Buy used? Can't complain.

[MasochisticAvenger]

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.

That's not the point. This isn't about what gamers *might* do. It's about what literally and instantaneously happens during the used game transaction; developers get nothing.

No, it's about why a company should listen to someone who didn't give them any money but played their game anyway. The whole argument of "since a person didn't buy the game in a way that gives the developers money for it, they have no right to offer feedback" kind of breaks down when you consider the fact a game company tends to put out more than one game. The incentive to listen to someone who bought the game used is, by doing so, they are likely to buy the next game new.

Is everyone who bought the game used going to by the game new if they are listened to? Of course not. But if even a handfull of people buy the next game new, isn't that an improvement? Hasn't the game company gotten something out of doing something that basically costed them nothing?

But you seem content with sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALALALALALA i anyone who dares step outside your narrow view of the discussion so I'll be going now.

 

[Dastardly]

Now, here's the biggie for me: When it comes to single-use codes that are only provided for new purchases, that is where used gamers have no grounds upon which to complain. You hear people say, "I'm only paying $5 less, but I'm not getting the whole game?" Okay -- who set the used price at $5 less? The store. "Well if I buy the stupid code, now the price is basically the same as getting a new copy of the game!" Okay -- aren't you now getting the exact same game experience as a new buyer? Shouldn't the price be the same?

And if I buy new for 50% less a few months later when the price is about as much as the game is actually worth?

If you buy it new for 50% less, you're just fine. Here's why:

1. Publisher sells the game to Gamestop (for example) for, say, $35.
2. The publisher receives money for that copy of the game.
3. Then Gamestop marks the price up to $60 and sells it.
4. One buyer purchases and plays the game.
5. Everyone is happy, because the publisher has been paid for each copy out there being played.

Introduce a discount, which happens around step 3. By then, the publisher has received the money for that copy of the game.

Now, introduce used sales:

1. Publisher sells the game to Gamestop for $35.
2. Publisher receives money for that copy of the game.
3. Gamestop marks the price up to $60 and sells it.
4. One buyer purchases and plays the game.
5. Buyer trades it in for $25.
6. Gamestop marks it up to $55 and sells it again.
7. Another buyer purchases and plays the game.
8. Gamestop has now profited twice on the sale of one copy of the game, while the publisher only got paid once.

Is this immoral or illegal? Of course not! But surely you can understand how it might make the publisher a little unhappy, and why they might choose to try to discourage used sales, right? Better to get paid for two copies than to let someone else get paid twice, while you (the guy that made it) only get paid once.

The thing here is, if a new release is priced at 60 bucks, that says absolutely nothing about how much it's worth. If you buy used that means someone had to trade their game in.

Now WHY would they go and do something like that...I mean if it was worth the buying price, I'm pretty sure I'd want to hold on to it.

I agree. That's why the publisher doesn't sell the game for $60. Gamestop (and so on) mark it up to $60.

But I strongly disagree that the only reason someone would trade in a game is that it's "not worth the money," or that they are somehow dissatisfied with the game. I've traded in many games I loved, but felt I'd gone as far as I could with them -- collected every little widget, seen every corner of the map, experienced every twist and turn... The game was great, but I probably wasn't going to play through it again. Plus, hey, I needed the money for Skyrim (which I bought new).

Eventually, no matter how much is in there, folks finish games. That's a good enough reason to trade it in toward something new.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

You don't get it. I'm not talking about whether or not developers SHOULD be getting money for it. This is only about the transaction of the used game; in that transaction, the developer gets nothing, ergo, the developer does not need to listen to your feedback.

...you're making the assumption that a developer "needs" to listen to the feedback of those who bought new.

Guess what? They don't need to listen to THAT feedback either. The entire point is moot.

No, the entire point is not moot. You've oversimplified the argument because you cannot combat fact.

This is about whether or not developers need to listen to used gamers. Try and keep up?

Unless there really exists some sort of tooth fairy that takes a portion of the money from a used game sale and magically delivers it to the game dev, nothing I've said so far is false.

 

[madster11]

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.

So you buy a used game from someone.
That someone then buys a new game.

 

[surg3n]

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.

Obligation? - what obligation is there when I do buy new? - none!
Is there a form to fill in, that I've missed the last few hundred times I bought a game?

