Buy used? Can't complain.

[everythingbeeps]

My point was simple: if you're that hard up for ten bucks, maybe you have other priorities than video games. And maybe you should be more careful about which ones you buy. If you're bitching about a video game, it's because you weren't careful enough before buying it. People with plenty of disposable income can afford to buy Dragon Age 2 without researching it enough to discover that it's kind of a piece of shit.

People who are scraping pennies together shouldn't buy compulsively buying games they aren't absolutely certain they want.

Well, thing is, if you have to work hard to break even, then you're not likely to have much time and/or energy to go into "research". So you're going to see what's advertised, and what has the most hype associated.

You have time to play video games but you don't have time to do any research into what you're playing? Not my problem, and not the problem of the video game companies.

 

[Spandexpanda]

People buy cars used to save thousands of dollars.

Cheapskates buy video games used to save like ten bucks.

There's a huge difference. They're different products that cost different amounts of money, and one of them is important, and the other is a fucking toy.

You aren't going to get anywhere comparing video games to cars. NOWHERE.

I'm offended by your implication that anyone who buys used is a cheapskate. I'm a student, does that mean that instead of consuming all the media I can for the money I have I should buy just one or two games full price on launch day? No.

Would you call someone who buys a supermarket's own brand bread a cheapskate, just because it costs less? The saving is literally like 5p, but isn't saving money on the little things literally the epitome of saving?

So we should buy anything you class as a "toy" at full price? You've never gotten a hand-me-down toy, bought a classic gameboy game off a friend with your allowance money, or bought anything at a charity shop? Some people don't have that luxury.

Let's say I do have the money to buy new, so what? I can do whatever I like with it. Opportunity costs mean different things to different people. Say I save those ten bucks, and then in a week's time, I need the tenner to buy food. If I'd bought it new, who would be happy? Nobody. I'd still have the same game, but no food. You're entirely free to buy games at whatever price you want, but seriously, no need to be a dick about it.

Here's another point I'd put to you: you ever bought a game after it's launch day? When it's on sale? Cheapskate! Everyone point and laugh. Saving ten bucks here and there on one of the products that most of the people on these forums spend a ridiculous amount of money on is smart. It's not being a cheapskate.

 

[spartan231490]

This is the most short-sighted argument I've seen in months, if not years. The game companies have every incentive to listen to used game buyers. They have every incentive to listen to people who've never even bought a game.

In fact, they have more incentive to listen to them than they have to listen to people who buy new games, because there are more people who don't. Many many more, and if they can convert some of them to buying new games, they make a lot more money than if they work to please the people who are going to buy the games anyway.

Do you feel the same about buying used movies, or renting them?

What about getting books from a library rather than buying them?

The games industry and gamers themselves and the only ones who ever complain about this. Doesn't really happen in other forms of media does it? Yet, whats the difference? Not much.

and your thing about opinions meaning nothing if you buy used? Sorry, that's not very rational. Opinions on something dont lose their value if the experience is exactly the same as everyone else has experienced. Which it is.

I've always wondered why the game industry whines so much about used gaming. Books have been sold used for centuries, and yet publishing companies are still around.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with buying used games, quit being so elitist just because you buy all your games new.

 

[Nyaliva]

Okay, this is going to be long but I would like a proper response from OP and if anyone else has any points to make please do! However I hold no responsibility for the time lost reading it!

I watched my first (and last) Jimquisition the other day, it was the one where he makes the argument for the existence of the preowned games market and consisted entirely of Jim stating, repeatedly, that since we are poor and since used games are cheaper, therefore it is a practice that must continue.

Your first mistake is not watching his other videos on pre-owned games. In his last one he revealed that all the money that these game developers are crying about is close to a million dollars. That's like $1 off every employee's pay cheque, more off the executives who can spare the full million (but won't want to).

So, I'd just like to toss this out here, to those of you who find nothing wrong with buying preowned;

If you only purchase used games, you have no right to complain about those games.

None. Not even a little.

