I'm a pirate. No, not the kind that sails the seven seas or posts games on the Internet. No, I buy used games. And, for that, I'm considered no better than a pirate by game publishers and industry pundits alike (1). A great many analogies are bandied about during these discussions (including the well-worn and never-fitting car analogies), but no one seems to focus on the one market that is most like games: DVDs. Like games, DVDs can be resold and retain their intrinsic value (a used DVD is no different in quality from a new DVD), yet the used DVD market is almost non-existent. Why?

Price.

The used game market is large because new games cost way too much. I can buy three new games for $60 each for a total cost of $180. Or, I can buy the same three games used for $55 each, less a 10% discount for having a Gamestop Rewards card and during a Buy 2 Get 1 Free sale and spend a total of $100 for the three games. That's a BIG difference in price.

Price, inevitably, is what drives almost every game purchase I make. I don't buy new or used based on preference, only on price. When Gamestop marked down Batman: Arkham Asylum to $20, I bought a brand new copy. During Target's after-Thanksgiving sale, I grabbed shrink-wrapped new copies of Final Fantasy XIII & Killzone 2 for less than $20 each. From Amazon.com in the week after Thanksgiving, I purchased heavily marked-down copies of NFS Hot Pursuit and Uncharted 2 GotY. The "problem" I have with buying new games is not their newness, but their price.

When I do plunk down the $50 or $60 for a new game hot off the presses, I usually finance it by trading in games I no longer play (2). This is an oft-overlooked dynamic, the used game market not only provides a method of buying games for less money, it also offers consumers the ability to decrease the cost of buying new games. The used game niche, then, is an integral part of the overall gaming market.

The used game market also offers security. New games cannot be returned. Buy a $60 game and you don't like it? Tough. You can't get your money back, but you can get at least some money back by trading it in. Cut out the used game market and fewer people will feel comfortable purchasing an expensive product that cannot be returned if it does not meet expectations.

I can understand why publishers don't like the used game market. I don't think the existence of used games drives up prices on new games; to the contrary, I think if used games didn't exist to provide price pressure, new games would become even more expensive. If publishers really want to move more new games, there are three solutions (and a good strategy would be to employ all three methods)...

1. Reduce the price of new games (3).

2. Make downloadable add-ons (DLC) available free to purchasers of new games. This has been done with several games, and, yes, when a $15 DLC pack is included free in the new game, the used game is of less value. I don't have a problem with this provided the DLC is not part of the core game. In other words, selling online access only to new game purchasers is a rip-off (4).

3. Make available more extensive demos of games or otherwise enable people to try out your game. I generally need more than a 10-minute run through a single level to decide if I'm going to like a game or not. Playstation network is experimenting with this by offering 60-minute demos of the full game to Playstation Plus subscribers. Getting a chance to really get into a game is not only going to make customers more comfortable when buying a new copy of the game (because they KNOW they like it), it should also drive up sales as more people try the demo and buy the game when they wouldn't normally give the game a try via purchase.

In short, I don't have a problem with companies trying to get more money by offering launch-day DLC free only to purchasers of the new game. I don't have a problem with publishers trying to milk more money from a game by continually releasing add-ons. I do have a problem with core elements of the game being withheld from used copies (e.g. the Online Pass mechanic that only allows original buyers to play online) or the continued whining from the game developers and publishers about an active part of the gaming market.

(1) In this Gamasutra article from two years ago, the head of a game publisher directly lumps buyers of used games with game pirates. Penny Arcade (standard disclaimer about vulgar language from PA) has also come down on the side of game developers and publishers.

(2) Page 2 of the Gamasutra article includes a quote from a Gamestop executive that "80% of trade credits go back toward new purchases."

(3) Valve ran a half-price sale on a game and saw a 3000% increase in sales.

(4) If you sell a game with expectations that game represents one person playing on your servers, then it shouldn't matter if that one person is the first person to buy that copy of the game or the fourth. Your servers are built to support that one owner and since previous owners are no longer online in your game, it's not taxing your resources to continue supporting one player. On the same note, your company should be providing tech support for one person per copy of the game sold; it doesn't matter if the person calling is the original purchaser of the game, you still have tech support for the game baked into the purchase price.