Snow, on the Apple II. I still play the likes of Doom, Quake and Duke Nukem from time to time, and have even kept hardware (including an Apple II) to be able to do it. Hell, I even go back to Lemmings. Which reminds me ... I bought an updated version of that when it came out, just for better graphics and sound. There's an example of additional revenue streams.

But ... taking that question at face value .... because I don't like renting. For a start, renting isn't economically sound unless the period is fairly small. I don't know how good a game it and how much I'll like it until I play it. It might be a classic like HalfLife that I play again and again, or it might be unmitigated garbage like 7th Guest. That one, IIRC, I threw in the bin, because I wouldn't insult someone I knew by giving it to them, and sure wouldn't feel comfortable about selling it to some poor mug ... or I should say, some other poor mug, having felt right conned by buying it myself.

If I rent, and it's a classic, the rental is a waste as I'd then want to buy. If I buy, I might play it now or it might be a year before I get around to it. That doesn't work with rental, because I want it when the impulse strikes me, and not have to go somewhere to rent, or wait for it to be delivered. That's why I don't belong to a video library, and gave up my Lovefilm (or whatever it was) subscription ... it never provided what I want, right when I wanted it. So ... I want it, I buy it. And I've got both games and films still in their original shrinkwrap that I haven't got around to .... yet.

So, i haven't sold games, but I see no reason why I shouldn't if I want to, and absolutely no justification for the publisher expecting a chunk of the price if I do. They got their chunk out of the new price .... just like movie studios, music publishers, book publishers ... and as a writer, me.

[finlay666]

Ok last post from me on the area as it's late...

Saracen I understand the point you are coming from with protecting revenue streams, as I suggested they need to make the new product more valuable than the preowned by means of free DLC and addittional content.

When I said no other revenue streams I was making a direct comparison between music and film as you used in your example (and books)

I am perfectly aware of the research/product comment you made. It is the same in the production of games, however for you this initial research is not a multi million $ initial outlay.

The limited edition versions are exactly the same as 2 disc dvds etc. Just look at how many Blade Runner dvds are out, bet it's more than the MW2 versions available. The 'budget' is generally to acknowledge a game is no longer at its prime in the retail market, it's why MW1 hasn't yet dropped to budget but other games released after it have even with MW2 out. Same happens with DVDs, CDs etc.

The game rental service was not directed at yourself. I personally swap my games with a friend to see if there is something I might get myself or I donate the game to my uni game library, given that I got a number of games very cheaply (new) I donated them after I was finished.

It's usually for either those that play one game a lot, or one person that plays lots of different games. In both cases for those that don't keep their games after finishing them.

I don't see a problem with an individual selling games as I said before, You are not doing it as a business as an unwanted link between the writer, publisher, seller and customer. A very minor inconvenience if anything. The method I suggested of a barebone game + additional content for new owners for free/small price (almost shareware) for pre owned does work from private sales. Say you sold a game you had, you can sell it on knowing that should you ever want to get the game again, you have that dlc/whatever on your account, and whoever buys it can also experience that full content for a small additional price per game.

It's the companies like Game who make stupid amounts of profit by selling these pre-owned games instead of a private sale. Gamestop in the US makes 50% profit on every used game sold, compared to less than half that on a new game and 6% on a console. Given how US prices work for games they make MORE profit from selling a pre-owned game than they do on selling the same game if it was new. Couple that with the pittance of cash value as opposed to forced store credit, they are just scum to me. They are an unwanted guest at a dining table. No one really wants them there but they (currently) can't be forced to go. All they do is make money from people by buying a game at pittance and selling it at an over inflated price.

Then there is the issue of stolen goods as these shops are now essentially specialist pawn shops. I have worked in a small independent retailer myself, and of a small shop 75% were used games, practically nothing was new. A LOT of the stuff that came in was clearly stolen also (missing power/display cable on an xbox and things like that) and it's because they know they can use these to get things they actually want, cash or legitimate goods.

If I want to buy a used game (and there have been times when I have HAD to buy used) I won't go through a company like them.

Just read Game are having to close a number of stores, good.

[aidanjt]

It's the companies like Game who make stupid amounts of profit by selling these pre-owned games instead of a private sale.

So what? All the more power to them, what they're doing is neither illegal nor unethical. Games publishers have zero rights to the proceeds of second hand transactions.