[QUOTE="Pedro"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

There is no formula or evidence to quantify the assertion that used sales stir up fervor for sequels to pre-existing games.

None.

Most games that are successful enough to generate sequels can be easily purchased, new, at retail for a low price so even assuming you were correct, the used market isn't crucial to the proliferation of hype for an upcoming sequel.

However, the notion that a game cannot be easily re-sold might affect those who don't purchase games with the intention of keeping them. The problem is that we have no data as to what percentage of such consumers make up the overall market space.

[/QUOTE]

There are no evidence to say to the contrary so, that point is rather mute. However, here is an undisputed fact, used games exist because of the purchase of new games. Gamestop has created a system for gamers in which used games sustains the purchase of newer games. A person can trade in an old game for a reduction in price for the new game, it gives value to the new game purchase. Once this value is removed, the purchase of new games would be jeopardize and folks would be more like steam users where they purchase the bulk of their games when they are drastically discounted. 

[/QUOTE]

Actually, the point is far from moot. I am not obliged nor required, logically or rhetorically, to disprove a baseless assertion. When such a claim is made, the onus is upon that person to back up their postulation with some semblance of evidentiary substantiation.

I can't disprove the lost continent of Atlantis, Bigfoot or alien abductions but the inability to procure evidence that negates these theories doesn't make them any more viable, nor does it render the debate a de facto stalemate.

As to your point regarding used game trade-ins propelling the sale of new software, I agree entirely that this occurs on a frequent basis. My point is that we don't have any viable data as to how commonplace these transactions are thus we have no metric to predict how the removal of this current model might affect new game sales.  

The data necessary to properly gauge this paradigm shift would need to be manifold; not merely how many new sales are buoyed by trade-ins but also, on average, the amount of cost these trade-ins subsidize. If say, 35% of new game purchases are made using trade-ins but the average trade-in only yields a five or ten dollar price relief for the consumer then it could be argued that the used game market really doesn't offer the consumer that much of a subsidy thus, the ability to offset the price with used games really wouldn't hurt the new game trade significantly.

By contrast, if the data yielded evidence that consumers who traded in their games are saving twenty or thirty dollars on their new purchases then such data might suggest that the used market is actually a crucial component of this industry.

But again, without the data, it is difficult to know.

Personally, I think if the data were to suggest that used games are a significant contributor to new sales, that is something Gamestop would have released to the industry a long time ago as it would prove their current model is mutually beneficial for them and the developers/publishers.   

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

If both parties lack evidence/data to support their claim then the argument is mute and strongly reliant on speculation. As for seeking some validity to you argument by the inaction of Gamestop is rather stretching. In addition, there is absolutely no need for Gamestop to release such information. If you falling back on such a claim then one can argue to that Pre order exlusive bonus for Gamestop purchases is an indication that the relationship with developers/publishers is solid.

[/QUOTE]

I'm not making any claim one way or the other. My point is that a lack of evidence is not, in and of itself, evidence. When somebody makes an assertion but cannot back that claim up with any type of evidence, that assertion is, by default, nullified. I don't have to disprove what they have already failed to prove.

It's logic 101.

And again, I'm not claiming that either side is necessarily correct because I don't have the data to make any manner of educated, informed assessment on the impact used games have on new game sales. I agree with you entirely that used trade-ins are something that certainly factor into new game transactions at retailers such as Gamestop but to what degree I simply cannot gauge. The other issue is that we have no idea of the margin that their used inventory redirects consumers from purchasing new software and if those figures dampen or outright nullify the revenue created by the subsidies of game trade-ins that facilitate the purchase of new software.

And I will readily admit my Gamestop data withholding theory to be entirely speculative but regardless, there are a couple of things to consider:

1. Gamestop corporate, like all large retailers, is going to track purchasing data and aggregate said data in such a way as to have a categorical breakdowns of just about every possible aspect of their sales and how those sales work within the construct of their retail model. So we can safely assume that this data exists.

2. If that data exists and the data PROVES that used game sales are actually beneficial to the publishers and developers in terms of generating new sales, releasing that information would only buoy their credibility and cement their value within this industry. I cannot imagine a reason why they would not release such data. (if it exists)

But again, this is speculation on my part. I have no direct evidence and admit so freely.

That understood, your preorder analogy simply proves one inescapable truth: business is business. Despite the fact that Gamestop is the chief purveyor of used software, publishers still opt to use them to offer up pre-order incentives which in turn suggests that, regardless of used game sales, Gamestop is clearly selling plenty of new inventory; enough at the very least to justify a continued partnership.   

I was reading the EDGE article again and something caught my attention:

Sources with first-hand experience of Microsofts next generation console have told us that although the next Xbox will be absolutely committed to online functionality, games will still be made available to purchase in physical form.

This reads as if online functionality and the restricting of software to a single system are one and the same when in reality those are two very different issues entirely. What is interesting is that the wording here suggests a disparity between physical media and downloadable software, meaning that perhaps the only games that will be locked to a specific system will be those digitally purchased, which is merely an extension of the current model.  

Now take a gander at this quote:

It is believed that games purchased on disc will ship with activation codes, and will have no value beyond the initial user.

Believed?

Who, exactly, believes that physical discs will ship with activation codes?  

There would be no reason for MS to share that information with a developer at this early stage nor do I think anyone privy to such sensitive information working at MS would leak this to the press so it immediately calls into question the validity of the source and subsequently the veracity of the information. Furthermore, the verbiage employed in this article is clearly speculative in nature, bordering on whimsical conjecture.

Many, many people are taking this rumor as gospel yet I have a growing suspicion this really is mostly BS.

We'll see in the coming months.

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

As the industry currently stands I don't believe that the release of this data would benefit Gamespot in the eyes of publishers. The fact that they profit significantly with the sale of used games is the main torn in publishers side so, even with if they provided proof that the used game sales help support new games sales, the major profits that Gamestop recieves from used games transactions would still persist.

[/QUOTE]

You may be correct; ultimately it would depend on how open-minded publishers and developers were willing to be.

I understand why the proliferation and propagation of the used market aggravates publishers but was I in their position and made privy to quantifiable data that showed trade-in programs bolstering new sales I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the secondary market if I thought it was helping generate revenue.

Then again, I am approaching the issue objectively. Many of those in the upper-tiers of business management are so consumed with revenue that objectivism, even when leading to valuable strategies that could boost sales, are often blind to logic and common sense.

Regardless, I think we are in uncharted waters as we head into a future where digital distribution is going to be a major factor regardless of MS's model and DD entirely changes the landscape of ownership and what it means to buy and own a game.

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]Companies like eBay, Gamestop or Amazon should sue.[/QUOTE]

They would have absolutely no basis for a lawsuit.

Just as developers and publishers can't stop used game sales, companies that profit from those sales can't stop the publishers or console makers from implementing these types of measures.