GameStop: Gamers won't buy next Xbox if it blocks used games

Earlier this week, rumors hit the Internet that Microsoft was going to keep gamers from playing used disc games in the next version of the Xbox console via a unique activation code for each game copy. Since that report, Microsoft issued their standard statement that said they do not comment on rumors or speculation.

Those rumors were enough to send the stock price of game retailer GameStop down six percent in trading on Wednesday. GameStop gets much of its revenue by selling users games that are traded in by its customers. Today, a spokesperson for the company issued a statement that could be considered a warning to any game console maker who restricts the sale of used games for their next hardware product.

Bloomberg reports that, according to GameStop spokesperson Matt Hodges, the retailer has taken surveys of its customers that are signed up for its PowerUp Rewards program. The results of those surveys show that they would be less inclined to buy a console if they were restricted in their play of used games.

Hodges added:

We know the desire to purchase a next-generation console would be significantly diminished if new consoles were to prohibit playing pre-owned games, limit portability or not play new physical games

GameStop did not go into detail about the survey results. There's also no word on if GameStop has any advanced information on what the next Xbox will be like. Microsoft has yet to officially confirm it has such a product in the works but it is highly expected that it could be announced later this year for a launch in fall 2013.

Source: Bloomberg | Image via GameStop

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Design patent gives a look at a potential future Nokia handset

Next Story

Microsoft and Bing to offer U.S. State of the Union coverage

99 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

MS has one issue thou, they won't be allowed to sell the X-Box in Denmark and a other few countries with such a limitation, since that goes against local Laws.
To avoid to much negativity, MS probably either needs to skip those countries and let the compatition take the business or remove the limitation globally.

I'm fed up of overpriced downloadable older games, so if it all goes download only I'll probably stop gaming. Used games are better because you lose less money when you get fed up or complete it. Buying new and trading in a few days or weeks later loses you money. I paid £35 for Driver San Francisco on day of launch, finished it in 3 days and would only have got £20 for it.

It's the same with Apple and iBooks charging extortionate rates for eBooks, they cost more than the paper versions!

Think I'll avoid this one. Only console I'm actually looking forward to is the PS4, hope they don't go down the same path against used games with RSID chips.

I could care less, I don't buy used games. Why spend $50-$55 when I can pay $60 and get it brand new with any codes it comes with.

TCLN Ryster said,
"couldn't care less"

"could care less" means you do care at least a little bit.

Sorry, pet peeve of mine

Yeah I know, that is what I meant tho. Oh, well.

I won't be buying unless the consoles are significantly cheaper, and games are cheaper. I like buying a used game once in awhile.

Um, broadband is still gimped in the US. Data Caps, DSL, Dish, downloading a 20GB game on DSL, no one got time for that. Going to a Digital model isn't ready for console gamers. I have a few used games because I couldn't find them new, so this will be a killer for me. If MS does this then it will hurt in the long run.

The truth about this, as I see it - A rumour appeared three days ago purporting that re-selling games could be difficult or impossible. This hits GameStop's share price badly. In an effort to stem the flow, GameStop release a statement saying that gamers do not want this. Apparently they did a comprehensive survey of gamers within the last three days, and drew this conclusion. It's PR, nothing more.

People will still buy the next Xbox, whether or not you can re-sell games. For the record, I don't believe a word of it. There is no way Microsoft will do anything that will potentially harm sales of their console. No way.

I think what you have to realize is that MS & Sony don't care about the used games industry. How many 1st party games come out a year? 1 or 2 typically? The pressure for a console to have controls like this would come from the 3rd party publishers. They are the ones that aren't happy with just new sales and feel like they should be getting a cut of the used market pie. The console makers get their cut through licensing fees and the like. It makes no sense for them to cut out the used market, and suffer the wrath of the people who buy games for their consoles.

The other side of this is what kind of plan does Gamestop have when things do go completely digital? They don't have one, because they will be forced out the market at that point. MS & Sony don't need to have controls like this because the natural progression of the marketplace will take care of Gamestop regardless. No physical media means no trade ins at rip off prices.

This is ridiculous... I don't care about the part where it states that you can't play used games... The tragic part is it means more unemployed people... I'm pretty sure Gamestop will lay lots of employers off if that happens... If Microsoft wants to do something like that they can wait until the economy recovers? This kind of move will make it all worse... I don't wanna see more unemployed people anymore. Those huge companies should create jobs. They shouldn't curb the workforce... Plus, People cannot buy everything like they used to back in the start 2000s. Game titles are expensive. Simcity 2013 is 75 dollars. Ridiculous... Of course people will go and try to get a used one.

Edited by BoomyBoy, Feb 9 2013, 7:21am :

And what about the games studios that are having to lay off staff, or be closed entirely because there are hundreds of millions of people out there using their software without paying them for it?

