buying used games is stupid

[Iwata]

There is also something else a lot of people seem to be forgetting: for some people, there is simply no choice. It's buy used, or don't buy at all.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

i live in the UK and it's cheaper to buy the games used.
seriously, why have a games collection. you probably won't go back and play them again, and you'd be wasting money you could get back by trading in the games. plus, it's just one more thing to pack if you move house.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I read through a few responses and don't feel like going through the rest of the thread, but there's just one thing that's relevant here I wanna say.

Can we please stop this line of thinking that buying used games doesn't support the developer? Because you're right, it doesn't. But they've made money on the game once already, so they've gotten their due.

This is the most common argument I see when people argue against used games and it's really getting on my nerves

Also, they aren't necessarily supporting the developer. The devs are paid. They may get a bonus for good sales, but that money from the purchases is going to the publisher.

 

[Lt. Vinciti]

1. I never understood but why does the pound use a , instead of the . ?

Also....umm...I have a semidecent collection of games as we speak...mostly because I either:

A. Like them
B. Know they are worth zilch
C. Trading among friends

Also when it comes to saving and buying new.... Rapestop wanted $55 (for BLOPS FFS!) and the used store nearby wanted...wait for it... $42 which is a wee bit better in my book...also I abuse the hell out of Rapestops 7 Day Hate It or Beat It policy

 

[Daverson]

The issue with the "lost sales" argument, is that a lot of people who do buy used games wouldn't have brought the game new anyhow.

But, if someone were to have dismissed a game on launch, then brought a used copy a few months later, and loved the game, they're more likely to buy a sequel (or a similar game from the same dev) on launch. If they hadn't brought a used copy, they'd probably never have tried the game at all, and would have dismissed it like they did the original.

Just a thought.

 

[Spandexpanda]

What I fail to see is why people complain about the used game market so much when virtually every other product in the world has a used market. Books are sold to libraries, where thousands of people will read one copy of a book. This only gives one sale to the writer/publisher. DVDs can be bought preowned (and are) as are CDs and other media. Hell, why does nobody complain about game rental shops? In those instances, similarly to libraries, the publisher only gets one sale, but another company makes hundreds off one copy, it's a nearly identical principle! Clothing can be bought in thrift shops, books can be bought second hand, musical instruments can be bought second hand, cars, even houses! The builder of a house doesn't complain that he doesn't make money every time a house is rented or resold. Why should the games companies?

 

[MorphingDragon]

Well maybe used game sales would decrease if the fuckers stopped hiking up the price of new games. I refuse to pay $120+ for a video game. They were only $80-$100 a couple of years ago.

That isn't the first time I've seen someone mention $120 as the price of a game... Where is that figure coming from?

Most RRP or List Prices for games are around about $120 in NZ, even though we are about $.80 to the US$. I don't know if there's a specific survey anyway, but you can see an upsetting trend for launch games just by looking at some of our online retailers. The RRP for Uncharted 3 is $130NZD... A game should be about $70 US here after our taxes, thats $85NZD. Other PAL zones get similar price treatments.

http://www.mightyape.co.nz/Games/

This is why I buy games on steam, either mostly indie games or sales.

 

[CoL0sS]

Kids nowadays don't like to keep their games and build a collection, they game, sell and trade games on a regular basis.

I don't see how this is exclusive to kids, unless you consider that behavior childish, or just want to disparage people who do that.

Is it really worth buying a used copy of la noire, deus ex or resistance 3 for 53$? Remember that not a single penny goes to the developers and you're only making gamestop richer.

I agree that buying used game for 10% less is kinda stupid, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna tell somebody how to spend their money. If a informed person wants to buy it at that price I'm not gonna lose any sleep over-analyzing how he's potentially harming the industry.

You guys have several options that are better, imo, like Amazon or other on-line shops. For example European consumers can go to Amazon.co.uk a buy deus ex for 15,99 pounds, that's 25 dollars!

And I'm sure that, regardless of what country you live in, you can find better and more economic solutions on-line.

How about those countries where amazon doesn't deliver software or electronic goods? Where there are no used or trade-in shops and a new game costs $100 dollars while average pay is around $500-$600. I totally agree with the fact that there are more economic solutions on-line but it's a shame that solution often implies buying used.



