A Letter to EGM

In the most recent issue of EGM a writer named Brandon Justice penned an article titled "Used and Abused" wherein he parroted this sentiment that has been floating around that used game sales are somehow harming the games industry. This argument has reared its ugly head in increasingly more video game media outlets, and it is both wrong and shameful, but because these writers have allowed their emotions to guide them they keep regurgitating what amounts to a marketing ploy by certain game publishers all the while thinking they are making a moral stand.

I don't have permission to repost the article, but you can see it in issue 249 of EGM - second to last page.

Dear EGM,

In response to "Used and Abused" by Brandon Justice, Issue 249

No doubt Brandon's heart is in the right place, but this notion that gamers should feel guilt and "take some accountability" over what he dubs "the functional software piracy of used game sales" is not only the product of ignorance but borders on irresponsible. As a person who buys about 95% of my games new I don't even fit into the group he is addressing, but his argument is so wrong I am compelled to rebut it. His argument is a fantasy invented by publishers to explain away their own shortcomings, and it is alarming how many are being duped by it.

When Brandon so nobly quips "I'd rather see the publisher get paid for this one" he's indulging in a deductive fallacy by ignoring the fact that the publisher was already paid for the used copy he is refusing.

That same deductive fallacy is used to flat out call used game sales theft on the part of GameStop. This is a purely emotional idea and has no basis in fact whatsoever.

The argument goes like this:

When a consumer buys a used game, he/she would have bought a new game if the used game wasn't available, therefore Gamestop profits and the publisher does not.

This is a fallacy because:

Some customers would not purchase a game at all if a used copy was not available.

New games are not always available at the same time used games are.

The value of the game is representative of profit already received by the publisher.

I get annoyed with Gamestop from time to time myself, but Brandon's contempt for their employees, policies, and success is excessive and misguided. A lot of the money Gamestop pays consumers to buy back games ends up being used to buy brand new ones. Many people could not afford to purchase these new games without being able to sell the old ones.

Without the environment that Gamestop has fostered, a lot of titles would have never seen the light of day. Shelf space in department stores is a premium. Halo and Assassin's Creed might never have trouble finding a spot at Best Buy orWal-Mart, but Atelier Rorona or 3D-Dot Game Heroes might. Without stores like Gamestop the industry would have not risen to the level of success it has, and without used sales, stores like Gamestop could not exist. It is a symbiotic relationship.

It is perhaps ironic that Brandon focused on the "piddling 5% discount". At such a small amount of discount, people are less likely to purchase a used copy than a new one. If Gamestop's discounts were larger it would only increase the tendency to buy used games. In this way Gamestop is actually driving some customers to buy new.

It is also a bit lopsided to say that Gamestop and those who buy used games from it should feel ashamed whenever a studio closes down and people lose their jobs - ostensibly because of used sales, yet at the same time imply that it is perfectly acceptible for Gamestop employees to lose jobs. That's what would happen without used sales - Gamestop makes very little profit from new sales, and certainly not enough to support a nationwide chain of stores full of employees with families and mortgages.

By that reasoning shouldn't the publishers who are pushing digital distribution models feel guilty when they seek to deprive Gamestop of its entire revenue stream? Or is that just tough luck? I really don't see the developers showing any interest in "sharing the wealth" when the shoe is on the other foot. Do you? You're implying a moral superiority on the part of the publishers that just isn't there.

As far as used game sales being responsible for "the host of woes currently assailing our favorite industry", this too is deductive fallacy, and it is untrue. Used game sales have been around since games have been around - the industry would not have survived as long as it has if this was even remotely true.

Every time sales dip or fail to meet expectations, like clockwork executives start the perfunctory "piracy is killing us" rhetoric - even when it makes no sense (like when Nintendo tried to blame slowing sales of DS hardware on the prevalence of R4 cards - a condition which could account for slowing software sales, but would actually drive hardware sales). And, of course when studios start start laying people off, this scapegoat is at the top of the list of excuses. They've just added a new excuse to the list (well, a twist on the old one, really) and come up with a rationale that doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny. But when emotions are running high, logic is often overlooked.

If you want to know what's wrong with the industry, look at what is different now from when it was more successful.Used sales haven't suddenly taken on a more sinister form. The economy sucks, people are out of work, and they are spending less money. That's all there is to it.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people should just throw their games in the trash when they're done with them, or hoard them until their houses are stuffed full. Maybe people would find a way to dedicate more of their income to video games if they couldn't sell their old ones to afford new ones. But I don't think so. I think that sounds silly. I think people have a right to redeem the value of goods they own, and not only does the secondary market not harm the industry, it is essential to the industry's survival.