I doubt mass layoffs will go into effect. Companies learn to adapt when the market changes if they want to survive. Gamestop will continue to sell used games, and specialize in other areas related to gaming.

They see used games as less profit.
But keep in mind many people wouldnt even buy a game if they cant sell it when they finished it or get bored with it.

Not being able to sell will stop ALLOT of people from doing the initial purchase.

MS isnt this stupid, an Always on console seems feasable, but blocking used games? Nah
Altho like MS with a few games that need a code, Sony has games that need a code (even games produced by Sony themselfs, like Battle Royale).
So what direction they will go is unsure, but I highly doubt they will both start doing so.
Xbox was created to beat Playstation...
Playstation was created to give to the world.

The mindset of both is completely different.
Eventhough Xbox isnt created anymore to just kick Playstations ass, but to expand their dominance in the living room.
And Sony isnt doing it anymore to give people something. But its partially due to Ken retiring

Edited by ShadowMajestic, Feb 9 2013, 6:40am :

Some software and digital content publishers claim in their end-user license agreements (EULA) that their software or content is licensed, not sold, and thus the first sale doctrine does not apply to their works.

I'd be happy if they block GameStop from selling used games because these ******* makes serious profit from used game. None of it goes to dev. They will buy used game for $10~20 and sell it for $40~60 buck even if its like 1-3 days later. They ripp off people that sells it but profits way more. GameStop is the most greediest gs I know pretty much what Apple is.

Yes they're so greedy, but tell me, if they're so greedy you hate them, why are you using them to buy used new release games? and how much would you get your game for if you couldn't sell it at all anymore? I'm no mathologist but 20 dollars is more than 0 dollars, you couldn't even give it to family or friends.

And if I see a game that's new 59.99 and a used one that's 54.99, you know what, I get the new one, just because you see something listed for that, doesn't mean they actually sell it.

I only buy games used that are very old and usually not even sold new anymore.

Yes they're so greedy, but tell me, if they're so greedy you hate them, why are you using them to buy used new release games? and how much would you get your game for if you couldn't sell it at all anymore? I'm no mathologist but 20 dollars is more than 0 dollars, you couldn't even give it to family or friends.

It's not what you or me think though. It's what game publishers think.

See when you sell a used game by yourself, you aren't making a profit. When GameStop sells a used game they're making a serious profit of them. Game publishers know that and want to stop it because in their mind they should be making that money since they made the game.

Not saying I agree with it, but that's just what it is.

-Razorfold said,

It's not what you or me think though. It's what game publishers think.

See when you sell a used game by yourself, you aren't making a profit. When GameStop sells a used game they're making a serious profit of them. Game publishers know that and want to stop it because in their mind they should be making that money since they made the game.

Not saying I agree with it, but that's just what it is.

Why am I not making a profit if I sell a used game?

Publishers are just greedy pigs. I guess next the MPAA and RIAA will be trying to shutdown the used sales legs of FYE and Amazon? Heaven forbid you could buy a used copy of Back To The Future 2.

Why am I not making a profit if I sell a used game?

How are you making a profit exactly? if you buy a game for $60 and then sell it to a friend for $50, you still lost $10. Sure you got the enjoyment out of it and made some money back, but you still didn't make a profit.

Gamestop on the other hand buys your used game for $20 and sells it for $50, giving them $30 of profit.

I didn't say I agree with it (though I do think gamestop is crap) but you can see why publishers are ****ed.

LogicalApex said,
Publishers are just greedy pigs.

And GameStop aren't? At least the publishers actually spent millions of dollars to develop and make the product. GameStop contributes absolutely nothing to the gamer.

Why shouldn't the maker of the game expect to be paid for every person that views their content?

TCLN Ryster said,

And GameStop aren't? At least the publishers actually spent millions of dollars to develop and make the product. GameStop contributes absolutely nothing to the gamer.

Why shouldn't the maker of the game expect to be paid for every person that views their content?

They shouldn't expect to get money that no other company in our society is allowed to get. No one complains that eBay makes billions off the sale of used merchandise, hell that is what got them founded. No one complains that Amazon does them same with their used item stores (marketplace, textbook sales, etc.).

Game publishers can cry me a river. They got paid for the first copy of the game and that's all they deserve. Just like everyone else. You don't see people sending BMW a check when they buy a used car.

The arguments in favor of the publishers are just illogical.

Hell, if it was such a problem I wonder how these publishers seem to exist at all. Used games sales are as old a console gaming.

LogicalApex said,
snip

The argument is not illogical, it's fact. What is illogical here is your belief that games are somehow "owned" by the person who hands over the money at the store. They aren't. The game is not yours to sell.

You are buying the right, or license to run that software, nothing more. The CD/DVD/BR is just the medium by which the publisher gets that content to you. Trying to compare a software license to some "merchandise" on amazon is the absurd thing here.

At its most basic, why should GameStop profit from it? What have they contributed to the gaming industry? Shouldn't that profit go to the maker of the game?

