Nintendo’s Reggie Fils-Aime doesn’t feel that used games are “in the best interest of the consumer”.

During an interview with VentureBeat, NoA chief said that consumers are more interested in games they can “hold on to”.

“More and more retailers are experimenting with the used game model. We don’t believe used games are in the best interest of the consumer,” said Reggie.

“We have products that consumers want to hold onto. They want to play all of the levels of a Zelda game and unlock all of the levels. A game like Personal Trainer Cooking has a long life. We believe used games aren’t in the consumer’s best interest.”

He went on to point out that other used markets such as books, CDs and DVDs have never really taken off. He said the used game market will suffer the same fate.

“Describe another form of entertainment that has a vibrant used goods market,” he continued. “Used books have never taken off. You don’t see businesses selling used music CDs or used DVDs. Why? The consumer likes having a brand-new experience and reliving it over and over again.

“If you create the right type of experience, that also happens in video games.”

http://www.vg247.com/2009/04/01/nintendo-we-believe-used-games-aren%E2%80%99t-in-the-consumer%E2%80%99s-best-interest/

April fools?

Good to see they are worried about used games now that they have the whole illegally downloaded software issue under wraps.

Nintendo <3's screwing over their fans.

“Describe another form of entertainment that has a vibrant used goods market,” he continued. “Used books have never taken off. You don’t see businesses selling used music CDs or used DVDs. Why? The consumer likes having a brand-new experience and reliving it over and over again.

Are they EFKING serious? Hi... amazon... half.com... ebay... wtf.

Most retarded statement I've seen in a PR for a looooooooong time. I hope for their sake that they're pulling an april fool's joke...

Consumers: "We believe that Nintendo games are not in our best interest." :lol:

Consumers: "We believe that Nintendo games are not in our best interest." :lol:

:lol:

Here, I corrected everything:

Nintendo’s Reggie Fils-Aime doesn’t feel that used games are “in the best interest of our bottom line”.

During an interview with VentureBeat, NoA chief said that consumers are more interested in games they can “always buy at full retail”.

“More and more retailers are experimenting with the used game model. We don’t believe used games are in the best interest of our profit margins,” said Reggie.

“We have products that consumers want to hold onto. They want to play all of the levels of a Zelda game and unlock all of the levels. A game like Personal Trainer Cooking has a long life. We believe used games prevent us from selling more new copies, which sucks.”

He went on to point out that other used markets such as books, CDs and DVDs have never really taken off, ignoring the fact that those businesses died because of DVD burners.

“Describe another form of entertainment that has a vibrant used goods market,” he continued. “Used books have never taken off. You don’t see businesses selling used music CDs or used DVDs. Why? DVD burners, idiot."

“If you create the right type of experience, that also happens in video games. I have no idea what the hell that means.”

Not like Nintendo has made any of their money from core gamers anyways. Every hardcore gamer probably has a R4 for their DS and homebrew on their Wii if they didn't ditch them long ago for a 360/PS3.

Here, I corrected everything:

I believe your version is a LOT more accurate :worship:

Here, I corrected everything:

Nice xD

Here, I corrected everything:

brilliant.

It's weird how Nintendo is SO sleazy when it comes to business, but consumers still think they're the "friendliest" of the big 3 video game companies.

I don't get it.

Are they EFKING serious? Hi... amazon... half.com... ebay... wtf.

Most retarded statement I've seen in a PR for a looooooooong time. I hope for their sake that they're pulling an april fool's joke...
Actually In some regard he is right.

None of the service you listed is a single pure business that only sells used games. half.com and ebay.com are sold by users.

With the rise of purchase through digital download the used games business will shrink. The hard to find games will never disappear and it will not fetch top dollars for rarity.

Hey, it's not just Nintendo saying this. Most publishers have openly bitched about this lately. They're losing money while Gamestop, Amazon, etc. are raking in big bucks.

Hey, it's not just Nintendo saying this. Most publishers have openly bitched about this lately. They're losing money while Gamestop, Amazon, etc. are raking in big bucks.
Which begs the question are the current price for games too high? The initial buying will get money back so all in all they didn't spend full amount on the game. The used game buyer are looking for cheaper price and end up buying used. A $60 can be enjoyed multiple people and in that regard nobody is paying the full amount. Wouldn't it make sense if everybody paid for the game but at lower price?


The big question is why go through the used game market when you can just rent?

The big question is why go through the used game market when you can just rent?

I buy used because I like to own games but don't want to shell out $60 for a game just because it's brand-spanking-new.

I can wait for games, like Bioshock for example, til they drop in price enough that it's feasible to my budget, like $30 or less.

I can wait for games, like Bioshock for example, til they drop in price enough that it's feasible to my budget, like $30 or less.

Same here.
It is more the inevitable price drops that have got me to not buy games new than anything else.

Why buy a game at launch when it will be 30-50% cheaper in 6-12 months?

