Buy used? Can't complain.

Recommended Videos

LiquidSolstice

New member
Dec 25, 2009
378
0
0
Stranegly enough, even after seeing all the counter-arguments, I find myself completely agreeing with the OP.

If you didn't buy the game brand new, you kind of have no say at all in its development or support. Unless you paid the exact amount that the original owner did for the new copy.

Look at it this way. Person A buys new for $60 (and that money goes to the publishers), plays it, gets support for it, possibly DLC, mod tools, etc. He sells it to you used for $30. He pockets that cash. Where exactly do you see the incentive for any publisher to provide YOU with any support/feedback option?

You don't.

Don't get me wrong, I think the whole "Online Pass" thing is complete bullshit if you think about it logically, but for non-online portions, the OP is pretty much on the nose.

Just, the rest of you are confusing his statement of "no right to complain" with the literal right to vocalize your complaints. He's actually talking about the expectancy that used game purchasers have about getting updates or their feedback heard and utilized.
 

Dandark

New member
Sep 2, 2011
1,706
0
0
I read the Original post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0
That's how I felt about it.

I am usaully terrible at getting my point across in arguments but im going to try anyway since it's been a while since anyone completely misinterpreted what I said.
Buying games used does not ruin the developer forever, it usaully means you did not want to pay full price for the product. Here is an example.

There I am, in the store looking at the games on display. Suddenly I see a copy of "Alone in the dark", that looks interesting I say, the full copy is £40 and the preowned copy is £20. Im not sure about it though, I have never played a game like this before or heard much of this one.
I decide to buy it used. I go home, play the game and hate it. This was a load of crap I thought, I trade it back in the next day, thankfully I didn't buy the newer more expensive version.

Then I look around again and spot "Metro 2033". Oh this looks like it could be fun, I'll buy the used version again in case it is terrible. I go home and play the crap out of that game because I love it and think it's brilliant.
Now if they ever release a sequel or similar game to his I will probably buy it on release, and crazy as it sounds I plan to buy "Metro: Last light" the day it comes out.


Thanks to used games, I avoided buying what a product I didn't like and got one I did like. I also will likely be willing to buy DLC for Metro 2033 now and I have already decided to get the sequel new. That used copy of Metro 2033 didn't destroy the industry or lose the developer money, it gained them money because I would not of bought that game full price simply because I liked the look of it.

This is not a difficult concept, The used game market can damage BAD games and may not give profit to other games in the short term, however it allows players to try out a game series which they may then decide to contribute money to in the future.


Also we always have a right to complain, I could complain about Alone in the dark despite buying it used and then returning it.
However the developers do not have to listen to me you say? Actully I could of bought it new and paid for any DLC it may of had and they still do not have to listen to me. If they want to improve there game and widen their audience then they would want to listen to people who buy it used, if I buy it new and like it, okay they alread have me as a fan but what about the people who don't like their game? If they want their money then they need to convince them to buy it, to know what they want then they must listen to complaints.
 

razer17

New member
Feb 3, 2009
2,518
0
0
xvbones said:
As for the 'used housing industry'.... really now.
'Used housing industry.'
Really.

The game companies (or I suppose, the publishers that own them) complain about used sales as "lost revenue", but that's simply disingenuous.
The problem is that it is not disingenuous here, it is literal.
Used games are literally lost revenue.
Precise and exact and accurate, lost revenue.
There is no other way to define the impact of a used game on the industry: lost revenue.
Lost revenue would assume that if I didn't buy a game second hand I wouldn't buy it at all. That's clearly not true. Revenue can only be lost if they would have gotten it in the first place, and not every used game sold is one that would have been sold brand new had used not been available. Therefore it is not a precise, accurate or literal loss of revenue.

Also, I think it's pretty safe to say that second hand trading keeps brick and mortar stores open at this point with the money it generates them. If these stores closed down because they could no longer sell second hand games then the games industry would lose a lot more.

Not only that, but the second hand games market helps to stop game companies inflating the prices on their games. If there were only new games, then they could stay at £40 indefinitely, because hey, if you ever want to play them you have to pony up.

The second hand market is good for consumers. The car analogy, even though you bluntly dismissed it, is actually a good one. We have car lots that sell first and second hand cars of a particular brand. Now imagine if they suddenly could only sell brand new cars. A lot of people can't afford new cars, hence they buy used. Therefore you take that option away and they keep their old car. How long do you think car showrooms stay open without second hand car revenues? They'll close, and lead to worse trouble than the second hand did to the industry in the first place. (Also, yes, some people buy second hand furniture and other house items, it's called living on the poverty line)

Also, if a car costs a lot more to design and produce than a game, why do second hand car owners have rights, but second hand game owners do not?