TCLN Ryster said,

The argument is not illogical, it's fact. What is illogical here is your belief that games are somehow "owned" by the person who hands over the money at the store. They aren't. The game is not yours to sell.

You are buying the right, or license to run that software, nothing more. The CD/DVD/BR is just the medium by which the publisher gets that content to you. Trying to compare a software license to some "merchandise" on amazon is the absurd thing here.

At its most basic, why should GameStop profit from it? What have they contributed to the gaming industry? Shouldn't that profit go to the maker of the game?

The limits that software licensing allows is still being debated in the courts...

But it doesn't matter anyway. If they erode the used game market without making games significantly cheaper they'll severely cramp their overall market anyway. Game publishers earn a fairly large amount of money from used game sales as a great deal of used game trade-ins are used to buy new edition games that are in demand. By making the games even more unaffordable they'll end up with a smaller overall pie.

But greed usually does that. It causes you to eat your own face.

I really don't care if Sony or Xbox stops the used game model. It rips off developers and gamer's. If I went to that Gamestop store purchased Dead Space 3 for $65 dollars after tax and then beat game went back the next day to trade it in. The store would tell me trade in would be like 20 bucks and then sell the same game pretty much new on the shelf for 55 dollars or 60. I have seen this way to much. Ask to purchase a new game that comes out and the employees will offer to sell you used and say hey you save 5 dollars like they know its ripping people off with that smile on their face. Steam has shown games can do very well selling online and I hope Sony and Xbox do the same. Who cares if Gamestop goes out of business cause that's what is gonna happen. Who cares about their payed surveys cause in the end what steam does makes sense. Online game purchases FTW

You're doing it wrong, stop trading in your games at stores.

Work out a deal with friends, one of you each buys the games you all want, and you trade amongst yourselves. (assuming it's not co-op and you all don't want to play together of course)

People are being idiots. Nobody knows what they want from gaming but damned if they aren't loud about their half-formed opinions anyway.

No used games hasn't caused any grief in any of the other places where it's happening. There are no used games on mobile platforms and tablet/smartphone games are cheap and their market is exploding. There are no used games on Steam and it rides the throbbiest collective fanboy boner the internet has ever sprung. If anything, avoiding the second-hand market sounds like it's part of a successful formula, and the only thing shaking in its path is the tiny little fist of gamer ego, whimpering about the high cost of console games that would ultimately go down without a used games market anyway.

Well, maybe. While gamers love to hate on the platform builders, I'll happily throw a bucket of hate at companies like Blizzard and Bethesda who have encouraged and contributed to a digital distribution model with ZERO savings passed on to the consumer over the cost of a physical copy. It's entirely possible that, through the never-ending wave of misplaced pubescent rage pointed at platform builders like Microsoft, the game developers themselves will destroy the model through irresponsible price-setting, and not a single gamer will place the least bit of blame at their door.

You're comparing two different medias, digital vs. physical copy.
Just like people can resell their physical music and movie discs, they can do the same with games, to assume they deserve some of those resell profits is absurd. one of the differences is, these movie and music discs don't cost 60 dollars new, which is why you see more game reselling than the others.

And the music and movie industry kicked up a fuss back in the day about that too, and you know what, they're still alive and making profits even though people are still allowed to resell them.

Comparing the film and music industry to the video game industry is somewhat misleading.

Music is significantly cheaper to produce and film has an initial revenue stream from cinema releases.

Most people don't realise how expensive quality games are to produce. It is increasingly difficult for developers, and indeed publishers also, to stay profitable.

Although personally I do believe console games are significantly over priced. I'm happy with Steam's model though. I don't need to buy a game as soon as it's released, that's just my preference, if I can wait a couple of months and get it at a significantly reduced price then I'm fine with that.

I only wish they'd cut out the ridiculous regional pricing, I don't appreciate paying double the price of US gamers for exactly the same product, through exactly the same distribution network, but that's a different issue altogether.

JaredFrost said,
...they can do the same with games, to assume they deserve some of those resell profits is absurd. one of the differences is, these movie and music discs don't cost 60 dollars new, which is why you see more game reselling than the others.

Have you ever read the license agreement that comes with games? You do not own the game, it is not yours to resell. You only own a license to run the software contained on the disc. Nothing more.

Why should the game maker only deserve to be paid for the first person who plays a game contained on the disc? In your eyes, does every other person who plays the game after the first person not deserve to pay for that privilege? I'm guessing by your logic that the first person into a movie theatre has to pay, and then everybody who follows him gets in for free?

I'm sorry, but that is the opinion that is absurd here.

@IgorP:

That was the point I was making, movies and video games are fairly comparable in price/time to produce, yet one costs 60+ dollars and the other is 10-15 to watch in theatres and 20-30 to own on blu-ray with the price dropping significantly in a short period of time.

