A point of contraversy (part 1) - Buying a game used is as bad as pirating?

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Well, I've been looking at some of the comments on this thread and I have to say...

Gamers are some of the most retarded fucking consumers in the entire world...

Okay, so from what I'm seeing, the major argument about why it's bad to buy used is because the developers won't get their money. This is stupid, they get their money when they sell it to the retailer, just like every other product out there. Most developers of other products don't get extra money just because you bought it in a certain time frame. The money that game developers get from you for pre-purchases is a RIP-OFF, not necessary. And, honestly, do you really think it's hurting the game industry? Most developers are pushing out at least one game per year, some are even pushing out two. With how much money it takes to make these, they'd have to be making a proffit to be churning out so many in a short time frame.

And what's the bright idea with cutting out single-player if you buy used? If you bought the new Disturbed album a month later, do you expect them to cut out the cover song?

Also, forcing gamers to buy every game new (which is basically what developers are trying to do) isn't feasible. I'm a huge gamer, who likes a lot of genres. I have 5 games coming out real soon that I really want, but won't be able to buy new. Why, you ask? Because I have to eat! I can't spend 300 bucks in a matter of a couple months, or else I'll go broke. So I wait for the price to go down and buy used.

Because when retailers buy back games then they don't have to buy more games from the pubs/devs, they can just sell the used games back again. Therefore, the pubs/devs get less money. Didn't follow that train of logic all the way to the station did we?

And the Disturbed album example is just as retarded (protip: have better taste in music). No one is saying you have to buy it withing a month. An actual analogy that doesn't suck would be more like buying the album new, or finding a download on the internet for free but lacks a song or two. In exchange for lower (or nonexistent price) you receive a less than ideal product. It's just because lazy people these days are used to getting things easy and free so that when they hear things like this they don't think in a way that makes sense. They just hulk-out and rage about how unfair it is.

Uh, how about no. If a company tried to do this 50 years ago, they would have gone out of business really quickly, because the consumers would not have put up with it. Since money changes hands here, and it's the same physical copy going around twice, your free download minus a couple of tracks comment is just nonsensical. We're talking about the same physical disk changing hands, and a portion of it somehow being removed by the label. It's a truly ridiculous concept, and yet game companies act like we should expect this, that it should be the norm. We shouldn't, and it shouldn't, but gamers as a group lack the backbone necessary to stand up for anything. We're terrible consumers, and it's because we bow to industry pressure too easily, not because we don't pay them enough for their product.

Ok well how about a used CD that has a scratch rendering a track or two unplayable. It's the same thing, you just had to be a douche and nitpick my argument for including non-physical media, my bad. You buy a used car and have to pay for repairs, you buy a used CD and find a few songs scratched, you buy a table used and find one leg slightly shorter, you order a cheap used hooker and find out that there is a loss in quality compared to those fancy new hi-quality hookers (or maybe that last one's just me). These are risks one assumes for buying used. Gamers aren't pussies, (well maybe we are, but not in this instance necessarily) some of us are just entitled pricks looking to save a few bucks, which isn't bad but don't act dumbfounded when the companies lash back for their cut in profits.

Videogames have the same problem with scratches, and in either case, it's simple enough to ask to look at the disc and make sure everything is in order. There are risks one assumes when buying used, yes. But they aren't guarantees; there's a reason why "like new" is a condition option on ebay and amazon.

Edit: and yes, gamers are being pussies here, as you so aptly put it. No other group of consumers would put up with this crap; entitlement is only a problem if it's felt wrongly. In this case, the consumers really are entitled to a decent product, and the industry really isn't entitled to a cut of second hand sales -- neither morally, nor <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine>legally.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Gamestop didn't make the game, but it does own the copy it's trying to sell. It's the games industry that thinks its entitled to a cut of the sale of something they don't even own; why exactly am I being accused of entitlement issues, and not them?

Which is why it's legal to sell used games, but not why it's morally right.