I'm afraid you're confusing "They don't have a right to complain" with "The developers don't have an obligation to listen". If you buy a game used, you don't pay the developers for it. This means they don't "need" to listen to you because you aren't their direct market. However, it would be extremely bad business practice because these people are the developers' indirect market. If the developers don't listen to them, they can never make them their direct market and never see a penny from them. But by listening to these people's arguments, their games are better the next time around, the second-hand buyers who complained will buy these new games (likely still second hand) and find that the developers have made the improvements they wanted. This creates a bond with the customer that will likely push them into the first-hand sales market, or even if not, will encourage them to purchase DLC.

So although the developers lost money from two second hand sales, by listening to the second hand market, they would make tons of money from those people in future, rather than blowing them off in the first place and never seeing any money from them ever.

In the eyes of the game industry, buying used is one step removed from outright theft because it involves the distribution of their hard work and does not involve getting paid for it.
(Moreover, the practices of stores like Gamestop are getting closer and closer to outright theft as it is.)

I actually kind of agree with this, simply by definitions, however by definition you could argue what joe-h2o said: used cars, used books and used houses. The reason used cars aren't seen as theft is because used cars require servicing more than new cars and so people who buy used cars will soon have to buy new parts from the manufacturer. You blew off used housing because it's probably the best argument: someone employs builders to build a house, electricians to wire it and so forth. They then sell it, hopefully for a profit. If the person who buys it then sells it to someone else later, even for a better price than they bought it for (which is possible thanks to the hoousing market), the person who originally commissioned it don't see any more money, whether they originally got a major profit or went bankrupt from it. So how is this legal by your definition?

Used books are a bit different, when someone buys a used book, it's true the writer gets nothing from it (nor do the publisher), however if the book is good, it generates interest in that writer's work. If the book is bad, the person who bought it used has spent less on a bad product and the writer is not encouraged to continue bad writing, in fact if their sales are bad, they will have to improve their writing or stop, but not because they went bankrupt from second-hand sales, because they were genuinely crap at their job. With the internet and everything now, people can even argue the bad points of a book in a way that the writer can see, and improve on.

The reason I left the book analogy till last is because it's the closest representation to the games industry. In actual fact, the games industry is so much bigger than books, including second-hand sales, and developers don't just put out one game a year, they release multiple games a year of different kinds, so they have multiple chances in a smaller time frame to make good impressions on used-game buyers. This year's second-hand buyer could be next year's first-hand supporter.

Hate the games you've bought used?

Take it up with Gamestop.

This is just silly, what would Gamestop do? They can't change the quality of games. You know what they would do? Change the products they sell for the sake of their customers. You know what that means? They stop buying the few first-hand copies the developers sell thanks to Gamestop. Then not only do the developers lose more money, but they can't even generate interest the way second-hand sales do.

I know the world isn't as black and white as this, people who like second hand games won't automatically generate first-hand sales, but then they also don't just take money away from developers, and what ever amount the developers' revenue is reduced is minimal compared to their sales. Furthermore, if they refuse to listen to second-hand gamers, they shoot themselves in the foot by passing up an opportunity to make a good impression and convert some second-hand buyers. I personally like second hand sales because it means I can try a game I'm not sure will be very good at a fraction of the cost. However, there are a number of game series and game developers I always buy first hand which I usually have to wait for in order to afford when I could've bought it second hand a week ago. This is because I know it'll be a good game and well worth my time and money. My house might as well be a fence because I think the second-hand market is fantastic AND I will always fight for developers but until the money lost reaches something significant and the lousy executives start firing the developers instead of reducing their salary from $2 million to $1.5 million, then I will truly stand up and fight. However I won't just yell at people for buying used games, I'll be fighting the executives and finding ways to decrease losses from second-hand games in a practical way.

In closing I'd like to simultaneously apologise if I've made any points you've heard previously and berate you for shooting down Jim Sterling for having but one argument when you haven't watched any more of his work and then opposing it with but one argument of your own, and a poor one at that. However I do have one final question: if I buy a game used and then buy all the DLC, do I have a right to complain about the game at all (because ALL I spend on DLC is going to the developers) or just the DLC (because it's what I'm paying for)?

Waiting your response!