@TCLN:
Yes, you purchased the license to the content on the disc, which you can sell thereby transfering the license to a new owner. Once transfered the previous owner no longer has that right.

Regardless, my only issue is not being able to purchase used older games, ones that the publisher no longer sells, we even see older games disappear using digital distribution, if they lock out used discs then those games will be as good as gone.

I think there is a lot of scaremongering and narrow mindedness on this issue. Everyone seems to assume that there will be no ALTERNATIVE to 2nd hand games. The #1 reason for sony and microsoft not wanting 2nd hand is that they make no money out of it, if they supply a viable alternative (bargain bin, big discounts on older titles, streaming service of old ****, etc..) then they get a slice of the pie and the punter gets to play the games he didnt feel worth the RRP on day 1.

I'll wait till a FULL announcement is made before i walk the streets with a "the end is nigh" board over me

this probably wont affect customers at all. I can see Microsoft offering game rentals on live,and older games get discounts over time. this will only affect gamestop.

I don't think it'll matter. People will still buy the new XBOX no matter what.
I know I will. Never was in to buying USED games, or used anything. I like NEW.

LUTZIFER said,
I don't think it'll matter. People will still buy the new XBOX no matter what.
I know I will. Never was in to buying USED games, or used anything. I like NEW.

I like new as well...I will buy used if I cannot find, or if they stopped selling, a game new.

Yes, some people will buy it regardless but a lot will not and your 'so what' attitude is lacking in forethought, I'll point two pretty big ones out.
- Lower playerbase = less incentive to even develop for the console
- Face it, they wont make the game discs forever, older games will be impossible to get.

Now, ways around some of these problems would be a purely digital system, but publishers will need to give in on the pricing and try to sell more volume and not lower volumes at a higher price, but at no point should this system be implemented using discs, that's just foolish.

As we know it, yes. However, a new model based on buying access for a set number of days would probably spring up. That or some hybrid of demos since given a single day, I can beat most modern games.

ILikeTobacco said,
As we know it, yes. However, a new model based on buying access for a set number of days would probably spring up. That or some hybrid of demos since given a single day, I can beat most modern games.

I an beat games in a single day as well. But if I am spending $60 on a game, I am going to enjoy it and not rush through it. They just need to drop the price of games. There are a lot of crap games out there that no one will pay $60 for. I got duped a couple times for not reading game reviews, and some game reviews were not so good so I payed $15 and bought a used copy.

But I agree with the meaning of hte OP that this is not a good idea and a lot of gamers will not like it. At least with a PC, you dont want to use Steam, but a physical copy. That is probably why a lot of people are not in an uproar about Steam doing similar things.

techbeck said,

At least with a PC, you dont want to use Steam, but a physical copy. That is probably why a lot of people are not in an uproar about Steam doing similar things.

I wish this was the case, there are alot of top PC games which I have purchased physical copies and can not play the game without a steam account, Skyrim / Total War are two that comes to mind right now. Thus I can not give the game when I am done with it to a family member or such. I wish people would uproar over that imo.

On a separate note, if they do remove the used game market I feel they should definitely reduce the pricing to make it more enticing to consumers. I also think they should allow for other lower price points on launch than just $60. This way for games which are not AAA-titles they can price it a level which makes it easier for a consumer to take "the chance on it". There are a number of games I wanted to play but since it was a more marginal game I didn't want to pay the $60 for it and thus the game studio got no sell.

Stop charging $60 for a $30 product and I am all on board for no used games. Honestly, I've only ever bought 2 used games in as long as I can remember. I usually buy new anyway, but everytime I do, my gut churns that I am throwing down $60 on a product that I hardly deem worth it. If it is available for PC, I will always get it for PC because PC copies are usually priced correctly.

Have you ever considered that today's high price of buying games new is BECAUSE of the second-hand games market? There are literally hundreds of millions of people out there playing (legally I should add) console games that they haven't paid the game maker for.

Instead of giving $40-50 to GameStop for a second-hand game, give $20-30 to the previous owner directly, and $20-30 to the game maker. Why should GameStop profit at the game maker's expense?

First let me say I don't think MS will actually do this... but that said...
Everyone thought it was nuts at the time to charge a yearly fee for multiplayer... PC's could to it for free, the consoles who had it before then could do it for free, but MS charged and see how that turned out.
If MS really does block used games (which again I doubt) I'm sure they'll be a lot of complaining on gamer forums but I bet it won't hurt sales too much, if at all, especially when the latest Halo or other big name franchise comes out. So "relax, bend over, and enjoy".

I will buy the next console anyway. The absolute statement that "gamers won't buy it" is false. Plenty of them will. Doesn't bother me any that people want to make money from their creations. The notion that they are greedy for doing so is absurd. Everything will be online eventually anyway. People are just fighting the inevitable change. This system is no different than steam yet nobody seems to be crying about being unable to sell your game licenses on there.