Developers aren't really all that interested in your feedback, marketting and sales departments are - but your feedback means very little at the end of the day, no matter how many games you buy new. People seem to be regarding an opinion as something you have to earn, well in that case most of the posts in this thread shouldn't be here. If you can't see things from both sides, then your opinion is worthless or even detremental to the discussion. Paying full price for a game is not a mark of respect, it's EXACTLY what publishers want you to do... ohh pre-owned is dirty, pre-owned is the same as piracy, pre-owned should be banned... I'll tell you, I've been buying pre-owned games for over 20 years, how come it's such a big problem now!. Can I hazard a guess, that times are hard, and publishers are only interested in the opinions of people they haven't gotten money from yet.

I mean, what do publishers think we pay £40 for? - the box?, the disc? - or the right to play the damn game?. Surely as soon as you pass on the ability to play that game, you pass on the ownership - they can't expect more money because the original buyer has no access to the game they already paid for. If it was a PC game that didn't rely on the disc, so could be installed multiple times, then they might have a point - we are talking mostly about console games though.

Has any publisher or developer ever asked someone selling their game to someone else, why they are selling it? - why aren't they interested in the opinions of people who just plain didn't like the game.

Once again, I call bullshit on this shitty industry. People who are prepared to try their games a less risk (cost) are seen as a lower class - game fans tend to buy games new when they know they will like the game. How many people would stump up £40 on a whim, or just on the off chance that they will actually like the game... seriously, look at it from all sides, don't just focus on one aspect, just because the OP is pointing at it screaming infidel!.

 

[ninjaRiv]

As someone else said: so what if, say, you got a game for your birthday? Does this make your opinion on that game invalid? After all, you didn't pay the developer anything for it, somebody else did. So you would have no right to give feedback, the one who bought the game would.

I smell a flaw in an argument somewhere...

No way! Because someone bought that game new! So the devs got the money at some point so it's the original owners right to give it- Hey, wait a minute... I do believe you're right. There is a flaw!

 

[Tom Artingstall]

Fair point on the OT. It's like the Beer Rule, which states "You may not, under any circumstances, complain about the brand/temperature of free beer". I'll make a point not to send any complaints in to the devs after I buy a used game, but I do reserve the right to ***** about it loudly on the internet, because damnit, isn't that what democracy is all about?

 

[Vegosiux]

No, the entire point is not moot. You've oversimplified the argument because you cannot combat fact.

This is about whether or not developers need to listen to used gamers. Try and keep up?

Here's a fact for you: The developers don't know how any particular person acquired their game, so their best bet is to listen to all the feedback about it.

Combat that.

 

[madster11]

It is a 100% set in stone fact that the publisher does not receive a single penny from a single contained used game transaction. I don't need proof for that. Unless you're telling me that the used game owner is forwarding so much of a penny of that payment. That's all I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the future or even 5 minutes after, I'm talking about the transaction. If you can acknowledge and agree with that much, I've made my point. Anything further is certainly up in the air, but again, is not guaranteed.

It is a 100% set in stone fact that i won't go into a jail cell exactly at the same moment after i stab someone, either.

Guess that means it'll never happen.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

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.

That's not the point. This isn't about what gamers *might* do. It's about what literally and instantaneously happens during the used game transaction; developers get nothing.

No, it's about why a company should listen to someone who didn't give them any money but played their game anyway. The whole argument of "since a person didn't buy the game in a way that gives the developers money for it, they have no right to offer feedback" kind of breaks down when you consider the fact a game company tends to put out more than one game. The incentive to listen to someone who bought the game used is, by doing so, they are likely to buy the next game new.

Is everyone who bought the game used going to by the game new if they are listened to? Of course not. But if even a handfull of people buy the next game new, isn't that an improvement? Hasn't the game company gotten something out of doing something that basically costed them nothing?

And yet fuckign again, every single counter argument always has the words "what if", "if", "likely", or "probably".

I wish I had a forum sig, then I could make this clear; I don't give two shits whether or not it's in a game dev's best interests to listen to used gamer feedback. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm stating a simple fact; in a used game transaction, a game developer gets nothing. That is the only GIVEN fact concerning used games. Everything else that may or may not occur after is purely theoretical and uncertain. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[D0WNT0WN]

I buy used games among other things and I stand by it, without used games I would have missed out on many games I want to play. There is nothing wrong with it.

 

[ninjaRiv]

You don't get it. I'm not talking about whether or not developers SHOULD be getting money for it. This is only about the transaction of the used game; in that transaction, the developer gets nothing, ergo, the developer does not need to listen to your feedback.

...you're making the assumption that a developer "needs" to listen to the feedback of those who bought new.

Guess what? They don't need to listen to THAT feedback either. The entire point is moot.

No, the entire point is not moot. You've oversimplified the argument because you cannot combat fact.

This is about whether or not developers need to listen to used gamers. Try and keep up?

