GoW’s Jaffe Rips Used Game Sales & Apparently Goes Offline

Outspoken God of War designer David Jaffe posted a video rant against used game sales on Saturday, but apparently removed it from YouTube the following day.

We caught up to Jaffe’s video yesterday morning while scanning our daily RSS intake (left). By late afternoon when we checked back to gather some quotes for this article, it was gone. In its place was a YouTube message reading, "This video has been removed by the user."

A short time later, when we looked again, we couldn’t even access his blog. A system message from Blogger read: "This blog is open to invited readers only."

It’s unclear why Jaffe’s video was taken offline or why he locked his blog. While Jaffe’s video argument against used game sales was punctuated by occasional f-bombs, that’s not unusual for his freewheeling commentaries. Prior to being locked, readers of Jaffe’s blog were engaged in a lively response to his video, both pro and con.

The used game issue is a passionate one indeed, and Jaffe has addressed it previously on his blog. For his part, Jaffe takes the standard industry line that games are bad for developers and publishers. In the deleted video, he said (we’re paraphrasing from memory here) that he didn’t begrudge consumers the right to buy used games, but that game creators deserved a cut of used game sales. He said that some have defended used game sales by comparing buying a used game to buying a used car. However, Jaffe said that was a bad analogy because while playing a used game is the same experience as playing a new game, driving a used car is a different experience from driving a new one.

GP: Hmmm… We tried to reach Jaffe via Twitter to ask him about the missing video, but it appears that his Twitter account is no longer active. We hope that Jaffe has not decided to stop interacting with gamers. While we don’t always agree with his rants, they are provocative and entertaining.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. questionmark1987 says:

    Most if not all, like what you get for trade in? I fail to see why you can’t be buying new and still trading in when you can always get most if not all of your money back on games too.

  2. questionmark1987 says:

    My apologies, but I do consider buying their games used and not supporting them even though you want their games enough to play them to be hypocritical at best. I think it’s a bit contradictory to say you refuse to support someone but you like their games and most likely want them to keep making them.

  3. questionmark1987 says:

    Well to be frank I think it lessens your point by a large degree but it’s probably a matter of perspective getting down to it.

  4. GrlGmr says:

    "Just as much money and time is put into designing a car as a video game, but video games don’t de-value with age the same way cars do (in some extent they do, but not so heavily)."

    Waaaay more money goes into designing cars than video games. The car manufacturers spend more on TV marketing on one model of car alone than the development of most AAA video game titles. Ford dropped $25 million to advertise JUST on American Idol. That’s ONE show

    As far as games not depreciating like cars do, well… Most do, except worse. My car is three years old. It went from $16,500 to around $11,000 in value, about 1/3rd of its value lost to depreciation. You think you’re going to be able to sell a three year old game that cost $60 at launch for $40? How much do you think you’re gonna get for a three year old sports game? You probably couldn’t give it away.

  5. ZippyDSMlee says:

    3 out of ten tickets(only go 2 or 3 times a year so it ebtter damn well be worth my while), generally in the middle of the film? I refuse to deal graciously with poor quality.

    Sorry but begin stuck with a poor product is one of the reasons why people are not in a hurry to buy a new game even a 5 day to return for credit would be a good middle ground.

    Not allowed in other forms of retail? Fucking A man I got 14 to 30 days to return MOST consumer goods from food to electronics to  clothing and a vast variarty of other goods to the store I bought it from and able to get most if not all of my money back, hell I ahve even managed to get it on CD,tapes and DVDs and the only reason I mange to get it is because I raise an articulate fuss and most just cave in, the vast majority of consumers are not like that they need more fairer structure to the rules of media return . Sure media muscled its way out of taking returns in the late 90s but it dose not make the practice sacrosanct it just pushes the bottom line further on the consumer who’s slowly more willing to find different ways to consume the good they seek to consume, the music industry learned not to screw with the consumer too much and the game industry will learn that same lesson when tis unable to keep up appearances.


    What ever happened to the golden rule the paying customer is always right? I guess it went out the window with service quality in retail when they found they could save money by not heiring smart people and save even more by telling people mis truths about their policy’s..


    Both retial and publishers are making MILLOINS its not going to hurt either to pick up some slack and start taking care of thier cosnuemrs again….

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  6. Adrian Lopez says:

    A single used copy can indeed result in more than one "lost sale" for new copies. I fail to see how that changes anything in what I said.

  7. questionmark1987 says:

    Actually quite often a publisher is willing to take back and replace faulty disks, if you just don’t like the game that’s what being a conscientious consumer is about, how many movie tickets have you been able to return after seeing the first 10 minutes in the theatre?

    Now who’s asking for something that isn’t allowed in any other industry?

  8. questionmark1987 says:

    Once again I agree, but I bet you could have gone online and purchased a new copy for a similar price when you went to Gamestop for them.