ILikeTobacco said,
I will buy the next console anyway. The absolute statement that "gamers won't buy it" is false. Plenty of them will. Doesn't bother me any that people want to make money from their creations. The notion that they are greedy for doing so is absurd. Everything will be online eventually anyway. People are just fighting the inevitable change. This system is no different than steam yet nobody seems to be crying about being unable to sell your game licenses on there.

Wrong. Game creators get paid when someone buys a game. Why should they get paid a 2nd time for used sales?

Using this logic, nothing should ever be sold used!

Using that logic, why should they get paid the first time? It's not like the game degrades over time. No such thing as a "used" game. The code degrade or something? Where is the logic in that? You are not paying for a physically object when you buy a game. You are paying for the right to view that content that is copyrighted. Second hand gamers never paid for the right to view it.

But lets here how your backwards logic proves that the absolute statement that "gamers won't buy it" is actually true when I have already said I will which irrefutable proves it to be false.

ILikeTobacco said,
I will buy the next console anyway. The absolute statement that "gamers won't buy it" is false. Plenty of them will. Doesn't bother me any that people want to make money from their creations. The notion that they are greedy for doing so is absurd. Everything will be online eventually anyway. People are just fighting the inevitable change. This system is no different than steam yet nobody seems to be crying about being unable to sell your game licenses on there.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you do not really need Steam to play games you bought from the store. There are more options to play games on the PC.

Irrelevant considering the argument is that if they do this, NOBODY will buy it. Steam is doing just fine from the looks of it and it has this exact business model. If nobody would buy it like is being claimed, steam wouldn't still exist. If you buy a game on Steam, you can't sell it. It is permanently tied to your account. I would know. I tried to transfer games from my old email to a new one. No way to do it. So i reiterate, the statement that "gamers will not buy it" is entirely false. It is an absolute statement claiming not a single person will buy it. I know I will which instantly makes that statement false. Gamestop is trying to hold on to its money grabbing business model. That is all this is.

ILikeTobacco said,
<snip>

They are not saying no one will buy it. Read the source...


“We know the desire to purchase a next-generation console would be significantly diminished if new consoles were to prohibit playing pre-owned games, limit portability or not play new physical games,”


About 75 percent of GameStop's 2012 U.S. sales were attached to PowerUp members, with those customers spending about five times as much as non-members, according to the company.

ILikeTobacco said,
So its Neowin and Defcon saying it.

Actually, if you read the OP, they quoted the same first quote I did. Said it will diminish sales and people will be less likely to buy the new console. Just looks like the title to this topic is wrong or just to broad of a statement.

Wrong. Game creators get paid when someone buys a game. Why should they get paid a 2nd time for used sales?

The problem is Gamestop. Say you buy Portal 2 at gamestop for $60. You play it then sell it back to them for $30, they then re-sell that game for $50.

Game publishers are ****ed that gamestop gets $20 extra for the same copy of the game. It's stupid but gamestop is making money while the publishers are losing it.

techbeck said,

Correct me if I am wrong, but you do not really need Steam to play games you bought from the store. There are more options to play games on the PC.

That's not always the case. Many AAA games require a Steam activation or you can't play it.

-Razorfold said,

The problem is Gamestop. Say you buy Portal 2 at gamestop for $60. You play it then sell it back to them for $30, they then re-sell that game for $50.

Game publishers are ****ed that gamestop gets $20 extra for the same copy of the game. It's stupid but gamestop is making money while the publishers are losing it.

The publishers aren't "losing" anything. There is still only one copy of the game here...

The publishers are getting ever more greedy is all this is.

Again, you are not paying for a physical copy. You are paying for the license to access the content of the game. The entity that you should be paying for that right is the publisher, not GameStop. They are the ones that own the copyright so they are the ones that rightfully should be getting paid for access to it. That is not greedy, that is the purpose of a copyright. Greedy is wanting something you don't deserve. The creators of the game should be paid for access to their creations, period, unless they are giving it away for free. Gamers are the ones becoming greedy thinking they have some inherent right to access anything and everything without paying the people who they should be paying for it. You don't own the game. You own a license. Unless you get explicit permission to sell that license, you shouldn't be allowed to.

techbeck said,

Actually, if you read the OP, they quoted the same first quote I did. Said it will diminish sales and people will be less likely to buy the new console. Just looks like the title to this topic is wrong or just to broad of a statement.


The OP, being the article writer, stated "GameStop: Gamers won't buy next Xbox if it blocks used games" which is an absolute statement. There is no diminish. There is no reduce. There is only the absolute "won't buy." He may have had a proper quote later on in the article, but he starts with that opening thought.

I wholeheartedly agree with ILT on this issue.

When you "buy" a game, you are not buying a product. You are buying the right to run that software on your computer system. The game is not yours to sell.