Hypothetical situation time:

Say New Game X came out tomorrow.
Average consumer Y decides that he really wants that game. So he goes to gamestop the day after it comes out. He sees the game new for 60$. He then sees next to it, the game used for 55$. Average Consumer Y is a thrifty shopper so instead he buys the used copy of the game. He still enjoys the full game, same quality, but now the portions from his purchase didn't go to the people who made the game, didn't go to the publishers who published it. It went to Gamestop. If Gamestop didn't offer used games sales he would have payed the full 60$ and all of that money would have gone right to the publisher/developer. Gamestop deprived New Game X of a sale because of it's used game sales.

And? That $60 already did go to the publisher, because the used game had already been sold once. For cryin' out loud, man, if the game is so terrible that it's available used on day two, how on earth is it worth $55, let alone $60? Let's say I want to buy a comic book the day after it was released, and I see it used. Would I be wrong in expecting it to be in like new condition? So why would I be wrong to expect a used game that was used for such a short period of time to be in anything but like new? You aren't helping your argument here.

Oh, by the way, did you read the link I gave you? The first sale doctrine is a consumer right that is in place to protect the consumer from exactly the kind of predatory practice that you're defending. It's there to protect the consumer, not to screw over big business.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Videogames have the same problem with scratches, and in either case, it's simple enough to ask to look at the disc and make sure everything is in order. There are risks one assumes when buying used, yes. But they aren't guarantees; there's a reason why "like new" is a condition option on ebay and amazon.

Edit: and yes, gamers are being pussies here, as you so aptly put it. No other group of consumers would put up with this crap; entitlement is only a problem if it's felt wrongly. In this case, the consumers really are entitled to a decent product, and the industry really isn't entitled to a cut of second hand sales -- neither morally, nor <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine>legally.

If you buy a game that doesn't work from gamestop, even if it's used, you can return it to get one that does. So no, there is no depreciation in value. Also, Gamestop will not take a game in poor condition, they check when you trade it in.

And? You could say the same thing about a CD from a reputable record shop. You keep defeating your own argument at every turn.

Edit: In case that wasn't clear enough, you basically just claimed that neither videogames nor CDs lose value. So why is it that the RIAA hasn't tried to destroy the used market? Like I said, defeating your own argument.

 

[mjc0961]

However I read post 10 by Cainx 10a and it kinda made an interesting point. By buying the game used, no money is reaching the publisher or developer so it as bad as piracy in that sense.

Not really. As much as a store like GameStop rips off people on both the trade-in value and the used sale price (they give you $25 or so for a copy of a game and then turn around and sell it for $55), the person buying a used game still bought the game. GameStop has their money which will in part be used to buy more new copies of games to stock their store with, which supports the industry. The person also has a legit copy of the game and may buy DLC from the Playstation Store or Xbox Live Marketplace if applicable, which also supports the industry.

Pirates, on the other hand, put no money into the industry at all, either directly or indirectly. They download a game for free, and if there is DLC they get that free too. Absolutely no money goes back into the game industry in any way when someone downloads a pirate copy of a game.

So as far as that point goes, it's actually incredibly inaccurate and only interesting in that it shows that some people don't know as much as they think they know. Used sales hurt publishers, yes, but piracy will always hurt worse. To suggest that used game sales are as bad as piracy is pure lunacy.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

And? That $60 already did go to the publisher, because the used game had already been sold once. For cryin' out loud, man, if the game is so terrible that it's available used on day two, how on earth is it worth $55, let alone $60? Let's say I want to buy a comic book the day after it was released, and I see it used. Would I be wrong in expecting it to be in like new condition? So why would I be wrong to expect a used game that was used for such a short period of time to be in anything but like new? You aren't helping your argument here.

Oh, by the way, did you read the link I gave you? The first sale doctrine is a consumer right that is in place to protect the consumer from exactly the kind of predatory practice that you're defending. It's there to protect the consumer, not to screw over big business.