In the end of the day, a company has a duty of care for the "end user", hell, the EULA is the "End User" licence agreement, not the "first purchaser". If a company thinks "Well, what a legitimate and interesting complaint!" "Actually, sir, he bought used" "HIS OPINIONS ARE INVALID!" they are clearly pants on head retarded, because you listen to legitimate product complaints no matter who they are from.
 

Rottweiler

New member
Jan 20, 2008
258
0
0
"I hope you can see that your argument doesn't really make sense. If I buy a second-hand car that has defective disc-brakes, and the first owner didn't cause them, I have every right to complain to the manufacturer because their product is shoddy. Same goes for aspects of games you don't like.

And your argument entirely ignores companies like EA, who won't give two shits even if you do buy new."

I hope you can see your rebuttal doesn't add up. If I buy a second-hand Game with Defective Game Mechanics...and the first owner didn't cause them...

Don't use an Argument and then think you can decide it doesn't apply all around.

So far as I can see, this entire debate hinges around one item: they claim they 'get no money' from used games.

False.

Every 'used game' is FREE ADVERTISING. Every 'used game' is someone playing their game- and whether they bought it used, got it as a gift, found it in the trash...SOMEONE PAID FOR IT ORIGINALLY. The only tenuous thread of argument for their 'losing money' is the

COMPLETELY THEORETICAL

argument that somehow, if not everyone is buying a brand new copy for every single player, this equals a crippling loss. No. That is a joke and frankly, a lot of us see it as a joke.



Seriously, how can you consciously justify saying that once an Object is purchased, the original creator has *any* control or input afterwards? I simply cannot grasp this. I don't believe even the RIAA has tried to claim that they have control over physical CD's being sold used, or at garage sales. Copying for profit? I can see that. Pirating? Also good justifications for it being bad.

However, once I purchase an Item, it no longer has any relation to the creator and if I want to burn it, sell it, put it out on my coffee table as a coaster...it's none of their business and they will play hell getting me to agree to be their monkey.
 

LiquidSolstice

New member
Dec 25, 2009
378
0
0
hashtag said:
So if I bought a used car, buying the car used wouldn't help the company, and the airbags didn't deploy I wouldn't be able to complain about that? Or if the seatbelt was broken, or the steering wheel? And if the original owner didn't cause these problems, I shouldn't be allowed to ***** to Ford or Toyota?
No. That is the dumbest statement I've heard. Saying "Well, if you buy used you can't ***** about the game herp-derp" No. I have every right to complain about a sub-par product even if I bought used or not. I still bought it.
It's not about having the right to complain. It's about how Ford or Toyota really don't need to listen to you unless specifically stated that they must do so in their warranty, and pretty much all car warranties are transferable upon change of ownership, which makes this whole "car" example pretty retarded. I don't know who brought it up.

If the original owner of a game did not vocalize his/her concerns about said game to its developer, you damn well don't have any place doing so when you didn't pay the developer for it at all. Again, going back to my previous example; original owner pays $60, developer gets a portion of it. You pay original owner $30, developer gets nothing, and you expect the developer to listen to TWO gamers for the price of one?

Give me a break.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
xvbones said:
If you only purchase used games, you have no right to complain about those games.

None. Not even a little.
You actually have the right to complain in any circumstances, really.

In short: Bullshit.

You have the right to complain, they have the right to not listen.

Are we clear? Good. Are we done? Probably not.
 

LiquidSolstice

New member
Dec 25, 2009
378
0
0
Rottweiler said:
So far as I can see, this entire debate hinges around one item: they claim they 'get no money' from used games.

False.
True. There is no money given to them during a used game transaction. What you're talking about is "implied" receipt of money from all these apperently noble white knights who claim "oh, I bought this used and because of that I bought the sequel new, SO HAW HAW USED GAMES DO PROFIT". There is no guarantee you'll buy the sequel new because you bought its predecessor used. You want to think there is, because otherwise that whole point falls completely apart.

Every 'used game' is FREE ADVERTISING. Every 'used game' is someone playing their game- and whether they bought it used, got it as a gift, found it in the trash...SOMEONE PAID FOR IT ORIGINALLY. The only tenuous thread of argument for their 'losing money' is the COMPLETELY THEORETICAL
It doesn't matter if it's free advertising or if someone paid for it originally. That someone had it for however long that they did, and if they (as the original owners who paid for it) didn't vocalize any concerns about the quality of the game to the publishers, the publishers damn well don't have to listen to YOU ***** about it when YOU didn't give the publishers anything.
 