Seeing how you didn't have any conclusive, much less reasonable arguments I can only respond with something like "Oh yeah, well you're a big stupid doo-doo head". And presumptuous one at that. Seriously, all this childish shit aside, I still puzzles me why gamers are complaining about used sales. I mean it's perfectly fine to voice your opinions but I can't understand the fervour of gamers defending their favorite developers and industry as a whole when they don't give a shit about you. Why defend something that doesn't need defending if you're potentially harming your fellow gamers who are of poorer social status or just have the misfortune of living on the wrong side of the bloody map ? Now that's a part of a far bigger problem of solidarity (more accurately lack of it) among gamers which is best left for a different topic.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

The issue with the "lost sales" argument, is that a lot of people who do buy used games wouldn't have brought the game new anyhow.

But, if someone were to have dismissed a game on launch, then brought a used copy a few months later, and loved the game, they're more likely to buy a sequel (or a similar game from the same dev) on launch. If they hadn't brought a used copy, they'd probably never have tried the game at all, and would have dismissed it like they did the original.

Just a thought.

Stumbling upon great titles in the used section of a game store was how I got by as a kid. Now I'm a loyal customer of a few devs. Used sales can do a lot.

 

[CthulhuMessiah]

It's nice that YOU have the money to buy all the new games you want, but maybe EVERYONE ELSE doesn't have to money to buy new.

 

[TankCopter]

If I can get game new, I'll buy it, but a lot of games are impossible to get new. I got Psychonauts, Okami and Metroid Prime used because I couldn't find them new and they all came out when I was younger and not that interested in games. Mostly I have to buy games online anyway (there's nowhere that sells games in town), so I usually poke around on eBay or EB games to see if there's anything good.

I did buy Psychonauts again on Steam though, because I'm A-OK with giving money to Double Fine.

 

[Aeope]

I only buy used games that I want to get easy achievements on. Otherwise, I buy only the games I plan on playing when they are released or a few weeks afterwards.

 

[Estarc]

It seems to me that there are two separate issues here. The first is buying used games. The second is trading in your own games.

As to the first, I often don't think it is worth it, since the savings are rarely substantial enough, but games are fucking expensive, and they take way, way too long to go down in price. I don't blame people for wanting to save a few bucks. Whether the cost is justified or not due to the costs of development is a separate issue.

As to the second, what is wrong with trading in your games? While I can't deny that the sight of a large game collection is immensely satisfying, and there are some games that I will always replay every now and again, there are others that I will never touch again. The Assassin's Creed games fall into this category for me, for example. They are great games and I don't regret buying any of them, but I traded them all in, because I never had the slightest urge to replay any of them. If I have to choose between having games sit of my shelf forever, or trading them in to gain some (admittedly meager) contribution towards the purchase of new games, well, that's an easy choice.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

I buy games brand new if i really, really want them, everything else i buy used when they are around £20. If you do buy used, then you cant moan that you dont get the same product that a new copy gives you, like DLC. Its all a matter of choice really. Although buying a used game for £5/$5 cheaper than a new copy is retarded and you are letting yourself get ripped off.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

my point is the fact that they could've had 1 million extra sales, but lost those to the used market. It was simply an example of how the used market is costing devs a lot of money.

By that kind of dodgy accounting they could also claim that it costs them money when people lend games for friends to play. Or have their friends around and let them play the game. A friend lent my brother Assassin's Creed II just recently; both my brother and I played it. Did we just cost Ubisoft two purchases?

no because you weren't paying money to do so, people buying used ARE. And yeah im behind content creators getting money for what they make.

So by your logic it's okay (moral issues aside) to pirate the game because I won't be be spending any money to play the game. Can you spot the fallacy here?

 

[Dastardly]

Do car makers sell less cars because people buy used cars? No.

People who sell used games need the money to buy new games. They probably wouldn't have bought the game in the first place if they knew they couldn't sell it again.

While I also disagree with the original post on many, many levels, I also have to point out a major problem with this comparison you've made:

Car makers can continue to sell new cars because new cars are better than old ones. Less wear and tear, less dirt and grime, none of the scratches and dents that come with use, you've got the full force of the warranty...

Used cars offer a similar, but not-as-fresh product at a suitably lower price. Actually, it's far, far lower. We're talking about half. But you're also getting "less product," in the sense that your car won't last as long as a new one would (without reinvestment).

Games, however, don't depreciate. That means publishers are forced to compete against their own products. And the only competition point is price -- which they can't win. You can never beat someone on price if they don't have to pay to make the game. It would be like Ford having to compete against a company that could sell exact, zero-mile copies of their latest truck... but always a few thousand cheaper.

But when publishers do something to try to ensure that new copies are worth more than old copies, like Arkham City's use of the Catwoman code, people complain that it's unfair... when I think it's also a bit unfair to expect these people to do nothing to try to make their products worth more than Gamestop's (or any other used game seller). Especially when those companies are only offering the customer a savings of, what, five bucks?