Yeah somebody else bought it, enjoyed it and then returned it. Somebody else bought the used version, enjoyed all aspects of having it new, and not a dime went to anyone who made it. I think the best real world analogy I can think of is Ticket scalping for concerts/sporting events. It's not a perfect fit, but it does fit better than used cars/clothing/furniture.

Don't scoff at the example, it happens all the time, even with good games, you can guarantee you'll see a used copy day after it comes out.

If it's in like new condition, the benefits are and should be like new. This is the way it has worked in every industry in the history of mankind; if the games industry can't handle it, I hear chapter 11 is easy enough to file for.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

And? You could say the same thing about a CD from a reputable record shop. You keep defeating your own argument at every turn.

Edit: In case that wasn't clear enough, you basically just claimed that neither videogames nor CDs lose value. So why is it that the RIAA hasn't tried to destroy the used market? Like I said, defeating your own argument.

Nobody buys CDs anymore which is why they don't care about used CDs. Gaming is heading this way anyway. 10 years from now I wouldn't be surprised if even console games were digital downloads. Also the the used CD market isn't as big as the used game one.

People do buy CDs, lots of them. The RIAA doesn't care about used CDs because they already fought this battle a hundred years ago and lost (remember that wikipedia link I gave you?). The games industry thinks they can fight it again and win, but they're wrong.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Videogames have the same problem with scratches, and in either case, it's simple enough to ask to look at the disc and make sure everything is in order. There are risks one assumes when buying used, yes. But they aren't guarantees; there's a reason why "like new" is a condition option on ebay and amazon.

Edit: and yes, gamers are being pussies here, as you so aptly put it. No other group of consumers would put up with this crap; entitlement is only a problem if it's felt wrongly. In this case, the consumers really are entitled to a decent product, and the industry really isn't entitled to a cut of second hand sales -- neither morally, nor <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine>legally.

If you buy a game that doesn't work from gamestop, even if it's used, you can return it to get one that does. So no, there is no depreciation in value. Also, Gamestop will not take a game in poor condition, they check when you trade it in.

And? You could say the same thing about a CD from a reputable record shop. You keep defeating your own argument at every turn.

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but it is a lost cause. Too many people have bought into the industry's PR.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

If it's in like new condition, the benefits are and should be like new. This is the way it has worked in every industry in the history of mankind; if the games industry can't handle it, I hear chapter 11 is easy enough to file for.

Video games are a unique medium, and are finding themselves in a unique situation. No other industry has face this type of problem before.

Raally? I mean really? Not that tired lie. There's nothing unique about either the situation or the medium, except maybe the extent game companies are able to go to pull things out after the initial use -- well, that and the willingness of their customers to do everything but what is best for them as a consumer. Nice move, though, falling back on the industry line. Tell me, is the degree you're seeking one you hope to apply to a job in the industry?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Videogames have the same problem with scratches, and in either case, it's simple enough to ask to look at the disc and make sure everything is in order. There are risks one assumes when buying used, yes. But they aren't guarantees; there's a reason why "like new" is a condition option on ebay and amazon.

Edit: and yes, gamers are being pussies here, as you so aptly put it. No other group of consumers would put up with this crap; entitlement is only a problem if it's felt wrongly. In this case, the consumers really are entitled to a decent product, and the industry really isn't entitled to a cut of second hand sales -- neither morally, nor <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine>legally.

If you buy a game that doesn't work from gamestop, even if it's used, you can return it to get one that does. So no, there is no depreciation in value. Also, Gamestop will not take a game in poor condition, they check when you trade it in.

And? You could say the same thing about a CD from a reputable record shop. You keep defeating your own argument at every turn.

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but it is a lost cause. Too many people have bought into the industry's PR.

Yeah, but I won the argument; the guy dropped all logic and fell back on the "video games are a unique item that has never had an equivalent in the history of ever" line. If that's all he has left, I guess I'm done here.

