Which is why I make sure to buy new when purchasing games published/developed by smaller companies like NIS, Atlus, and Aksys. Still doesn't mean I care more about the industry than someone that mainly buys used.bahumat42 said:
buying used games is stupid
- Thread starter segataDC
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Christ alive, man. I was only giving a recommendation to you.bahumat42 said:
Also, all other used markets are different from other used markets. So this used market is different from used markets in being different. If that makes any sense. Furthermore, if games getting traded in a week after the fact is such an issue, game developers should be looking at ways to encourage people to hold onto their disks, without punishing second hand sales. Such as giving people discounts on DLC if they buy new.
Oh, and we can understand you. It's just that it requires little effort, and poor punctuation makes you look unintelligible
You make an argument yet give nobody the means to actually argue back.bahumat42 said:
That isn't arguing, its trolling.
EA and Activision still exist in a free market, if the companies want to push we have more than a right push push back.bahumat42 said:
No. The used game shop I use (CEX) normally sells used games with generally a £5-10 saving. It'd be stupid to buy the game at a more expensive rate.
And can we please stop pretending that the games companies are being hurt, because they're not.
With Indie Games yes they do need the money and I wont buy used, however I wont be feeling bad when I get a used copy of Arkham City over the weekend.
And can we please stop pretending that the games companies are being hurt, because they're not.
With Indie Games yes they do need the money and I wont buy used, however I wont be feeling bad when I get a used copy of Arkham City over the weekend.
Look, I was in truth, only trying to be helpful. Nothing more, nothing less. However, I feel as though I may have touched upon a nerve here.bahumat42 said:
Regardless, if you want to actually look at my points, please, feel free to do so. I wasn't trying to make any point about your grammar.
Where do people get the notion that buying a game new supports developers/publishers?
Using GameStop as an example;
GameStop purchases several copies of a title, marks up the price, then puts it on their shelf. They then sell the game at the higher price and make a profit. No money from a game in new condition goes to publishers or developers.
People seem to think that the money from new game sales gets passed along from the retailer to the distributor. If that were the case, the retailer wouldn't turn a profit and wouldn't have a business. They'd simply be a delivery company that delivers for free and can't accept tips.
And how do you think it works when the retailer has several copies of a new game that it can't sell? Did the distributor just hand over the copies to the retailer and say "Just sell as many as you can, and we'll just eat the loss of the ones you can't."? No. Since the retailer purchased them, they eat the loss.
It doesn't matter if you buy new or used, you're supporting the retailer.
Using GameStop as an example;
GameStop purchases several copies of a title, marks up the price, then puts it on their shelf. They then sell the game at the higher price and make a profit. No money from a game in new condition goes to publishers or developers.
People seem to think that the money from new game sales gets passed along from the retailer to the distributor. If that were the case, the retailer wouldn't turn a profit and wouldn't have a business. They'd simply be a delivery company that delivers for free and can't accept tips.
And how do you think it works when the retailer has several copies of a new game that it can't sell? Did the distributor just hand over the copies to the retailer and say "Just sell as many as you can, and we'll just eat the loss of the ones you can't."? No. Since the retailer purchased them, they eat the loss.
It doesn't matter if you buy new or used, you're supporting the retailer.
I think you should change the title of this thread to "I think buying used games from Gamestop is stupid", because buying used games off of Amazon like you suggest is still buying and selling used games.
I agree wholeheartedly, Gamestop rips off their customers, buy off Amazon or Ebay if you want used.
I agree wholeheartedly, Gamestop rips off their customers, buy off Amazon or Ebay if you want used.
It's stupid when the price is close to that of the original.
So...you get a 2$ discount because of arbitrage. SUCH AMAZING SAVINGS!!!
...and the retailer (usually Gamestop) just ripped off the publisher.
However, it isn't so stupid when the used game in question is much older and its value depreciates according to its decreased demand on the market. It's safe to assume that if I want to go scrounging for old PS2 titles, like say, Godhand, the publisher probably isn't seeing any revenue from new sales figures there. In this instance, the effects of arbitrage are minimal to negligible and the retailer can still turn a profit (albeit a much much smaller profit).
The biggest factor in arbitrage is time. MOST new games count on immediate sales figures (roughly within the first month) to *recoup* most of what the publisher spent making the game, and that's when Gamestop (and others) exploit arbitrage the most.
Honestly, if the arbitrage wasn't so overwhelmingly prevalent in that critical, early stage of the game's retail life cycle, this "controversy" would scarcely exist.
There is no reason we cannot have both New and Used game markets coexisting. Except: Short-term greed will (and has) create(d) long-term consequences for everyone involved.
The problem is that the "ideal solution" for the publishers involves measures that will ultimately drive up costs for the customer, despite cutting out the retail middleman.
So...you get a 2$ discount because of arbitrage. SUCH AMAZING SAVINGS!!!
...and the retailer (usually Gamestop) just ripped off the publisher.
However, it isn't so stupid when the used game in question is much older and its value depreciates according to its decreased demand on the market. It's safe to assume that if I want to go scrounging for old PS2 titles, like say, Godhand, the publisher probably isn't seeing any revenue from new sales figures there. In this instance, the effects of arbitrage are minimal to negligible and the retailer can still turn a profit (albeit a much much smaller profit).
The biggest factor in arbitrage is time. MOST new games count on immediate sales figures (roughly within the first month) to *recoup* most of what the publisher spent making the game, and that's when Gamestop (and others) exploit arbitrage the most.
Honestly, if the arbitrage wasn't so overwhelmingly prevalent in that critical, early stage of the game's retail life cycle, this "controversy" would scarcely exist.
There is no reason we cannot have both New and Used game markets coexisting. Except: Short-term greed will (and has) create(d) long-term consequences for everyone involved.
The problem is that the "ideal solution" for the publishers involves measures that will ultimately drive up costs for the customer, despite cutting out the retail middleman.
Immature? I'm sorry, but giving people a quick tip on how to bring their point across better is "Immature" now? And furthermore, for someone who admits to snapping in rage, you have the audacity to call me immature? Sorry, but that's too funny. And secondly, we were still having a debate. I posted other points. Which you continue to ignore.bahumat42 said:
Again, back on topic. The industry is still going strong. Publishers still turned a nice profit the last few years, even during a recession and these Evil used sales.