[clicky for biggie size]

Hell-to-the-yes!

We don’t believe used games are in the best interest of the consumer. We have products that consumers want to hold onto.
[...]
Used books have never taken off. You don’t see businesses selling used music CDs or used DVDs.

I understand the point of view from the games companies. Used games mean people are buying games without the publisher getting a piece of the pie. But they’re not in the interest of the consumer? That last bit is just to show how out-of-touch Reggie might be. There are entire businesses selling used books, CDs, and DVDs. I know. I’ve been to them. I’m even — dare I say it — a customer of such stores! Oh, the horror!

Let’s look at it this way. A customer plays a game. They finish it… to the end. (Or, much to the dismay of Reggie they *gasp* might not like the game that much. More on that later.) That game can then either sit on a shelf and gather dust, with maybe the occasional play for old-times-sake.  Or, that game can be sold (either directly, or through a used-game business) to someone who wants that game.¹ The game actually get used, and it’s producing less waste as only one copy of the disc (and packaging) is used instead of two.

To me, that sounds like a pretty good deal for both consumers involved.

I believe what Reggie takes greater offence to is the very idea that someone might no-longer wish to own one of their games. “The consumer likes having a brand-new experience and reliving it over and over again,” he says. Now think about that. I’ll even repeat that in a quote block so you might re-read it:

The consumer likes having a brand-new experience and reliving it over and over again.

Did you catch that? In case you didn’t, let me break it down.

• “The consumer likes having a brand-new experience…” Okay, they like to experience new things. I get that.
• “…and reliving it over and over again.” But wait, I thought you just said they like new things?
• If they’re reliving said things, they’re not new anymore.
• If they’re not new, wouldn’t the consumer want to go and find something new?
• If they’re experiencing something new, do they have a use for their previous experience (game) outside of nostalgia?
• If they don’t have a use for it, why can’t they let someone else use it (for a price) to whom the experience would be new?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I still have a few of the games I completed. But most, I sell. Zelda: Twilight Princess? Beaten (by both me and the wife… yes, I have a wife). Sold on Craigslist. Super Paper Mario? Beaten, sold. Super Mario Galaxy²? Guess. I enjoyed those games thoroughly (especially Zelda). But I was done. I moved on. There’s no reason for me to keep them. Other games like Smash Bros. Brawl³, I keep as it has greater replay value. Though that can also be argued that the replay value of multi-player games like that does provide a “new experience,” and therefore not old yet.

In the end, the used games industry might not be a good deal for someone, but that someone is the publisher, not the consumer.

1. This is the First-Sale Doctrine.
2. Side note: what’s next? Super Mario Universe? That’s just silly.
3. Yes, these are all Nintendo games. That’s kind of the point.