Right now I am waiting for a price drop on Halo Wars. I plan on buying it new, but not until it's around $45 or less.


And I don't like renting because I don't have a lot of TIME to play games.
Renting feels like pressure to beat something as fast as possible.

I don't have too big of an issue with the article. I think the point is more that games should be higher quality so that consumers don't want want to resell, rather than saying that consumers shouldn't sell their used games.

Damage control, that's all there is to it. With Amazon releasing it's new deal, Gamefly starting it, etc he has to put it out there and try to brainwash consumers into thinking that they need new games NOW, especially from Nintendo.
I can't see this model lasting if the publishers and developers are so pissed off about it. They'll try to shut down that avenue post-haste. I assume the next gen consoles will be largely DLC only; no more physical copies to resell, thus removing that from the equation. Sucks to be us....

Ahahahah...ahhaha..ha..ha..ha

I love these marketing types talking about "experiences" and bullcrap like that. Take your "experience" and shove it you-know-where. If I'm getting a game that plays like new for half price, suck it. If I want to sell my copy (admittedly, for chump change at Gamestop), I will. Until or unless digital downloads become commonplace and are cheaper than physical media, publishers can't do squat about the used market.

I buy used because I like to own games but don't want to shell out $60 for a game just because it's brand-spanking-new.

I can wait for games, like Bioshock for example, til they drop in price enough that it's feasible to my budget, like $30 or less.
That's my point. The game company isn't making profit off of second sale.

Does it make sense for them to sell the game at $31 to get both of you guys buying the game brand new. The result being the same that they get $60(For argument sake I added extra $1 to offset double amount of media, shipping, storage, etc) The huge benefits for them comes in that the sales figure and you having a brand new game in your collection.

The high price tag is creates incentive for used game market. It's a market that they can't cash in on it.

As example I never buy used DVD because heck I can get a brand new for the same price or even cheaper sometimes.

I don't have too big of an issue with the article. I think the point is more that games should be higher quality so that consumers don't want want to resell, rather than saying that consumers shouldn't sell their used games.
True...create a quality games that people will want to hold on to. Which will drive up the price for used game. Less people will want to sell means the used game market have to increase the price to give people incentive to sell. Keep gap between new game price and used game price small then more people will buy it new.

Honestly I think PC games are at a fairly decent price point.

Look at the difference. For $60 (brand new game MSRP), you can get a game that works on ONE machine (console). After support for that machine is gone, the game is gone. For $50 (or $40 more regularly), you can get a game that works on almost any machine of a certain class and due to this fact will most likely be supported for DECADES to come.

I personally have a pretty hard time shelling out $60 for a game that I know I can only use for a certain period of time with a certain set of equipment.

Which begs the question are the current price for games too high? The initial buying will get money back so all in all they didn't spend full amount on the game. The used game buyer are looking for cheaper price and end up buying used. A $60 can be enjoyed multiple people and in that regard nobody is paying the full amount. Wouldn't it make sense if everybody paid for the game but at lower price?


The big question is why go through the used game market when you can just rent?


I don't think the current price for games is too high, especially given the cost to develop them. You could argue that some games are worth more than others (a Final Fantasy game that has been in development for years vs. a yearly edition of Guitar Hero), but I don't know if it would be to a publisher's advantage to structure price based on the cost to develop it. We know a vast amount of people are willing to spend $50 or $60 on a game if they find value in it.

As for why buy used instead of renting, the answer for me is that I like to take my time with a game. I might only be able to put in 5 hours a week, so if I was renting games, I would end up paying more by the time I completed the game. When I buy used, I'lll pick it up on ebay, beat it in a month or so, and then sell it back on ebay, only losing a small amount of money, only because of transaction fees.

Same here.
It is more the inevitable price drops that have got me to not buy games new than anything else.

Why buy a game at launch when it will be 30-50% cheaper in 6-12 months?

Right now I am waiting for a price drop on Halo Wars. I plan on buying it new, but not until it's around $45 or less.


And I don't like renting because I don't have a lot of TIME to play games.
Renting feels like pressure to beat something as fast as possible.
I agree with you, to a point. I don't mind waiting for single player games to get cheap, because it doesn't matter how long it takes for you to play them, since it's by yourself. But for big multi-player games (COD, Halo Wars, KZ2, etc...) I would rather buy at $60, or $45 used two weeks after it comes out so I get in on most of the exciting time to own such a new multi-player game.

But that's just me.

Honestly I think PC games are at a fairly decent price point.

Look at the difference. For $60 (brand new game MSRP), you can get a game that works on ONE machine (console). After support for that machine is gone, the game is gone. For $50 (or $40 more regularly), you can get a game that works on almost any machine of a certain class and due to this fact will most likely be supported for DECADES to come.

I personally have a pretty hard time shelling out $60 for a game that I know I can only use for a certain period of time with a certain set of equipment.