Scrustle

New member
Apr 30, 2011
2,031
0
0
That's bull. Money from used games does go to the developer. For it to be used it at one point must have been new. It must have been bought by someone at some point. For every used copy of a game that exists money from that has made it to the developer, no matter how many times it gets resold. And that is all they are entitled to. And you do have a right to complain about a game if you bought it used. You experienced the game, and you have an opinion about it. Just because you bought it without a plastic film on it doesn't mean your opinion isn't valid. And developers should listen to that opinion. No matter how you bought a game, if you liked the game enough for there to be a chance you will buy a sequel then developers will be very interested in how they can improve the game to make you guy the next one. And if you already have experience with a series and hear about improvements to a sequel then you are far more likely to buy it new. And even if you don't buy it new a developer will want to know what people think so they can attract any new customers.
 

LiquidSolstice

New member
Dec 25, 2009
378
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
xvbones said:
If you only purchase used games, you have no right to complain about those games.

None. Not even a little.
You actually have the right to complain in any circumstances, really.

In short: Bullshit.

You have the right to complain, they have the right to not listen.

Are we clear? Good. Are we done? Probably not.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the OP is trying to say, I don't know why everyone is being anal and pedantic and suggesting that the OP is saying you literally cannot complain about anything.
 

everythingbeeps

New member
Sep 30, 2011
946
0
0
Spandexpanda said:
everythingbeeps said:
1. I'm with TC on this one.
2. I'm sick to death of people comparing the used game market to the used car market. They're not the same. Not even remotely. So knock it off.
How are they not the same? They're identical in every way!

1) Person buys car new, paying full price to BMW, Toyota, whatever.
2) Someone else buys that car off them, or from a dealership. Cash exchange takes place whereby the previous owner gets a portion of their original buying price.
3) The new owner drives the car, before either selling it off again or exchanging it in a dealer for credit against a new car.

At the end of this sequence, the manufacturer has got 100% of the money from that car.

1) Person buys game new, paying full price to Game, Gamestation or Gamestop.
2) Someone else buys that game off them, or from Gamestop's used section. Cash exchange takes place whereby the previous owner gets a portion of their original buying price.
3) The new owner plays the game, before either selling it off again or exchanging it at Gamestop for credit against a new game.

Similarly, at the end of this sequence, the publisher has got 100% of the money from that game.

Spot the difference (hint, there are none)
Here's the difference. One of them is a FUCKING CAR.
 

LiquidSolstice

New member
Dec 25, 2009
378
0
0
Scrustle said:
That's bull. Money from used games does go to the developer. For it to be used it at one point must have been new. It must have been bought by someone at some point. For every used copy of a game that exists money from that has made it to the developer, no matter how many times it gets resold. And that is all they are entitled to. And you do have a right to complain about a game if you bought it used. You experienced the game, and you have an opinion about it. Just because you bought it without a plastic film on it doesn't mean your opinion isn't valid. And developers should listen to that opinion. No matter how you bought a game, if you liked the game enough for there to be a chance you will buy a sequel then developers will be very interested in how they can improve the game to make you guy the next one. And if you already have experience with a series and hear about improvements to a sequel then you are far more likely to buy it new.
Money from used games does not go to a developer. It goes into the pocket of the person selling the game. To use the retarded car example again, Toyota does not get a penny when you sell your 99 Civic to some guy on Craigslist.

Your logic is so idealistic that I can literally feel the rainbows shooting out of your eyes. There is no guarantee that you will buy new after buying used, I don't understand why everyone keeps falling back on that. Maybe they should listen to you, but that's not the point of this thread, the point is that they are under no sort of obligation to at all when you couldn't respect their game enough to buy it new.
 

cgaWolf

New member
Apr 16, 2009
125
0
0
The used games market severely damages the industry because it deprives the developers of any and all support.
OP, Your whole argument insinuates that the original seller of the used game doesn't use the money to buy more games, which quite simply lacks any base. People sell games they played to get money, which quite probably gets re-invested into other games. Sure, Gamestop makes revenue off being the middleman in this transaction, but to imply that US$ 0 of that money goes to game any devs, is an unproven statement. At most, you can argue that it doesn't necessarily go to the dev of the used game, however that dev may not have gotten any money of not for a prior sale of a used game from another dev - either way, the argument stands on weak legs.

High prices on first sales without quality guarantee as well as proven lack of support by many publishers make hedging my bets & steering my investment (towards used sales, thus minimizing my risk) a valid tactic.