If people are willing to pay $40-50 for a second hand copy of a $60 game from Gamestop, perhaps Microsoft could implement a system where the customer pays that money to Microsoft instead of GameStop. A portion goes back to the original license holder (to compensate them for losing the ability to sell it back to GameStop for $30), and the rest goes to the developer/publisher of the game.

Why should GameStop make money at the game developer's expense? That is NOT good for the games industry and just makes the original license price of games more expensive than it needs to be.

Some gamers will buy but I think it goes without saying that many won't and that whoever is stupid enough to enforce this will lose the console war within the first year.

I personally buy must-have games new but there are lots of games I like to try out. I either buy them in store later on at a discount or I purchase them second hand. I dont like to see my options diminished.

Not to mention that there were a few cases where I wanted a game that was no longer available in store. I know that I techhnically am only buying a license to play the games on my console but we all feel that we buy the console and we buy the games. I believe Microsoft knows better then to screw with that.

As everyone knows, this has been going on for a long time on the PC. And most everyone are just content with it. I don't like the idea of activation online all the time, mind you. If you want to pay less for a game, you will just have to wait a little longer till the price goes down. But can anyone tell me how much a used copy of Call of Duty was after a month it was released? Thats right, $5 off. Black Ops 2 was released Nov 2012, and its Feb 2013, a used copy still costs $54.99 on Gamestop. You really cant afford $5 to buy it new? And its not like you get a fortune when you trade it in. Its a ripoff.

A problem what people should thinking about is that games will be held back by older gen hardware. Its what plagues the PC gaming, with the ports. Xbox 360 consoles sold millions. When they will develop a game for Xbox 720, they will for sure develop it for the 360, then port it to 720. When they will do 720 exclusives is when you will see its some of its potential.

It has to be true otherwise microsoft would have said that it isn't true as it is generating lots of awful P.R for their next console, you need to nip bad P.R in the bud. The only way it would work is if the PS4 did this too otherwise everyone would just buy a ps4 instead. Lets hope someone asks sony's ceo on 20th feb whether you can re-sell used games in the Q&A after.

I doubt gamestop has any inside info on the next Xbox, this is nothing but a knee jerk reaction to yet another rumor.

He'll even if they used a code to activate a new game to your account they can just as well sell a new code (online passes anyone) to whoever buys the game second hand. They've already started doing this online pass thing anyways.

I still think this is ridiculous that people are making such a big deal out of it, but what do I know...

What I do know is that we are moving towards a world of digital content and a lack of physical media. In a world where everything is digital, it is not legally possible to share and pass around that type of content without violating copyright laws. Frankly, I'm still not even sure how buying and selling used games is legal with how strict everything else is. It wouldn't surprise me if the disc's only use was to purchase the game, load it up on your console, and then register it with your live account where it will be for the rest of eternity and downloadable in the event of a broken or lost disc. At that point, the disc is useless for anything but installation to the console, just like Activision has done with Call of Duty on the PC for the past few years. This also eliminates the need or want to modify a console to play "backup" copies of games. This is a great way to stop piracy and has proven itself to be a profitable market on the PC with Vavle's Steam. Although PC games may not be thriving today as much as consoles, this method of distribution definitely will not kill the console market all of the sudden. The decline of PC gaming is more likely due to what it costs to get your hands on a decent gaming PC. If I could buy a console for $399 that has all my steam games loaded onto it (120+) and it required no discs, I would consider buying it in a second. Especially if it were small and portable unlike my huge desktop. The main thing I absolutely hate about the xbox is the fact that if I want a big library like my PC, I have to have a stack of discs next to my console - which if lost or damaged, I'm out of luck.

I don't think it will hurt Microsoft nearly as much as it will GameStop if this occurs, and to me it sounds like they're just afraid of their business going under because their money is in ripping people off on trade-ins and selling them at 10x the price. I honestly hope and pray they do go this route and never look back. Screw GameStop and their scam of a business. Retail game outlets are useless anyway. Last time I was in GameStop was only because I had a gift card and wanted to blow it on a game that I could attach to my steam account because I don't like to keep track of discs. That game was COD: Black Ops.... After it was activated on steam, it made it's way right to the trash can. I didn't even bother installing it from the disc since download times were nothing on our 150mbps connection at the time. When I was at the store, the woman behind the counter tried to get me to join their stupid club... When I refused, I was given the runaround and a bullsh!t story on why I should join. When I said I buy all my games online from steam, it pretty much angered her and she continued to tell me that it wasn't the same as buying games in store.... Damn right it's not the same.. I can buy a steam game from my couch the day it comes out without wasting gas or time driving anywhere to bring home a useless physical disc.


In a perfect world a lot of things would and could be different. Fact is, we're not ready for digital distribution yet. Used games spur the entire market and drive console purchases, yes they will do this but they need to get the timing right. One final and important thing is that if they go digital, the PRICE SHOULD DROP, but you know it won't. Consumers have to reward and punish companies accordingly for what they want.

I agree with you. Prices should drop....

