Atari has joined the crowd of publishers intent on demonizing used games, claiming them to be "extremely painful," but also suggesting that it isn't too concerned in the long-term thanks to its focus on online content.
"Second hand game sales represent consumer choice and desire," states Atari CEO, David Gardner. "Obviously, it has economically been extremely painful for the industry... the publishers don't benefit.
"But as games change and they become more and more network centric, the disc in the box becomes only one part of the experience. As that experience grows then it becomes not such a problem."
I do love how he followed "consumer choice and desire" with "extremely painful." Something tells me that the idea of customers having any sort of choice must feel like needles being dragged along a penis head to some of these publishers. Phil Harrison at least offered one of the most sensible arguments I've seen from an industry spokesman concerning the issue:
"There's no doubt that second hand games sales has a macro-economic impact on the industry and a lot of people get miserable about it. But it's no coincidence that the most valuable games, the one's that have the most lifetime as a game experience, are the one's that don't get resold, that don't get traded."
It's fairly simple. Create a great game, and you'll find that consumers will consider them keepers. Make an Atari game, and you'll find that second-hand store shelves are full to the brim.
Contest:
2:20 PM on 12.03.2008
| 
consider that the most important time for a game to sell is say 2 week period after it's release. if lots of copies of that game are available second hand in that time frame then it must truly suck.
It's sure easy to call others' whiners and crybabies, because your own livelihood isn't based on a similar situation. (fortunately, nobody buys second-hand fast food)
I have seriously seen no valid effort by publishers to actually investigate whether or not game resales hurt them. A publisher cannot assume that every used game sale represents the lost sale of a new game, in much the same way that every pirated music file does not represent the loss of a legitimate sale. If retail sales are up, but profitability is down, Gamestop is not the correct scapegoat.
However as others have said. Make a good game, people will buy and keep it. Game dollars exceed movie dollars anymore ...well at least on good games, and if you want more people to buy your game lower the freaking price. 60 bucks on a game that may or may not suck is a bit much. Especially today....when most games suck.
here is formula Good Game + Lower price = profit from volume!
Game quality usually mattters squat too. Walk in to a GS and look on their wall in the 360 section. There are tons of copies of halo, GH, and other AAA titles.
If the game companies want to make a statement to these people, then stop giving them special incentives to pre-sell their products. Move your sells to wal-mart/BB/online and cut out the middle man.
So, Let me sell you this car, but you don't get the tires, air conditioning, radiator, or a windshield with that full priced purchase. Fuck off Atari.