 

[coolkirb]

Simple economics says I should act in my best interest and them in theirs, if companys lose money they go out of buissness. If their is demand for a different kind of game someone will make it if their is a financial incentive. We should not be worrying about the producers we should let capitalism do its job and let the market sort itself out.

AS for gamestop if we a buy a used game we dont like we exchange it and the publisher suffers because it makes us question his product and makes us realize their games are not worth buying new. We should not be bleeding our hearts out for companies who exist for profit.

 

[Naeo]

Actually, if you buy used, the company has every god damn reason to listen to your complaints. You bought one game of theirs used. You may well buy the next one new, because if you like the one you buy used, you'll want that next one badly--probably badly enough to shell out the $60 for the privilege of playing it on the first day.

Though, I suppose that by this argument (assuming you live in the US), you can't complain about any public service. Your taxes, after all, go to the government, not, say, the people paving the roads. So you can't complain about roads, sewage works, and so on. And oh yes, this is very much the same thing--stores don't get copies of games from developers/distributors on goodwill. They do have to pay up front before they can put them on the shelves. Your tax money goes to the government, which in turn goes to the people who do the wonderful things we take for granted like paving roads and running waste-water treatment plants. Buying something that supports a game store gives them more money to buy games with to support developers.

And let's take a look at that argument that "games are expensive" is not a valid reason to buy used. Total bullshit. Ignoring when people are strapped for cash, oftentimes you can go buy a new game for, say, $60 (or $50 or $40 depending how long it's been out, and sometimes $20 if it's ancient) or a used copy for $20 (and decreasing increments in proportion to the sale price of a new copy). Also consider that for all intents and purposes, used and new games are functionally identical. A bit of wear and tear on the box, but almost never any actual damage on the disc itself. So it'll play like a new game, in other words. So you're buying ultimately the same product for much, much less. Yes, it's nice to support developers. Not worth my $40. Being morally high-and-mighty only goes so far as is economically convenient for those who need to carefully manage their money.

 

[icaritos]

I wouldn't care about this argument at all if it wasn't for the hypocritical nature of almost all people on this website.

Call piracy the devil, but defend used games sales, which in the end is basically the same damn thing.

 

[icaritos]

Actually, if you buy used, the company has every god damn reason to listen to your complaints. You bought one game of theirs used. You may well buy the next one new, because if you like the one you buy used, you'll want that next one badly--probably badly enough to shell out the $60 for the privilege of playing it on the first day.

Though, I suppose that by this argument (assuming you live in the US), you can't complain about any public service. Your taxes, after all, go to the government, not, say, the people paving the roads. So you can't complain about roads, sewage works, and so on. And oh yes, this is very much the same thing--stores don't get copies of games from developers/distributors on goodwill. They do have to pay up front before they can put them on the shelves. Your tax money goes to the government, which in turn goes to the people who do the wonderful things we take for granted like paving roads and running waste-water treatment plants. Buying something that supports a game store gives them more money to buy games with to support developers.

And let's take a look at that argument that "games are expensive" is not a valid reason to buy used. Total bullshit. Ignoring when people are strapped for cash, oftentimes you can go buy a new game for, say, $60 (or $50 or $40 depending how long it's been out, and sometimes $20 if it's ancient) or a used copy for $20 (and decreasing increments in proportion to the sale price of a new copy). Also consider that for all intents and purposes, used and new games are functionally identical. A bit of wear and tear on the box, but almost never any actual damage on the disc itself. So it'll play like a new game, in other words. So you're buying ultimately the same product for much, much less. Yes, it's nice to support developers. Not worth my $40. Being morally high-and-mighty only goes so far as is economically convenient for those who need to carefully manage their money.

Your entire argument is applicable to piracy as well. The problem here is that people will defend you if you call it "used games sale" but rail on you if you call it piracy.

 

[Sparcrypt]

I can't tell if you missed the words "A MAJOR SUPPLIER" because you're blind or because you're a troll. Care to tell me which?

Ah, so the fact that there are many many smaller suppliers is completely different to having one larger one when discussing if the product itself it bad? Please explain how it differs to the game publishers/devs etc if a million used games are sold in one place or if a million used games are sold in 1000 different places, then you can tell me why your MAJOR SUPPLIER point that I ignored is so important.