  9. questionmark1987 says:

    At any one given time yes, but now you’re trying to compare the overall effect of used game sales to single instances in time and that doesn’t work. If that one game was the only used game on the shelf (and was purchased by people who would otherwise have bought the game new) multiple times then one copy has cut out multiple new sales. This is why the actual effect is so hard to judge, because the amount of times a single game is resold and to whom varies so much.

  10. Ratros says:

    Phantom Brave, Disgaea 2, Makai Kingdom, Saiyuki, Megaman Legends, Tales of Symphonia 2, so on so forth disappeared rather quickly before going down in price.  Wouldn’t have them if not for used sales.  I have the right to purchase a game that’s no longer available new if someone will sell it to me, the developer doesn’t get any money, but then again it’s their fault for not having the game out their, and not having it at an affordable price in the first place.


    I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

  11. Adrian Lopez says:

    A used game can be traded as often as you like, but it will never add more than a single unit to the pool of used games. When I sell a used game to GameStop, one used game is added to the pool of used games such that somebody else can now buy the game used. Once somebody buys the game I sold to GameStop, one used game is subtracted from the pool of available used games and nobody else can buy that particular copy used until its owner sells it back. The limiting factor that necessarily results in sales of new games is not eliminated by recognizing the fact that a used game can be resold a number of times.

  12. ZippyDSMlee says:

    For all intensive purposes it be like the release was 6 months later, the most I can see is double or tipple the amount of over priced collector/limited,ect editions that are purchased in a 6 month period  after launch so you might be lucky to sale 10-30% of what you sale directly to retailers, it may pad sales by 50K at the most but is a publisher willing to put off maximizing profit in the short run for more profit in the long run and all I can say is I think not.


    You’d be better off trying to start a price war and drive sales from that direction for instance offer a title with free shipping(lower 48,5$ every where else in the US) for 10-15$ less than any national  retail chain I think that would drive direct sales hard and you could always set a limit to these specials of 50K worth of titles so you drive interest and minimize possible long term(6-12 month)damage.


    Ok so you lock in new sales for the first 6 months ok so then now what, well make it easier for retailers to return unopened stock even gee I dunno be able to to return a poorly made game without looking like a thief or dullard…that could work……

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  13. questionmark1987 says:

    You can hate Jaffe all you want but you have to admit God of War is one of the better franchises to come out recently.

  14. questionmark1987 says:

    I was actually thinking about this and started wondering if we might ever come to a point where games are released as DD or buy in the mail from the publisher only for ~6 months or so at the beginning of their release, and then get released to retailors. I wonder if that would have a chilling effect on the market or if people would just react as if the release date was 6 months later.

  15. SithLibrarian says:

    Haha, wow! Such vitriol!


    I am not the egotistical and self centered fellow you would so readily claim me to be, my friend 🙂


    Because I have a full time job, being able to afford a full release price is a non-issue (did it with Batman: Collector’s Edition recently, plan to do it with Uncharted, Brutal Legend, Left 4 Dead 2, Alpha Protocol, etc.). So…yeah.

  16. questionmark1987 says:

    In which case he has the right to wait for the title to decrease in price. As I’ve said before there is no right to play every game released or even every game you want. I personally feel anyone who plays a full version of a game someone created should in same way or small amount be giving some compensation to those who created the game. Buying a new game or some DLC are both common ways to do that. If Person A buys the game new and trades it in, and person B buys the game used, only person A actually contributed to the creators. In that hypothetical it’s my opinion person B shouldn’t get the privlidge of playing it.

  17. questionmark1987 says:

    Were you responding to me or the first response to me? I’m confused by your comment please explain.

  18. questionmark1987 says:

    That doesn’t eliminate the fact that a used copy purchased is also more likely to be traded in again for the person’s next game. I’d be interested if there was a way to find out the average number of times a single copy of a game gets traded in, and I’d be willing to bet it’s higher then 1.

  19. Adrian Lopez says:

    Did I say there was a fixed amount of used copies?

    Every single game added to the pool of used games was once sold as new, so the basic claim in my post still holds even when you allow the number of used copies to grow. There’s always some number N of used copies available, and until such time as the market becomes saturated the demand for new games will still exist. Basically, as long as the number of people who simultaneously wish to own a copy of a particular game is greater than the number of used copies currently available for purchase there will continue to exist a demand for new copies of those games.

    You can try all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to deny this basic truth, but any conclusions you arrive at through such gymnastics are likely to be mistaken.

  20. GoodRobotUs says:

    About the only solution to this that would really work is for retailers to enter an agreement with developers not to provide new games as second hand until a set period after the release date, say, 6 months? That gives a chance for the developer to maximise its market share whilst still allowing the retailer to provide a service on second hand games, and allows the customer the freedom to treat their property as they see fit.

    I agree that the developers shouldn’t get money for every second hand sale, but, using the car analogy, it’s rare for someone to buy a new car, use it for 3-4 days and then sell it on, in fact, people would be suspicious of what’s happened to the car in those few days, so I can understand the companies concerns from that point of view.

