4 ms·
A copy of a game is "inherently" less valuable if it cannot be resold by a consumer (many gamers buy games at $60 only because they know they can resell them on
by shock-value 13y ago
A copy of a game is "inherently" less valuable if it cannot be resold by a consumer (many gamers buy games at $60 only because they know they can resell them once they are done with them). Therefore demand at a given price level would go down under a system where games are locked to a user.
- jiggy2011 13y agoPerhaps, this may be more the case for games with small amounts of content or mediocre reviews. I don't see significantly less people being willing to buy COD or whatever for $60 if they can't resell. Unless they move to PS4 at least.
- shock-value 13y agoYou're right, but that could just mean that COD is priced too low even under the current system (where games are always $60 max not including DLC etc).
- akiselev 13y agoOr the effort spent to resell is valued more than the resale value of the game (whether it is true or not) or it's because COD has a higher resale value. Although I'd guess that people's gaming budget isn't as simple as X number of games @ $Y max each and so-called blockbuster titles could easily start charging more without losing too much of their fan bases.
- jiggy2011 13y agoThey could go for a bigger % cut of gamers disposable income, the same way smartphones have done for the cellphone market. Videogames are also somewhat addictive, so the supply curve might look more like tobacco or alcohol.
- gordaco 13y agoAbout DLC, those can't be resold, plus they're useless if you don't have the original game any more. So they are kind of a lock-in tool. Which is, by the way, why I abhor them.