Ah, troll. I see.

Yes, I'm a troll for providing reasoned arguments that you seem unable to dispute with any actual logic or fact.

No, if the only stores that sold used games where stores that only sold used games (Like with every other medium), then there would be no problem. Its the bloated prescence of used games within places where people should be buying new that is the problem.

So, you're saying used games are no problem whatsoever, its just the fact that someone wants to sell them in the same place as new ones? Yeah. I can see how that matters. You know, except the part where it doesn't.

The difference is Gamestop is not producing anything in this relationship, instead simply taking its own survival and killing off the "host". This is the textbook definition of a parasite.

1. Place to come and look at a product before buying it
2. Ability to go and pick up product immediately rather than ship it yourself
3. Staff members to speak with about the pros and cons of various products
4. Buyer protection - if there is a problem with the product you can take it back there and have it exchanged rather than wait weeks to ship it off/have it returned.
5. Extended warranties and other services etc etc

I could go on but basically I'm just listing the advantages you gain when walking into a physical store. Claiming retails stores bring nothing to the table is stupidly narrow minded. Just because YOU personally aren't interested in those services does not mean they don't exist and of value to other people.

By your logic, steam is also a parasite. It does the same thing as a storefront does - provides a place for people to come and buy games. It has advantages and disadvantages when compared to a store but it's the same premise.

So therefore Gamestop has become bloated and needs to scale back its operations til it can survive on the slim margins again and not rsort to being a parasite.

Businesses are there to make money, I'm not even going to respond to an argument that says 'they should stop making money'.

Oh no! If they ever actually made anything that might mean something.

Tell me - how old are you? I'm curious as to if you were buying games back in the day when only way to actually do so was walk in to a store and physically buy it - because if you were then you might not be so fast as to say retail is useless.

You say that retail is pointless and doesn't do anything. Ever heard of logistics? It's the process of moving things from point A to point B. Here is a process almost every product goes though:

1. It gets made
2. The people who made it give it to someone who produces it in large numbers
3. Those people give those items to 'suppliers'
4. Depending on how many things were made, the items filter down through the supply chain. These chains vary in size depending on the product and the demand for it.
5. Eventually, the item ends up with the people who deal with the public on a one on one basis - the retailer.

So calling the retailer useless and not contributing anything to the process is saying the same thing is true for the entire supply chain and everyone involved with it... which is a lot of people doing a LOT of different jobs.

Is that why I saw used retail copies of Portal, Uncharted 2 and Bioshock? That is clearly a fucking stupid argument, as gamestop actively encourages people to trade in their games.

Calling my argument 'fucking stupid' because you fail to see that not everyone agrees with you what a good game is is pretty fucking stupid itself.

As someone who worked in a games store and processed literally tens of thousands of sales/trade ins/everything else I can tell you with first hand knowledge - the better the game the fewer trade ins you see for it and the longer it takes for them to start coming in. Terrible games came in droves. At one point we had about 150 copies of Brute Force for the xbox in stock.. it was that terrible people just wanted to get rid of it.

Yes SOME people will still trade it in a few weeks after they buy it but so what? Every industry has a second hand trade and there is no harm in games having one as well.

As for actively encouraging people to trade - as I pointed out multiple times.. this MAKES THEM MONEY. They are a business and they are more than entitled.

Yes, acting out of spite is always healthy.

Actually that statement was made to draw attention to the fact that those on your side of the fence are being rather idiotic. I'm sorry you were unable to grasp that point, I'll make sure I'm more obvious in future so I don't confuse you.

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

Here's the difference. One of them is a FUCKING CAR.

I fail to see the difference. BMW don't schedule press conferences to discuss how people buying their cars second hand is causing them to implement a biometric key that only allows the first owner to drive it.

The difference is when a person gets a car, they tend to keep it for a long time. If they do eventually sell it is a used dealer, it will likely be well after the manufacturer has stopped making money on that particular model. Compare that with games which, in a lot of cases, can be seen on the used market less than a week after its release.