    It just seems the phrase ‘compromise’ is practically vanishing from business these days, no-one wants to meet halfway, either things go their way, or there’s something wrong with the world and it’s all designed to hurt them personally.

  21. questionmark1987 says:

    How many AAA titles get made versus how many crappy titles. How many companies that aren’t like Blizzard or EA do you see activly making AAA games. All you have to do is walk into gamestop and see the long list of stuff that really you have to wonder if their budget even hit 1 mil to understand, developers and publishers are shying away from AAA because it’s been proven in the industry that while they pay great if they’re hits, it’s more financially solvent over time to put out a ton of meh-decent games that don’t cost a lot to make and make small profits on them then to put out several AAA titles because the money you lose on the AAA can easily throw you out of business.

    If you’re not aware of how many game companies are closing and downsizing right now you aren’t paying attention. Midway has been bought out. They USED to be one of the big dogs in the industry, not even that long ago.

  22. questionmark1987 says:

    I think you do have a right to play any game you buy, in fact I think I even stated that in the post you’re responding to.

    Personally I have no problem with consumer A selling a used game to consumer B. I have a problem with stores like Gamestop which hurt new game sales by actively interferring with them in hopes of making more profit for themselves. I have a problem with stores like Gamestop making more profits off of games then the developers (make sure to read developer as seperate from publisher in most instances).

    However because consumers have become paranoid about buying things online, to concerned with having it RIGHT NOW (which is funny for how many people preorder months in advance), and generally jaded by a pricing structure that is set more because of piracy and the lower new sales due to used sales, stores like Gamestop have become intrinsicly linked into the product flow. That is causing developers and publishers to say "wait a minute" and is spurring the move towards DD and DLC on. A lot of people won’t be happy about it, but frankly as consumers we’re doing it to ourselves by supporting the one retailor that has caused this major paradigm shift in the way we buy games.

    The industry will find a way to survive, whether that means catering to a smaller user base or not is yet to be seen.

  23. questionmark1987 says:

    Yes because the store never gets more used copies, there’s a finite amount. And it’s not like they’re getting used copies one or two days after the game first comes out… oh wait.

  24. ZenAndNow says:

    A game that is US$60 often retails at AU$120. The exchange rate usually hovers around 0.75 US cents to the AUD. This means that essentially Australian consumers are paying US$90 for a game, which is a price increase of 50% comparatively. Taxes and shipping cannot explain away such a price hike. Someone is getting bloated with cash, and it most likely isn’t the retailers given most major stores sell solely at the RRP which is set by the publishers.

    That is what exchange rates have to do with developers and publishers. They use them to cover their filthy greedy tracks.

  25. Adrian Lopez says:

    "I don’t see why you should have access to a cheaper used copy …"

    Except that I do have access to cheaper used copies, and I fail to see why I shouldn’t. It’s up to you to convince me that it’s necessary to be denied such access. That publishers make less money is not a good enough reason.

    "You don’t have a right to play every game made …"

    I never said I did, and I really have no idea why you think that constitutes an argument against the things I did say. What I do have is the right to play the games I buy, whether I buy them new or used. If you think I don’t have that right, you are only deceiving yourself.

  26. ZippyDSMlee says:

    Now now no need to get douchey yerself, there is no need to be so serious here.

    Those who side against the first sale doc are simply looking to increase their own profit at the cost of of lowering our rights even further than they are, unfortunately the government dose not always bend over when the industry cries over spilled milk and wants its diapers changed. but of course give them time and gov might abolish first sale completely as so the CP owners can freely double dip and restrict sale to only channels that are willing to pay for mafioso protection from the media mafia.

    *nawing on tinfoil*….ahem……Tinfoil hat conspiracies aside none of these would be entrapunares have the ability or the foresight to pave a way as they  can share in the sued game market, because after all they are not about change or innovation. They are about maintaining the system as it is so they can reap the most of of it, change makes it so profit is easier to attain for all involved not just a limited few with connections.

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  27. Adrian Lopez says:

    Grasping at straws? No. It’s simple economics.

    If N used games are available for purchase and I purchase one of those games, there are now N-1 used games available for purchase. The Nth purchaser after myself would either have to purchase new or do without. If I don’t buy the game, purchaser #N will simply be able to buy the used game I didn’t buy.

    Used copies are not unlimited, and all used copies were once sold as new. That’s enough to guarantee demand for new games. You’re the one playing games with logic if you think that’s not the case.

  28. Shahab says:

    The funny thing is they whine all day long about piracy, but at the same time want to drive people into piracy. B/C the first thing half the people who buy used games b/c that is all they can afford will do once you take away their used games, is buy bootlegs and download pirate copies. I swear to god, these companies are either very very dumb, or very very smart, I’m not sure which.

    Jaffer on the other hand I’ve always thought was a douche.

  29. Shahab says:

    You are a fucking retard. The courts of the United States of America says we have the RIGHT to second sale, dumbass. Look it up. I don’t understand you idiots who seem eager to curtail your own rights. Go die in a fire.