PC is about $10 cheaper for the same game. You would think they would offset the suppose higher pirate rate on PC with higher price tag to cover it :scratch:

Well it won't be officially support decades. However, it's easier for fan to write their own backward compatible emulator since they have access to all the programming tools, system hardware, OS, and able to install their own customize software.

PC is about $10 cheaper for the same game. You would think they would offset the suppose higher pirate rate on PC with higher price tag to cover it :scratch:

Well it won't be officially support decades. However, it's easier for fan to write their own backward compatible emulator since they have access to all the programming tools, system hardware, OS, and able to install their own customize software.

PC games new are always $50 for the normal version (i.e. not collector's or whatever). Console (PS3 and 360) is always $60 for normal version. That's the standard right now.

PC games new are always $50 for the normal version (i.e. not collector's or whatever). Console (PS3 and 360) is always $60 for normal version. That's the standard right now.
Yes I know. ;)

But why is the PC version cheaper though?

Yes I know. ;)

But why is the PC version cheaper though?

Because it's so much easier to pirate them.

Yes I know. ;)

But why is the PC version cheaper though?
its because the consumer (us) already show we're willing to shell out 60 for a console game.
The market research is PC gamer that cost over 50 don't sell well, so they don't price the games over 50.
Its really that simple, i doubt the development costs from PS2->PS3, or Xbox -> Xbox360 justifies a 10 dollar increase per game.

Yes I know. ;)

But why is the PC version cheaper though?

they dont have to pay a license fee to MS or Sony to be on the console..

pulled the chart from ars technica who got it from forbes source (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/12/8479.ars)

they dont have to pay a license fee to MS or Sony to be on the console..

pulled the chart from ars technica who got it from forbes source (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/12/8479.ars)

We got a winner :wave:

I don't have too big of an issue with the article. I think the point is more that games should be higher quality so that consumers don't want want to resell, rather than saying that consumers shouldn't sell their used games.:iagree:

I was thinking the same thing before I even heard the comments. Nintendo doesn't want to dazzle you with cutting edge stuff or the best graphics; they aim for the best gameplay and they've done a helluva good job over the years on that front. MY and my friends *still* play the original Mike Tyson's Punch Out and it's still a lot of fun. I play a very large percentage of my Nintendo games over and over again compared to just about any other game I own (PC, Xbox, PS, etc.)

Nintendo has set the bars for gameplay and longevity with their flagship platformers for quite some time now.

P.S. - I just saw the trailer for new Punch Out for Wii, and I'm elated that it feels just like the original, only on Wii-'roids. To me, that's a perfect example of how well they've done in the gameplay department - people like me are thrilled that our 21st century game is inspired by our 80s console favorits, in all of their 8-bit graphic glory :)

Is that why I picked up a used copy of Super Mario Galaxy (a masterpiece, btw) for $23.00? Even the greatest games get traded in, because replay is only so high and not every gamer is a collector, too.

Reggie, you're full of crap. It's not in YOUR best interest. I get YOUR games for cheaper. That, my friend, is in my best interest.

Is that why I picked up a used copy of Super Mario Galaxy (a masterpiece, btw) for $23.00? Even the greatest games get traded in, because replay is only so high and not every gamer is a collector, too.

Reggie, you're full of crap. It's not in YOUR best interest. I get YOUR games for cheaper. That, my friend, is in my best interest.But I think as SilentDeth said, that the comments weren't meant to be taken with regards to the price that gamers might pay for the games, but more along the lines of the attitudes of the companies making them making a lasting product instead of focusing on churning out as many average ones as possible. Quantity vs. quality.

:iagree:

I was thinking the same thing before I even heard the comments. Nintendo doesn't want to dazzle you with cutting edge stuff or the best graphics; they aim for the best gameplay and they've done a helluva good job over the years on that front. MY and my friends *still* play the original Mike Tyson's Punch Out and it's still a lot of fun. I play a very large percentage of my Nintendo games over and over again compared to just about any other game I own (PC, Xbox, PS, etc.)

Nintendo has set the bars for gameplay and longevity with their flagship platformers for quite some time now.

P.S. - I just saw the trailer for new Punch Out for Wii, and I'm elated that it feels just like the original, only on Wii-'roids. To me, that's a perfect example of how well they've done in the gameplay department - people like me are thrilled that our 21st century game is inspired by our 80s console favorits, in all of their 8-bit graphic glory :)

But the flip side is that if more games had a good deal of longevity, then the "problem" of the used games market would more or less take care of itself. But Reggie's suggestion is that the used market can and should die out. Well Reg, we'll see about that. The reality is that if he really cares, then he should attack the real source: the third party companies barfing out all the shovelware.

But I think as SilentDeth said, that the comments weren't meant to be taken with regards to the price that gamers might pay for the games, but more along the lines of the attitudes of the companies making them making a lasting product instead of focusing on churning out as many average ones as possible. Quantity vs. quality.

And that's why I mentioned that games get traded in even if it's a top of the line game.

I don't get what he's talking about. I agree with the comments at vg247 about used books.