In fact, that's exactly what Microsoft needs to do if they want to successfully make this work, but I'm not so sure this is really a thought in any of their heads. If they could digitally distribute their games online and offer a cheaper price, say $30-40 per game, they would sell a lot more copies in a shorter period of time and more people ultimately would also buy the games... increasing profits and sales. It would also cost them less overall to not have to print the discs and cases. Not to mention it would decrease the interest in used games anyway, since people are willing to shell out about that much for a used game...

On the other hand they could also offer physical distribution for those old school people in disc format at a $60 premium at the retail store, but that would kill the retail game business over a fairly short period of time and would even make people realize how useful more bandwidth to our homes really would be... Can't have the people realizing there's a use in this world for more bandwidth.

Of course this would only work in a world without lobbyists and corruption and stupid people.... Like you said, in a perfect would a lot of things would and could be different.

Ultimately I think they need to put an end to GameStop's elaborate scam of trading used games... They offer people ridiculously low prices for their used equipment and games, then they sell it at a price 10 times higher.... sadly people fall for it because they're too lazy or they don't know or feel like learning how to use eBay.

I agree with you for the most part, but cut the GameStop lady a break. She's just doing her job and nobody's forcing you to listen to her. There's a lot more stuff to get upset over. I also doubt it'd be the end of Gamestop...

Us gamers, we have to side with GameStop and anyone else who is not for this measure to stop used game sales. It will only end up hurting us consumers. If we allow this to happen, we are only further opening the door to even more nickle and diming.

shakey said,
It will only end up hurting us consumers.

Used sales only make GameStop money, remind me what was the last game/console they developed and released...?

kravex said,

Used sales only make GameStop money, remind me what was the last game/console they developed and released...?

I'm not saying I'm for blocking second hand sales completely, but this comment speaks truth. The only company that benefits from used games sales is the likes of Gamestop.

For every copy of a game that gets made, the game maker/publisher only gets paid by the very first owner of that game. So potentially that's several people that have played that game without any money at all going back to the game maker. That is BAD for the games industry and BAD for people like me who buy games new, because the price being charged is much higher than it needs to be to compensate for used game sales.

Game developers should get a fair share of second-hand games sales, and I think this can only really be done at a console level. Perhaps by requiring a sort of unlock payment before a game can be used by somebody other than the original purchaser.

If true, another dumb move by Microsoft. They seem to have made quite a few dumb moves over the past year. A function of losing focus? A function of arrogance? A function of something else?

You might think they're dumb, but I'm thinking Microsoft knows what's in store and is slowly becoming more profitable than they have been previously... They can see 10 years into the future, whereas most people are looking at today and tomorrow. We're moving towards an all digital society and that's just the way it's going to be....

This might frustrate you and everyone else now, but within 4-5 years it will just be the way things are and people will accept and get over it and buy into it anyway.

mDaWg said,
You might think they're dumb, but I'm thinking Microsoft knows what's in store and is slowly becoming more profitable than they have been previously... They can see 10 years into the future, whereas most people are looking at today and tomorrow. We're moving towards an all digital society and that's just the way it's going to be....

This might frustrate you and everyone else now, but within 4-5 years it will just be the way things are and people will accept and get over it and buy into it anyway.


This will benefit the people with money. those who don't have are left behind as usual.

mDaWg said,
You might think they're dumb, but I'm thinking Microsoft knows what's in store and is slowly becoming more profitable than they have been previously... They can see 10 years into the future, whereas most people are looking at today and tomorrow. We're moving towards an all digital society and that's just the way it's going to be....

This might frustrate you and everyone else now, but within 4-5 years it will just be the way things are and people will accept and get over it and buy into it anyway.

MS Can see the future? How in hell did they miss the iPhone revolution then...

I'm not really feeling like arguing in the comments of a news article... Hope you're not seriously just being a troll and/or fanboy... but the beginning of it, they did. I would call it the smartphone revolution rather than the iPhone revolution....

In any case, the phone/tablet wars still aren't over... People replace their phones especially more than most electronics... I know people who keep their computer for 13+ years but have a new smartphone every 1-2. I've owned an iPhone for quite a few generations now and seeing as I and pretty much everyone else I know gets a new phone every year or two, most of us have said if apple keeps up with the slacking, none of us are going to be buying a new iPhone anytime soon. I'll either keep my iPhone 5 for years to come now that I have LTE or switch over to android or windows phone, depending on the time period and what's out hardware-wise at the time.

I'm not on Microsoft's side all the time nor am I a microsoft fanboy, but I do at least understand why they do almost everything do... Working with their workstation/server products for 10+ years will do that to you though... Even things I don't agree with like the Scroogled campaign I still have to admit are genius marketing schemes for attention.