  30. Shahab says:

    Fuck Jaffe, God of War wasn’t that great, and he and his fat cat cronies can pry my RIGHT to second sale from my cold, dead hands.

    Fuck these people. I’ll bring up the standard analogy. Do you give Ford, or Saturn, or Toyota a cut of your fucking car when you resell it? No? Oh shit, maybe b/c they don’t deserve to get paid twice for the same product.

    If these guys have their multi-BILLION dollar panties in a twist they need to go to a 100% digital distribution model like Steam and make sure people know that people aren’y buying the games, they’re licensing them.

    I really hate these douches.

  31. FlakAttack says:

    "Very few games ever return enough of a profit to make spending millions of dollars a winning venture on it."

    By what credentials can you make this statement? I want proof/paperwork, or you can stop making these assumptions right now.

  32. ZippyDSMlee says:

    But you are not buying a service, this is not a MMO with a locked account this is not DLC or Digital download that can easily be looked at as a service, this is a product the same as any prerecorded product on a physical medium and the same as any hot consumer item with a limited profit window before its forgotten and eneds to be replaced you can not blame the consumer or any business that hums along fine without selling new products, who’s to blame why the game industry is its far to greedy and far to shortsighted….

    You are putting the cart before the horse and the egg before whatever animal that laid it, This is the situation you have out of control production costs and or poor management issues and no true price competition to drive sales, what you have here is a form of stagnation because they can not derive enough profit from the random profits they seek.  The only choice they have is to start competing by lowering prices this combined with making deals with the used retailer will bring them the most profit but they will get no where until they stop languishing in the "woe is me life is unfair" mindset. Its that or double prices so they can have their profit(works for anime in japan) or move to digital distribution only and see their profits shrink even more.

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  33. hayabusa75 says:

    What do the exchange rates have to do with the developers/publishers?

    "De minimus non curat lex"

  34. State says:

    As has been said before car manufacturers make money out of the used car business, so it’s not as though as many have claimed (in the many threads on this site about the issue) that car manufacturers have to live with a used business that they don’t make any money out of because they do.

    The used DVD market is different because money is made from the cinema first.

    I suppose the used book market does match up best, but I’d still rather not use it.

    Pretty much the used games market is unique because of the aggressive use of it. Even used book shops don’t stock stack loads of the latest release, they usually have one or two. It’s the fact that certain shops want to promote the used titles over new titles, whilst promoting the disposable nature of a game (play it, throw it), there’s no sense of keeping a game (I wonder how many here actually have games from a few generations ago) and building a collection, so that they can keep the circulation of trade in, buy another, trade in, which generates the shop lots of money but benefits no one else.

    The used game market keeps new games at a high price. I only want to buy new titles and I am sick of the aggressive promotion of used titles (and yes I now tend to avoid those shops because they have made it hard to buy new titles). I’m not sure there are many other markets where a product is released and then the next week it is available as a used copy.

    And what’s all this BS that a consumer has a "right" to sell something on. No you don’t. If you buy a service, you can’t sell that on. ebay prevents you from selling underwear and such. You can’t sell on downloaded music. I suppose you have a "right" to sell on downloadable content then if you have a right to sell on a game?

  35. State says:

    You buy Katamari but then find out that you have to pay more money to play the stuff on the disc. Very, very poor on Namco’s part.

  36. State says:

    So people who buy used games are helping the games industry by preventing someone else from buying a used game? Please, you’re clutching at straws here with your logic.

  37. State says:

    I still fail to see the part of the point where it is against consumer rights because part of what they pay for a second-hand game goes back to the developer. What there are rights about this? Currently the money that is spent on a game goes towards the staff, the shop rental, the shareholders and anyone else involved, I can’t see how adding developers into the equation goes against the rights of the consumer.

    The point even stated that consumer rights would be affected even if prices didn’t go up (and it’s not as though it is a consumer right to have low prices). And now capitalism helps protects consumer rights?!? Anyway it’s a bit coy to bring up the idea of capitalism and how this apparently goes against, because no country in the world follows pure capitalism, every country imposes limits on it.

    Even heard the argument that if games developers do get a cut out of the used game market that will usher in an era of communism into America, but there’s hope.

  38. ZippyDSMlee says:

    I think looking at it as a used item analogy is more appropriate, a item and what ever IP/trade mark it has is sold that many gets distributed to the CP owners and makers/publishers/factory for that item. Then when that item is passed onto a new owner the only thing that is traded is what the owner /seller and new owner/buyer agree upon.Then in a natural market business’s will come along to fill a need for that used good be it antiques, used cars or used media. Thee is nothing inherently wrong ,bad or evil with used item sales where the owners have no power or profit over it. What is much more vile  and insipid are the  tactics the industry uses to milk content and do nothing to control costs on their end. Have we all forgot about the financial melt down where greed and lack of oversight IE mismanagement and cost control caused multi billion dollar companies to go belly up because they could not balance the cost of doing business with profit to stay in business?