Though I will argue that video games is the only industry I can think of that withholds content if you buy the product used. You don't really see book publishers getting the ending removed until you pay an additional fee to them if you buy a book used. Frankly I think publishers/developers have far too much control over their product after it ships. While that can be a good thing (gives them a chance to add content, fix some bugs, etc...) it does allow for some pretty dickish things you don't really see in any other industry.

 

[Spandexpanda]

The difference is when a person gets a car, they tend to keep it for a long time. If they do eventually sell it is a used dealer, it will likely be well after the manufacturer has stopped making money on that particular model. Compare that with games which, in a lot of cases, can be seen on the used market less than a week after its release.

Though I will argue that video games is the only industry I can think of that withholds content if you buy the product used. You don't really see book publishers getting the ending removed until you pay an additional fee to them if you buy a book used. Frankly I think publishers/developers have far too much control over their product after it ships. While that can be a good thing (gives them a chance to add content, fix some bugs, etc...) it does allow for some pretty dickish things you don't really see in any other industry.

Well I don't trade in games a week after I buy them... I return them for a refund if they're that shit (or short). Again though, I traded in my original DS a full five years after I bought it. I'd say that's a pretty reasonable trade in time. The reason being that I used it for all that time, just like you would a car. However, I feel that comparing a car to a game is not good enough. In my mind, the only reason someone would trade in a car so soon after buying it is if the car is faulty, or not to their liking. Similarly, with a game, I'd trade it in if it was faulty (well, get a refund) or not to my liking. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Holding on to a game that I'm never gonna play again just to buoy up the industry seems a bit ridiculous, especially seeing as you get the best price for games the sooner after launch you trade them in. So, if you buy a game, don't like it, and trade it in for someone else to buy, does that make you a bad person? Not in my mind. It also doesn't make the person who buys that game second hand a bad person. If, like me, you want the newest games on release day or soon thereafter, but rarely have the money to buy them, then you'll want the cheapest copy you can get. Preowned.

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

The difference is when a person gets a car, they tend to keep it for a long time. If they do eventually sell it is a used dealer, it will likely be well after the manufacturer has stopped making money on that particular model. Compare that with games which, in a lot of cases, can be seen on the used market less than a week after its release.

Though I will argue that video games is the only industry I can think of that withholds content if you buy the product used. You don't really see book publishers getting the ending removed until you pay an additional fee to them if you buy a book used. Frankly I think publishers/developers have far too much control over their product after it ships. While that can be a good thing (gives them a chance to add content, fix some bugs, etc...) it does allow for some pretty dickish things you don't really see in any other industry.

Well I don't trade in games a week after I buy them... I return them for a refund if they're that shit (or short). Again though, I traded in my original DS a full five years after I bought it. I'd say that's a pretty reasonable trade in time. The reason being that I used it for all that time, just like you would a car. However, I feel that comparing a car to a game is not good enough. In my mind, the only reason someone would trade in a car so soon after buying it is if the car is faulty, or not to their liking. Similarly, with a game, I'd trade it in if it was faulty (well, get a refund) or not to my liking. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Holding on to a game that I'm never gonna play again just to buoy up the industry seems a bit ridiculous, especially seeing as you get the best price for games the sooner after launch you trade them in. So, if you buy a game, don't like it, and trade it in for someone else to buy, does that make you a bad person? Not in my mind. It also doesn't make the person who buys that game second hand a bad person. If, like me, you want the newest games on release day or soon thereafter, but rarely have the money to buy them, then you'll want the cheapest copy you can get. Preowned.

Oh no, I have no problem with people buying used games. I think everyone that goes on about how "everyone should only buy new, and they are EVIL if they buy it used" are up themselves. If someone only wants to buy new, that's good for them, but it's not something they should be trying to force on everyone else. Really, the game industry needs to cut this shit out; there is no excuse for them punishing gamers like they are.

Also, I don't know how it is anywhere else, but down here in Australia is has become nearly impossible to return games even a day after you purchase them (I remember trying to return a 3DS game 2 hours after I bought it and had trouble getting them to take it back because they consider it "used"). Often trading a game in is your only outlet to getting something back for a shitty game.