Also, the tired car-industry games-industry comparision makes a comeback. It didn't get any more valid or smarter since the last time it was used, car manufacturers ARE liable for manufacturing errors on used vehicles, and (to complete the trifecta) people would probably download cars if they could ^_^

Giving money to a company is the only way to get them to listen to you.
Untrue. They already have my money, why should they listen? The only way to get companies to listen to you is to give your money to some other company instead, that does what you want.
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
Your whole argument is stopped by DLC. I have really nothing else to add what so ever. Well that and various laws regarding the resale of goods and what happens to spare money and buying future releases.
 

MasochisticAvenger

New member
Nov 7, 2011
331
0
0
LiquidSolstice said:
Look at it this way. Person A buys new for $60 (and that money goes to the publishers), plays it, gets support for it, possibly DLC, mod tools, etc. He sells it to you used for $30. He pockets that cash. Where exactly do you see the incentive for any publisher to provide YOU with any support/feedback option?

You don't.
If a game company exclusively targets the audience it already has, won't it eventually stagnate and die off when said audience loses interest? The people who bought the game used obviously had enough of an interest to get the game at all, so listening to them and finding out what kept from from buy the game when it first came out is more than likely to make them consider buying new when the next game comes out.

Also, if I buy the game new, but buy it in sale, does that mean my opinion is worth less than a person who bought the game at full price? If that's the case, does that mean that I, as an Australian, have more of a right to complain about a game since I will have paid around 100 to 120 dollars for it compared to an American who will have only paid around 60?
 

LiquidSolstice

New member
Dec 25, 2009
378
0
0
Galite said:
Bullshit. That's why I don't buy games I'm not sure of for full price, I don't want to pay 60 bucks for a shit game. I have to pay 60-70 bucks for a shit game before I can say it sucks to the developer? Hell no. If they listen to my complaints I may just buy their next game whereas if they ignore me then they won't get a penny. In businesses you listen to potential new clients as much as old ones if they offer the same reward.
You gotta love how many "ifs" gamers tend to use whenever they talk about games.

Because "if" is something you can take for sure, something you can count on for profit. If you don't want to pay 60 bucks for a shitty game, rent it first to see if it's worth it, and then buy it if you think it is. What, with RedBox nowadays, it's just $2 to do that for a night anyway.
 

LiquidSolstice

New member
Dec 25, 2009
378
0
0
cgaWolf said:
The used games market severely damages the industry because it deprives the developers of any and all support.
OP, Your whole argument insinuates that the original seller of the used game doesn't use the money to buy more games, which quite simply lacks any base. People sell games they played to get money, which quite probably gets re-invested into other games. Sure, Gamestop makes revenue off being the middleman in this transaction, but to imply that US$ 0 of that money goes to game any devs, is an unproven statement. At most, you can argue that it doesn't necessarily go to the dev of the used game, however that dev may not have gotten any money of not for a prior sale of a used game from another dev - either way, the argument stands on weak legs.

High prices on first sales without quality guarantee as well as proven lack of support by many publishers make hedging my bets & steering my investment (towards used sales, thus minimizing my risk) a valid tactic.

Also, the tired car-industry games-industry comparision makes a comeback. It didn't get any more valid or smarter since the last time it was used, car manufacturers ARE liable for manufacturing errors on used vehicles, and (to complete the trifecta) people would probably download cars if they could ^_^

Giving money to a company is the only way to get them to listen to you.
Untrue. They already have my money, why should they listen? The only way to get companies to listen to you is to give your money to some other company instead, that does what you want.
And your entire argument is based on an "if". You don't know that the gamer in question will spend said money back on games, you're just assuming that said gamer will do so.

Cars come with transferable warranties (many mandated by state and federal law). Games don't. End of discussion.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
LiquidSolstice said:
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the OP is trying to say, I don't know why everyone is being anal and pedantic and suggesting that the OP is saying you literally cannot complain about anything.
Well, one, that's not what the OP is saying (meaning, it may have been what he was trying to say, but it was not what he said), two, the devs and publishers don't lead lists on who bought what how. If I complain about a game to them, they will listen, or they will not, true, but they will not decide on the basis on how I acquired the game - because they don't know that. For all they know I could have bought new on release day, bought new for half price half a year later, bought used, or received it as a gift.
 

LiquidSolstice

New member
Dec 25, 2009
378
0
0
madster11 said:
You support the retail store who BUYS THE COMPANIES GAMES WHEN THEY'RE RELEASED.

You stupid dickhead, where do you think the companies get their money from?
You directly? What, does your $60-100 pass from the retailers hands straight to the devs?
No, twattycake, your money goes to the store, which in turn uses that money to buy more stock in the future.
Used games are only sold at retailers? Whoa, I did not know this. Thanks for this revelation.