    /Wall of text mode

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  39. MrKlorox says:

    Devs aren’t asking for more money from the consumer. They’re asking for a cut of the massive used game sales from retailers that specify in such. Gamestop is making hand-over-fist profit on used game sales.

    I wonder who is making all the profit off AU games. Is it one entity or is it many smaller ones adding to the price for their own cut?

  40. GoodRobotUs says:

    Exactly, and I don’t really even have a problem with DLC that is available only to the first purchaser, that doesn’t worry me, it’s a good way to convince people to hang onto their games. But it feels sometimes that the Industry works in the order of stick first, carrot if that doesn’t work, it just strikes me as a bad way to do busniess, especially in the current financial climate.

  41. Stealthguy says:

    Not really an oddity, but that won’t stop some people from looking at you funny if you publicly state it. 😛

  42. questionmark1987 says:

    The same could be said for your side of the arguement. Gamers already get the biggest bang for our buck on entertainment, even at the $60 price point. And there is no guarentee that you WILL enjoy a product you buy, that involves being a smart shopper and researching a purchase before you make it.

    You DO get what you pay for. If you aren’t willing to pay the market price, I don’t see why you should have access to a cheaper used copy just because you want to play the game, to the detriment of the people producing them. You don’t have a right to play every game made, you have a right to buy and play whatever you like. THEY DO have a right to be compensated for what they create.

    So, if you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or suggestions on how game makers and publishers price and sell their goods (including after DD becomes the norm)  don’t hesitate to contact someone who gives a damn.

  43. Michael Chandra says:

    The used car analogy is a perfect analogy. A car goes down in value. A game goes down in value. Where a car takes damage, requires maintenance and other details, the standards to which a game is held are raised over time, and the online part of a game often also starts to suffer after a while. We want better graphics, more original content, improved gameplay, etc, etc. Claiming the experience doesn’t change is as much ridiculous as claiming the roads of 50 years ago were just as good as the current ones and would suffice for the cars, traffic amount and expectancies of these days.

  44. Weatherlight says:

    And then there are consumers like me, who do not want to spend the $60+ on a new game but will go out and buy a used copy, borrow or rent it. Then a year or so buy a copy new (provided the game is good) when it is under $40. But I am an oddity.


  45. Kojiro says:

    When I sell my copy of a game, I am giving up the ability to play it again.  I’m trading future experiences for cash.  Why should Jaffe get some of that money? 

  46. Count_Zero says:

    The slight problem with the used game discussion is, to a certain extent, finding the right analogy, because that in turn gets everyone in the right mindset and appropriately sets the level of discourse.

    Is it like buying a used car? Just as much money and time is put into designing a car as a video game, but video games don’t de-value with age the same way cars do (in some extent they do, but not so heavily).

    Is it like buying a used book? Used book sellers have been around since before electricity (if not steam), and the book industry has survived. However, less people are involved with the actual process of writing a book than writing a video game (not that used book stores and libraries don’t have their critics – S. M. Sterling has previously criticised libraries because he doesn’t get paid for their circulation).

    The best example I can think of is buying a used Movie (on VHS, DVD, Laserdisk, Blu-Ray or whatever), but the idea of buying a used movie isn’t so heavily established as the other two options.

    That said, I’ll probably stick with the used book analogy myself, it’s easier to explain, and I can think of defenses somewhat more easily

  47. ZippyDSMlee says:

     I got through half of wolfenstien and was trolling on ebay and bought 2 new copeis, walmart was selling it for 49$ and a 10$ card so there are alot of deals to be had in the resale circts I ploed 35 a pop for 2 copies becuse I thought it was half decent, sure they are laying off people left and right and elt go of the MP staff but thigns don’t look soooooooo bad for it its sold more than 100K copies so far and thats not to bad.


    Plus you can kinda mod it out of the box so I am compfertable with it at least. Speaking of which I have bought 2 used copeis each of UT3,BIoshock and FO3 in the past year or so. I might break down and buy 2 copies of SC2/Daiblo 3 no matter how much I bitch abut it if I can tag 2 for 50$. I still need tog et the organe box so I cna play with my frined but blarghhh…I hate steam with a passion….

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  48. ZippyDSMlee says:

    Well you either buy in or not, like anythign else really.

    Then again what I am saying I went and bought 2 copies of wolfenstien for me and a bud becuse it was half decent 0-o

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  49. ZippyDSMlee says:

    The problem is more that gaming hardware and software is over priced so its not a very good medium to match DVD sales/dissemination wise, because of the prices it limits its market share even despite being popular the main problem with gaming is not used game sales not even how many are sold but how poorly developers and publishers spend money on a project in the first place. You are not going to gain a alrge profit if you spend the majority of it merely keeping up with the Joneses…..

    If publishers want a piece of the used game market theres only one way to do it and thats to lower new game prices as so they can get a cut of all retreaded titles under their banner, it would not take a great deal of effort to make a electronic software (that any retialer can use) of titles and have a percentage of the itemized sale go to whom ever they have a reduced price contract with. If the game industry can not innovate and cut a deal with retail’s there is no reason for them to be magically granted an exemption from "first sale" because if they can do it so can the film and music industries.