 

[Sparcrypt]

Since your mind is clearly non functional, I will make this as simple as possible. If the major place to buy the game new is telling you you should buy used instead of buying new, then sales that would have gone to new go to used copies. This does not occur in any other medium or product.

The fact that you were only able to respond to one of my points shows you clearly don't have much to say to refute the rest of them. But whatever, I'm sure your response will be that you didn't respond to them because they were so hopelessly stupid and you don't have time for that crap and blah blah blah.

Anyway, please explain exactly why it is Gamestops job to push customers to new games instead of preowned? Why don't the publishers make it more appealing for them to sell new copies instead?

And for that matter, why do you assume people are such stupid sheep they just do whatever a random employee tells them? I generally buy things new because - shock - I prefer them new. Gamestop might stock preowned games but if there wasn't a legitimate market for them they wouldn't do so. The preowned games are there because people see the value in them - that isn't a threat, it's competition. There is a big difference.

You're also forgetting a few other things. First of all - every one of the games that are sold preowned were originally bought brand new, and for quite a while there won't BE many preowned copies in circulation.

You seem to think that every time a game is released, gamestops shelves magically fill up with hundreds of preowned copies of the game. This is not the case. As I mentioned before, I worked in a games store and we pushed trade ins HARD, as the company required us to. However trade ins for new release games were very rare... oh you might see a couple in the first month or two but you didn't see a huge amount, and even then the price for the preowned ones was so close to that of the new copies most people still bought new.

The majority of games I sold preowned were older games - the most popular ones are the games that have been out for years and are now basically impossible to buy new, but are still availible to buy preowned for a few dollars.

This also brings me to another point you've made - that 'sales that would have gone to new go to used copies'. Bullshit. The logic that goes into this statement is like saying 'every music download is a lost sale!'. Just because someone bought a game for 30 dollars preowned does not mean that if there was no preowned option that they would have bought it for 50 dollars new instead.

Yes - SOME sales go to preowned that would have gone to new. That does not mean every preowned sale is a lost new sale. That's like saying 'oh man, if that guy hadn't bought Assassins Creed he would have bought Call of Duty instead! Ubisoft stole their sale!'. The buyer in question may well have gone 'oh.. no Assassins Creed.. I'll buy pizza and a movie instead'.

You really need to figure out what your argumement is anyway. Is it that preowned is bad, or is it that you just don't like gamestop? Maybe you should take a closer look at the business practices of some of the big publishers before you weep for their 'lost sales'.

THAT is why it is a problem for games,

If by 'problem' you mean 'legitimately competitive market' then yes. It is a problem.

you troll!

Learn the definition of a troll. A troll is not someone who doesn't agree with you and your made up facts.

Got that cleared up? Feel free to insult me if you like, but calling someone a troll when they are making reasoned arguments that are being backed up with logic and reasoning just looks idiotic.

 

[Spandexpanda]

eally, the game industry needs to cut this shit out; there is no excuse for them punishing gamers like they are.

Also, I don't know how it is anywhere else, but down here in Australia is has become nearly impossible to return games even a day after you purchase them (I remember trying to return a 3DS game 2 hours after I bought it and had trouble getting them to take it back because they consider it "used"). Often trading a game in is your only outlet to getting something back for a shitty game.

Hear hear. And here in Ireland it's pretty easy to return games if there's a problem with 'em, especially around christmas time when everybody and their mum has a load of crappy games kicking about that they don't want.

 

[joe-h2o]

I take it you also think the used book market "severely damages" the publishing industry, and that the used car market and used housing markets also "severely damage" those industries?

The game companies (or I suppose, the publishers that own them) complain about used sales as "lost revenue", but that's simply disingenuous. The reason that the used market is as big as it is is because of the high cost of new games. Certainly the costs of development are high, but when a AAA title can have *millions* spent on it and then *still* turn out a mediocre to poor product, then yes - people are going to complain. Especially if they buy it at the full price.

I'm amused that you equate the practice with theft, since that's the sort of rhetoric that the music industry uses, and the movie industry did (especially around the time when the VCR was invented - they tried to lobby to prevent the sale of VCRs to consumers, arguing that it would destroy the movie industry, only to later discover that they made more money selling VHS copies of movies in stores).