With games being 60 bucks a pop, and the re playability of those games...well, would be a dumb move for MS or anyone for that matter to make used games unplayable. Not to mention that some games you cannot buy new anymore and if you want to play them, the only other option is to buy a used game. Like Mass Effect 1. I couldnt find it new anywhere about a year ago (i played #2 first) and the only way I could is to buy a used copy.

Again, if true, dumb move by Microshaft.

techbeck said,
With games being 60 bucks a pop, and the re playability of those games...well, would be a dumb move for MS or anyone for that matter to make used games unplayable.

Yeah, just imagine all those $0 Microsoft will lose if they did this. The same people who buy games new will still buy them and the people who purchased used and don't contribute to the development of those and any future games will have to buy new or find a different hobby.

The only people who will lose money are the second hand sellers like Gamestop, Microsoft's and game developer's profits will stay the same or more probably increase, why wouldn't they do this?

kravex said,

The same people who buy games new will still buy them

Yes, but have you considered that many buy new because they know that they have the option of selling the game afterwards and getting at least half their money back?

Shiranui said,

Yes, but have you considered that many buy new because they know that they have the option of selling the game afterwards and getting at least half their money back?

And how many people who brought only second hand will now have to buy new instead, that's 100% new revenue to developers that will far outweigh the amount of people who will stop buying games completely because of this. No one will stop buying games completely because of this, which means new games sales can only go up.

iTunes, Kindle etc. have already proved not being able to sell on media after purchase doesn't really matter in the end, people will still buy it if they want it.

I can see why publishers and console makers would want to prevent the use of used games as to them it is lost profit however, at the same time. I could see how they can use the same technology and just sell codes at a reduced cost that will allow a used game to function.

Game Publishers developers ideal is to rent (not buy - think cable box), and your pay for base service, and then you license / rent your games and it's streamed.

Not looking forward to that future.

If any console stops physical distributions of games or locks games to console's, I won't buy that console.

This is why I'm loving gog.com for drm free pc games, and steam for games that has a tolerable drm scheme.

(Edit) I also want to point out that GameStop has accelerated this situation due to there used game price is about $5 less msrp on "used" games.

Yes, i loves gog too, those games are cheap and i don't have to be bothered with DRM madness.

I buy plenty games from gog too.

I wonder if this is going to pass the legal smell test. Long ago 2nd hand book stores where sued for copyright infringement, claiming that the 2nd hand store did not have the copyright holder's consent to sell the content. The counts struck the suit down claiming that you have the right to resell copyrighted items bought by an end user so long as you do not retain a copy for yourself. This seems like a repeat of that same issue.

As more and more games have online content I could see them fairly saying that access to the online content is granted to the original purchaser of the game and intended to cover a single user's play, not transferable. But if the game doesn't have anything like that, simply locking it seems to violate the right of first sale.

EDIT: I am talking about US copyright law, it will different location by location.

warwagon said,
When it comes to consoles used games are like "The Circle of life"

Agreed. I think GameStop is right, but I also think Microsoft has no plans to restrict used games... I could see this for Live functionality, but nothing more...

Oh please, Microsoft has a history of doing every bone-headed heavy handed tactic you can think of. They push out rumors themselves to get a general reaction. I can totally see them doing this now that they have market share. IF they do I hope they pay the price big time. It's sheer greed.

meh.. gaming computers and steam are doing just fine but I cannot resell my steam games.. I think its a fine idea if they sell the games for cheaper and the Xbox is cheap..

also this will probably mean its going to be an always on console that does not even sell disk games anymore.. whats the point of getting disk games if you cannot even resell them

Sony are also on track if the recent news of a patent that covers this is used, I don't think one will do it without confidence that the other will do the same as its suicide - but if both do it then they are safe.

It'll **** me off no end though, but just sayin.

Yes, they do and so do the majority of big players.

Politicians in the U.K. do this too.

They get a lackey to pass on a so called 'secret memo' to the press, then read, listen

and watch, newspapers, radio and T.V. for the overall reaction of the public.

It's a lot cheaper and easier than hiring a company like N.O.P. to contact people.

My son has lots of used and new games for his xbox pro and I don't think one

game requires a serial key, so how would Microsoft know if it was used?

Hahaiah said,
Oh please, Microsoft has a history of doing every bone-headed heavy handed tactic you can think of. They push out rumors themselves to get a general reaction. I can totally see them doing this now that they have market share. IF they do I hope they pay the price big time. It's sheer greed.

:eyeroll:

Hopefully if true, PS4 will do the opposite, which would kill the new xbox stone dead and deservedly so if the rumor proves true.

Tartan said,
Hopefully if true, PS4 will do the opposite, which would kill the new xbox stone dead and deservedly so if the rumor proves true.

Developers want this, if Xbox did this and PS4 didn't game companies would abandon the PS4 by the boat load and no one will buy a console that's getting no games released on it.

leesmithg said,

game requires a serial key, so how would Microsoft know if it was used?


Once when game dev makes a game, MS's database will have that key and when you use it then they cross it out or something!