    TL : DR
    Basically its the games industry fault for making the used game industry lucrative because they refuse to change or be innovative.

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  50. Adrian Lopez says:

    "I love the people that say "I always buy used games, but the developers keep moaning about their profits, so I’ve decided to stop buying their games to teach them a lesson", because how is the stopping of purchasing used games going to harm the developer?"

    It means the used game this person would have purchased will now be available for somebody else to purchase. This may in turn result in the second person purchasing the used game rather than a new one, which means one less sale of a new game.

  51. E. Zachary Knight says:

    Perhaps you should lokk at my point directly below. The cost of paying the developer for used sales of games will be transfered to the consumer in the form of

    1. Higher sale prices for used games

    2. Lower trade in values for used games.

    Both negatively affect the consumer.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  52. Adrian Lopez says:

    "Once again, how dare developers and publishers actually want to be paid for people to enjoy their products."

    Developers and publishers do get paid. Specifically, they get paid on the first sale of a particular copy. That’s all they’re entitled to by law, so legally it’s perfectly fair.

    PS – If you have any other questions, comments or suggestions, do not hesitate to contact someone who gives a damn.

  53. E. Zachary Knight says:

    What he said.

    Seriously. I have never complained about DLC or any other such measure to ensure an income from used sales of their games.

    But i have expressed my opinion very loudly that I will not tolerate them trying to muscle used game retailers into paying "protection"

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  54. Wormdundee says:

    You are incorrect, there is only one specific instance that gamers complain about, and that is the fact that it has been said over and over again by various game companies that they want a cut of the sale when one of their games is sold, even though they don’t own that particular copy anymore.

    That’s the only thing anyone here is complaining about. If they can find some other way to make money after first sale, I welcome them to it. But I don’t appreciate you trying to put words in our mouths, so kindly take your straw man elsewhere. 

  55. GoodRobotUs says:

    Capitalism. The impression seems to be that if this doesn’t happen Video Game manufacturers will collapse, and therefore it’s perfectly acceptable to demand it.

    Even if I ignore my doubts as to the factuality of that statement, that doesn’t sound like a Free Market model to me, it sounds like wire-fencing. I thought the idea behind capitalism is that the responsibility is on the Producer to provide goods in a fashion that is both beneficial to the customer and profitable to themselves, if that model isn’t working, then you don’t start saying the market should re-charge the customer in order to protect the industry, there’s been enough complaints about that kind of thinking in financial circles, and in many cases, there’s been little choice, but I don’t much like the idea of it creeping into the Media sector.

    As far as Rights go, it’s the question of ownership, the more that is nibbled away from actually fully ‘owning’ the products we purchase, the less Rights consumers have as a group, I cannot accept that the Industry is unaware of that, every little step along this road takes us further from being disconnected from the manufacturer and instead somehow being responsible for their further existence outside the free-market model, it’s the companies job to produce a market model that makes them profit, not my job as a consumer to pay them extra money, whether hidden or not, in order to help them stay afloat, and that’s, as I said, assuming the original assumption was factual in the first place.

    Times are hard for most corporations at the moment, I simply cannot accept that for some reason the Video Game market deserves a walled garden approach whilst everyone else has to live with the market as it is.

  56. State says:


    What does this mean:

    A. Accept that no money will be made from it.

    B. Find a way to make money from it.

    Currently the games industry does not make any money from the used games market and they are looking at ways to do so (such as downloadable content), but as soon as anyone from the games industry says "used games" gamers say "you fucking cunt". The used games market is damaging the industry, FACT, don’t pretend that it doesn’t. The industry understands this and is looking at ways to fix this, but for some reason gamers seem to hate any attempt that the industry makes to make money from the used market.

    Games are in a market where the quality doesn’t degrade after use (even books have some sort of degradation). Yes the same could be said for DVDs and CDs but the generally low price of the products means that the saving on the used markets don’t result in much when compared to games. Obviously the best solution would be to reduce the price of games, but I can’t see that happening.

    For me personally the used market is damaging as it helps maintain the high price on new titles, meaning that reductions are slower to come. Used games also don’t represent a saving (many times new games can be cheaper than used games), and if you want to buy a game, trade it in after a week you would be better off renting as it’s cheaper.

  57. questionmark1987 says:

    If you don’t like the company don’t buy their games. Saying they’re bad and then using their products without supporting them financially just shows how self centered and egotistical you are.

  58. questionmark1987 says:

    And this will only get worse, pretty soon you won’t be able to finish the game without  buying something new and getting the end-game download code or registering and having the last disc sent to you in the mail. Just wait, we’re getting there.

  59. GoodRobotUs says:

    "So it’s a gamer’s right to have part of the money he pays go to the developer?"

    No, at least as far as resale is concerned.