The game industry has backed itself into this corner - games are very expensive, and are often poor showings for the price asked (even with the gigantic budgets). They need to address why so many people find second hand games so attractive - value for money. Brand new games simply do not provide that, with a few notable exceptions.

Go make yourself a dunce hat and sit in the corner.

NONE of the industries you mentioned are comparable to games.

1) books, its simple, low risk, low break even book, we are tallking less than 100k in sales is a success. To write, edit, print and distribute a book costs very little, also remember, books don't really advertise, theres no big release expenditure, it is literally just the writing editing and printing costs.

2) Cars have a higher unit cost because there is component cost involved, so they put a fair margin on each one and end up in the green. And a used car is always worse than a new one go on say the same about games, i dare you.

3) Housing is paid for by the first time buyer, again its a labour and resource cost. Its a fundamentally different system.

I mean the closest you can really get to games is films and even they have 3 teirs of income vs games one (cinema,television/plane syndication, dvd). We are our own industry and have our own problems, and need solutions that fit, atm thats dlc, but as infrastructure and interconnectivity increase in size speed and reliability there will be a shift to always online drm, and the big shocker is because of the increased reliability nobody will really notice. Now it won't happen yet, but it will happen eventually. And we will be better for it, PC gaming is on average 25% cheaper for a new game and for an old game the prices drop quicker and lower than console counterparts.

Food for thought. Although your probably just going to start flaming because "I WANT MAH RIGHHTS" rather than whats good for you.

Goodness me, would you like some back support for that chip on your shoulder?

You claim the games industry has nothing in common with any of the industries I have listed, but you're ignoring the biggest and simplest criterion common to all business ventures: the requirement for a sustainable business model. To put it another way, (and I have already, but people keep ignoring it because it's convenient), your product needs to provide value for money such that the sales outweigh the expenses.

You dismiss the three industries I mention out of hand because the products are not identical to games, but it's very short sighted.

As it stands right now, many game titles are not value for money. You can try and reframe the argument all you want that "games cost a lot of money to make, and therefore it's necessary to charge $60 for them to recover the costs", but my approach would be to look at it from the other side - if it costs that much to make a game then the model is simply unsustainable in the long term.

To bring it back to cars, since you're so convinced the business models are not the same, we'll look at a hypothetical new car. Let's also make it an electric car so that it has one really big, expensive component that is not fully "mature" yet (for example, compared to being able to build using aluminium, or high economy ICE, fully computerised systems etc that are mature and relatively cheap for manufacturers) - the traction battery.

Now, the car company wants to sell this car for $x thousand since that is the price the market will bear. Pricing it higher than that means that consumers *simply will not buy it* on a large scale - ie, on a scale that ensures your product line is profitable. Sure, you'll always sell some to people who want one and who aren't really concerned about the cost, but you can't build a business on those people.

Now imagine that it's a little along the road (ha!) and the car has been out for a year or so. It still costs a lot to make the car, but now used sales are undercutting them - do they whine that second hand sales are undercutting their business? (Perhaps, but that does not get away from the fact that if your product is not value for money, people will look elsewhere to obtain it if they want it but cannot afford it, or they'll simply not buy at all)

This all boils down to sustainable business models, and the games industry is not immune to it. Nor can it dictate the market price in reverse and whine when people claim it is too expensive. If your new games are not value for money then *reduce the budget that goes into them* in the first place.

No other business would get away with having a gigantic budget for what are often mediocre products and then blaming the poor sales[1] on the fact that people can simply by a second hand product.

You've spent time in this thread "schooling" people on how business works, yet you seem to be missing the very first lesson.

[1] I'd also make the claim that games companies have little to complain about in the first place given how profitable the publishers that own them are, but they simply want more, more, more and take the attitude "how dare people buy our product second hand and not pay us!" .

Edit: you said a "used car is always worse than a new one", but that's a useless statement. Worse in what way? In purely technical factors, sure (miles covered and so on), but it's also a known quantity - it's been bedded in, and if you're looking at a well-looked-after vehicle an immaculate used car can be much better value for money than a new one.

As for "daring" me to say the same about games I have one word for you in just the last couple of months: Catwoman.