Jerykk wrote on Sep 12, 2010, 07:39:
The first problem with this idea is that "market" is so very broad a term. The market for what? Shooters? Sports games? Casual games?
Used market = the entire used games market. New market = the entire new market.
History and logic dictate that people are less willing to spend money on unique and innovative games. As such, if used sales do indeed help fund new sales, it's more likely that the new sales would only be made in popular genres or established franchises.
However, the corollary to this is that the more new sales of an individual title, the more likelihood of used copies being on the market. So a game with poor new sales isn't likely going to have a lot of used sales either, simply by virtue of rarity of copies.
And it's rare that subsequent demand picks up to drive up the price of used titles for games with poor primary sales.
At any rate, all of this is besides the point which is looking at the market in aggregate
, which is the only way that really makes sense when looking at market forces. It's certainly the only way anyone can derive any real data to determine if the used market is beneficial or not.