    What I’m saying is that it’s not a developers right to ask for more money for what they’ve already sold, the financial impact, which may or may not be visible is entirely immaterial, it’s the thinking behind it that is the problem.

    You’ll note that at no point have I stated that the cost definately wouldn’t be visible, the chances are that it will be visible, but even if it wasn’t, it still wouldn’t be acceptable to apply different rules to computer games than to any other merchandise.

  60. E. Zachary Knight says:

    I guess I haven’t got you as you seem to be arguing that the used car analogy doesn’t work for the exact same reasons I am saying it does work.


    My question is why can’t the games industry?

    Personally, I don’t care how the games industry works out making money from the used market or around it as long as my right to resell my property however I choose is not infringed.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  61. State says:

    So it’s a gamer’s right to have part of the money he pays go to the developer? I can’t see where the consumer’s right is in this when you’re talking about what makes up the price on the game. What difference does it make to the consumer when part of the price they pay goes to a developer and not wholly to a shop?

  62. State says:

    No you haven’t "got me" the argument proposed was that the car manufacturers didn’t make any money from the used car market and because of such it was compared to the used games market and for them "to quit whining because car manufacturers have it the same way too".

    But then people kept on adding cases in which the car manufacturers wouldn’t make any money from the used market so that the comparison would stick. But the fact is that car manufacturers found a way to make money from that market and the games companies are looking for ways to make money from their used market, but as soon as anyone from the industry comments on it gamers start moaning.

    The games industry can put an end to used games completely by going fully into downloadable content so that games can only be downloaded (something the PSP GO is putting on trial). But like car manufacturers downloadable content (like spare parts) will be something to use to make money out of the used market.

    The market penetration of the car market is different to the games market, and whereas car companies are looking at about selling one or two cars to a household over a number of years, games sell on the basis that one person buys multiple games per year. Buying a car from one brand will prevent the person buying a car from a rival (apart from the consoles themselves) this wouldn’t work for the software sales. I can’t see how this stragety can be used by the games industry, but no doubt as soon as they comment on it gamers will moan.

  63. sqlrob says:

    Make money selling parts?

    You mean like how game companies have been giving DLC to new owners and not second hand purchasers? (Dragon Age, Gears, Batman, etc)

    See, there’s ways for them to make profit without muscling in.


  64. rma2110 says:

    Another dev. pisses off his potential customers. Way to go dude! This is extarcy what will make people shell out $60 for your game when disposable income is at a minimum. Places that push used games on people and sell them for near new prices are the problem, not the used games industry. Gamers and publishers sould unite againts them.

    If developer say things like please hold off for six months after release before buying the game used or selling it, then that woud be understadable. If they offered added value like a cupon for extra DLC that would be nice. It coud even be something simple like a cool looking gun or a vehicle.  They’re devs : Be creative! I don’t want it to be anything that would tip the game balance, just something that looks or sounds cool.

    See, those are real solutions. As long as devs make gamers angry in those idiotic rants then places like gamestop are safe. Only when gamers and the industry unite can they put a stop to them.

  65. SithLibrarian says:

    Apart from a lower price, buying games used is the only way I can stomach purchasing Activision titles these days. Definitely can’t wait to pick up my used copy of Modern Warfare 2.

  66. ZippyDSMlee says:

    Its rather simple they can’t touch used sales,whining about them and downloading is rather silly since the damage is minuscule at best, however they could make a deal with retailers to lower new games prices to get a  equal cut (20-30% off new 20-30% of used sale price they get in return)of any title they own thats resold.

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  67. eston says:

    They are also rereleasing God of War 1 and 2 for the PS3, meaning they get to rake in truckloads of money without having to produce a new product. This, to me at least, seems like the industry equivalent to selling used games.

  68. E. Zachary Knight says:

    Actually game consumers will notice. When the publisher asks Game Stop to pay them 10% of the used game sale, do you think that game Stop will pay all that out of their own profits? If you do you are an idiot.

    So when the consumer brings in a game to trade, instead of a $15 trade value, they will be presented with a $10 trade value.

    The consumer will be screwed in the end.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  69. E. Zachary Knight says:

    So your argument is that the used car analogy doesn’t fit is because car manufacturers have figured out how to make money from the used car market and to use that market to their advantage in other non-monetary ways while the games industry hasn’t.


    Also another reason why car manufacturers enjoy the used car market is due to market penetration

    So why can’t the games industry appreciate the used market for the same reason?

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  70. CMiner says:

    We haven’t gone from one thing to another.  We’ve stayed at "car manufacturers don’t make any money from a car sale that they did not make, and were not involved in, regardless as to whether or not they sold the car originally."

    There have just been clarifications, not revisions.

  71. GoodRobotUs says:

    Then if gaming companies want to make a profit from second hand sales they should, like car manufacturers, start their own second-hand division and undercut the high-street. That’s perfectly acceptable in my books, some companies have even taken that route, but if they aren’t going to do that, then they shouldn’t complain when other people do.