Unless there really exists some sort of tooth fairy that takes a portion of the money from a used game sale and magically delivers it to the game dev, nothing I've said so far is false.

I think what he's trying to say here is that game devs don't always listen to those who bought the game new. And they don't, not always. But constructive criticism should never be ignored.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

It is a 100% set in stone fact that the publisher does not receive a single penny from a single contained used game transaction. I don't need proof for that. Unless you're telling me that the used game owner is forwarding so much of a penny of that payment. That's all I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the future or even 5 minutes after, I'm talking about the transaction. If you can acknowledge and agree with that much, I've made my point. Anything further is certainly up in the air, but again, is not guaranteed.

It is a 100% set in stone fact that i won't go into a jail cell exactly at the same moment after i stab someone, either.

Guess that means it'll never happen.

No, it might, but I'm not talking about what might happen, now am I? There is no ambiguity that when you stab someone, they are injured, right? You agree? Good. Then there is also no ambiguity that a developer during the time of the transaction (which is the only thing you can take for fact) gets no money.

 

[Call me Baz]

I stopped reading once I read OP say that Yatzhee's opinions would become invalid if he disclosed that he was playing a used game. Critisims DO NOT become invalid just because someone has not bought new, for example, dragons flying backwards in Skyrim were not dependant on new/used games. I understand the point you're trying to make - complaining about things in a game you haven't paid full price for makes you sound like an ass, but if there are genuine problems, bugs or inconsistencies in a game then they can be experienced by anyone.

For those buying used though, you shouldn't expect EVERYTHING that new games have. Perhaps something like the Batman game with Catwoman in it. I don't think that it's fair to lop off the entire market that could be the only access point into certain games for some classes. The used market generates so many sales that stockists are able to order more copies of the new games from developers. £25M more sales on used games is anywhere between £10-20M more profit for the company in game sales, which can subsequently be tens to hundreds of thousands of new units.

It's wrong to assume used markets only harm developers, the same as it's wrong to assume death is only a bad thing in this world.

-edit-
consistency error

 

[madster11]

but I'm not talking about what might happen, now am I?

Nope, and that's EXACTLY why you don't understand how a basic economy works.

 

[Baby Tea]

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

Of course you do. You still played the game.
If the game is a broken, buggy mess, used or not, then you have every right to complain.
That's how it works.

And the developers would be retarded not to listen to you, because your experiences dictate your purchase decisions. Which means that if you buy a game used that you're unsure of, and LOVE it, then you're more likely to buy the sequel brand new. That was ALSO a point made by Jim that you seemed to have missed.

Developers don't only listen to those who support them, they look at the industry as a whole. They want their games played and enjoyed (And purchased, of course) by the largest amount of people they can. IF they make a shitty game, and people who played (Whether bought brand new, used, or rented it at a store) levy some valid, great critiques about how the game could be improved, do you HONESTLY think the developer is going to throw out complaints, no matter how valid, from those who didn't buy the game new?

If you say 'yes', then I have a bridge to sell you.

Your argument is beyond invalid.

 

[Imper1um]

Guh, troll is trolling. I'm reporting all of your posts which you are just plain calling everyone stupid.

Go away troll.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

No, the entire point is not moot. You've oversimplified the argument because you cannot combat fact.

This is about whether or not developers need to listen to used gamers. Try and keep up?

Here's a fact for you: The developers don't know how any particular person acquired their game, so their best bet is to listen to all the feedback about it.

Combat that.

Here's a point for you: why don't you read what the fuck I'm saying? I'll list it out for the last time, I'm getting tired of this thread.

For the sake of this argument, I don't care about the following:
~ What gamers do after buying the used game
~ Whether or not the gamer might buy a sequel based on a current used game
~ Whether or not it's beneficial for game devs to listen to used game developers
~ Whether or not game devs should listen to any feedback whatsoever
~ Whether or not game devs can tell how you purchased something.

Can you understand that? Good. Keeping the above in mind (no seriously, read the above over again ONE MORE TIME if you need to) Here's what I AM stating.
~ A used game transaction does not provide any sort of revenue to the game dev at the time of the transaction. This is irrefutable.
~ Based on that, a game developer does not have to feel obligated to take into account the feelings of someone who purchased a used game.

 

[ninjaRiv]

Guh, troll is trolling. I'm reporting all of your posts which you are just plain calling everyone stupid.

Go away troll.

... Who are you talking about?

 

[LiquidSolstice]

but I'm not talking about what might happen, now am I?

Nope, and that's EXACTLY why you don't understand how a basic economy works.

Knowing a fact and trying to predict what will happen after the fact are two very different things. Just saying.