 

[WaruTaru]

Except the damage was intentionally done by the publisher. It would be like buying a car and finding out that the AC didn't work, not because it had broken after a lifetime of use, but because GM had decided that they needed a cut of used sales, and decided to do it by yanking out the compressor and forcing the customer to buy a new one straight from them.

As I said one post up, if this is the way the games industry is going to treat its customers, they're due for another crash. And I will play my fiddle as they burn.

That is a bad analogy. The act of yanking out the compressor is an active act and highly illegal, and you can sue GM for doing so. Content-locking is built-in and works passively. I suppose its like the car having a retina/blood/fingerprint scanner built in, and it will only register the first person who activates the car. Any other person who wants to use the car will have to contact the manufacturer to reset the scanner. Also, even if the "yanking out the compressor" part was true, the "yanking" was done by the previous owner.

Fact is they won't burn. They'll just go down the social-game path, thus reducing the number of actual games coming out. EA is already doing it. Blizzard is attempting to with their social Titan.

 

[Divine Miss Bee]

Help me understand this:

The publisher of the game has sold X copies to Retailer Y for price Z. Retailer Y sells the games, and gets a certain amount of those traded back because they didn't like it or whatever. After that, they prop it up in the used games section for resale at a lesser price.

Retailer Y will get a little more money out of the purchase because they don't have to throw out a game. But the amount of X copies sold, and with that the Z Price, isn't changed is it? It's not that with every single purchase a little of that money has to be put into an envelope and sent to the publisher, right? So how does selling used games hurt the publisher like piracy does?

This is not me trolling or whatever, I'm just curious if my train of logic works or not.

Edit: Yeah guys ok. No need for more quotes.

sorry, but there is a fault in your logic. as game retailers sell out of new games, the publisher would ship another shipment and people would, ideally to them, buy those games, so that adds to their profit. but if they don't sell out of the first shipment, or if the second does poorly, it's not necessarily because people aren't playing it, it's because they bought it from someone who doesn't send the developer the cut that they should get every time someone new plays their game. it's just good business to ensure that you're paid for what you provide. so yeah, developers have every right to be paid by each player-they don't do this for free, or even for cheap.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Videogames have the same problem with scratches, and in either case, it's simple enough to ask to look at the disc and make sure everything is in order. There are risks one assumes when buying used, yes. But they aren't guarantees; there's a reason why "like new" is a condition option on ebay and amazon.

Edit: and yes, gamers are being pussies here, as you so aptly put it. No other group of consumers would put up with this crap; entitlement is only a problem if it's felt wrongly. In this case, the consumers really are entitled to a decent product, and the industry really isn't entitled to a cut of second hand sales -- neither morally, nor <link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine>legally.

If you buy a game that doesn't work from gamestop, even if it's used, you can return it to get one that does. So no, there is no depreciation in value. Also, Gamestop will not take a game in poor condition, they check when you trade it in.

And? You could say the same thing about a CD from a reputable record shop. You keep defeating your own argument at every turn.

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but it is a lost cause. Too many people have bought into the industry's PR.

Seconded.

I don't buy used that often. I don't begrudge those who do. Can't we just leave it at that?

 

[marcooos]

Do what the Publishers are doing right now. Cut the content of the game, whether with a 10 dollar online pass, by giving DLC for free with a new purchase, but require another 10 bucks for a used copy ... or by cutting the Single Player.

I say good on them.

I'm inclined to agree.

I buy a lot of used games. I don't pay as much, and if the developers want to charge me for the DLC which has already been downloaded, that's entirely fair.

But as a matter of common business sense, leave me enough to engage me to the point where I want to buy more.

See I agree for the most part but I do not like this trend of cutting multiplayer unless you have the day one dlc code, as I rent most of my games through a subscription service an it fucks me off I cant access huge parts of content. Otherwise im all for project $10 as i always end up payin it