  72. GoodRobotUs says:

    I didn’t say anything of the sort. What I said was that the developers expect money for every used sale, the retailer may, or may not, pass on that money to the consumer, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t an attack on their rights, because it’s about the mentality behind the charge, not the charge itself that is wrong. This isn’t about consumers paying more at the till, it’s about the whole concept behind it, that second-hand sales of computer games are somehow allowed to be treated differently to every other product on the market.

    Of course gamers pay when a game changes hand, that’s why it’s a second hand market, not a second-hand giveaway, but that trade should be between the two people involved, be they retailer or private.

    There’s lots of things that go on in the world that people don’t notice, that doesn’t make them ok.

  73. State says:

    So we’ve gone from "car manufacturers don’t make any money out of the used car market at all", to "car manufacturers don’t make any money out of the used car market when this happens and then this happens and then this happens".

    Also another reason why car manufacturers enjoy the used car market is due to market penetration, they’ve worked out other ways to generate income from the used car market.

  74. State says:

    To sum up what you’ve said:

    Games companies that want to propose measures that will not be noticed by the consumer is a direct attack on consumers. They want gamers to pay every time a game changes hands (I thought this happened anyway on the used game market).

  75. GoodRobotUs says:

    I’ve got into arguments with people like that, you start trying to have a reasonable discussion with them, stating your own case politely, and because they don’t have a response, they simply resort to insulting you. It’s a surefire way to lose an argument in my books.

  76. E. Zachary Knight says:

    As has already been stated, car companies only get money from used car sales when they sell them themselves.

    Also, there are aftermarket part manufacturers out there that can create and sell parts for most any car on the market, thus further eating into the Manufacturers’ profits.

    The video game industry has come up with similar methods of gaining money from even used sales. DLC is primary among them. These added value add ons can generate revenue for game developers even if the physical copy was sold used.

    So why is the car analogy not a good fit?

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  77. hellfire7885 says:

    I think the analogy was more about people who sell their used vehicle on their own, say through an ad in the paper or online.

  78. GoodRobotUs says:

    Because the attack is directed at the customer, developers tiptoe around distributors because the two are linked intrinsically, piss off the distributor and it will hit the developer, so, instead, they state that customers should pay multiple times, every time a game changes hands. Whether it’s directly stated as such or not, that is an attack on the Rights of the customers themselves. The customer may or may not notice that difference at the checkout, but that isn’t the point.

    No-one in this particular post said they always buy used games, so I’m not quite sure where that came from, but, certainly, I wouldn’t stop buying used games to teach them a lesson, quite the opposite if anything.

    The main problem here is, once again, it’s a way of singling out computer games for special treatment when compared to every other product out there, they already have that whole ‘cannot refund once opened’ rule that doesn’t apply to any other product, and whether it’s the developer, distributor or retailer that is to blame, it’s still the rights of the customer that are impacted, and it’s a slippery slope argument, because when one industry finds a way of getting around it, others will try to follow.

    I no more agree with the singling out of computer games for financial advantage than I agree with the singling out of computer games for blame in school shootings, they are both inherently wrong in my books.

  79. CMiner says:

    Car manufactures make money out of the used car market only when they buy the used car from the owner first, and then they sell it.

    If a game company wants to buy my used game from me and then sell it themselves, that’s perfectly fine.

    However neither the car manufacturers nor game companies do, or should, get money from the resale of any used product just because they made it in the first place.  If they buy it from the legal owner, the customer, first then they can sell it and make money because at that point they own the product again.

  80. Austin_Lewis says:

    Of course they make a profit when they re-sell their car.  But do they make a profit when some used-car dealer (not a dealership run by, say, Mitsubishi or Ford or somesuch) sells a car?  No, they do not, and taht used car dealer doesn’t send them a cut of the profit. 

    Oh, by the way, many dealerships that sell used cars seem to have a lot of cars from other brands on their lots.  When they sell one of those, I guarantee that the other car company doesn’t see a dime.

  81. State says:

    Guess what people, car manufacturers actually make money out of the used car market. Many manufacturers actually sell used cars themselves (Ford themselves sell used Ford cars), they actually get a cut out of the used car market. Plus add onto this the fact that cars need spare parts and the car manufacturers make money out of that too by selling those parts.

    So anyone want to claim that car manufacturers don’t make a profit out of the used car market?

  82. State says:

    Have they ever criticised the consumer though? They criticise the used game market and the shops profiting from it, whilst noting that they don’t blame the consumer for wanting cheaper games. I’m failing to see the criticism aimed at the consumer.

    I love the people that say "I always buy used games, but the developers keep moaning about their profits, so I’ve decided to stop buying their games to teach them a lesson", because how is the stopping of purchasing used games going to harm the developer?

  83. Erik says:

    This really is growing old.  Do you know how many people buy new games?  By trading in old games.  By removing used game sales as an option does not mean that everyone who bought those used games will now shell out $60 for a new game.  They will likely just do without.  But what companies will lose are those aforementioned sales of new games purchased with credit from old games.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

Comments are closed.