Buying Used isn't Piracy

[lacktheknack]

B-But, aren't you supposed to prop up companies that fail when they can't compete with alternative markets or provide a product that people want to buy? Are you saying that companies are meant to serve the customer, not the customer serve the company? Are you somehow implying that companies who can't turn a profit without trying to shut down another market should *gasp* fail?!?! You are crazy. Everyone knows that when a company fails to turn a profit, it should be the goal, nay the DUTY, of a customer to make sure the company can get in the black next quarter!

And then those who wanted said company to burn get unhappy when suddenly digital distribution (the alternate market) becomes the only option.

'Twas actually referring to the used games market with that "alternative markets" thing...

Well, you're in a catch-22 here. If these companies can't survive as long as the used market exists, then you're going to have to live with A. crippled used games from these companies, or B. no games from these companies.

If you're dead-set against the crippled used games, then you shouldn't give a damn, as you're not playing their games either way.

 

[ecoho]

I just wish game stores would buy those of my PC games that don't require unlocking. I want to get rid of my old Crysis, Mass Effect, Fallout 3 etc discs.

As for buying used games, I don't know, it's pretty established - game stores often have shelves of traded in games and such.

If you've got an independent record shop near your house, see if they'll let you trade them in. Most independent record shops, at least the ones that focus mostly on used stuff, sell used PC games. Barring that, there's always Amazon and Ebay.

OT: All I have to say, OP, is you're right, but gamers are terrible consumers who don't like to listen to that particular truth. The only thing I'd disagree with in your OP is that Project $10 helps with any actual problem, rather than creating a problem of its own; it's a direct attempt to destroy the used market, the profits from which the publishers are not legally entitled to[footnote]Funny thing about people who use "entitlement" as an insult; they don't seem to understand what the word means. If you're entitled to something, you have a legal right to it, so I guess pirates should be thankful that they're "entitled" to free games...[/footnote]. It warms my heart to see that, so far at least, none of the posters have been industry apologists.

Edit: And, while I was typing, a pair of industry cheerleaders showed up. It is not my job as a consumer to support the people who made the game; it's my job to legally acquire it for the cheapest possible price. What's more, once they've sold a product once, they are no longer legally entitled to any profits on that individual product. They're confusing the courts by making this a contract issue[footnote]Which, ironically, is still not a good excuse, since the specific right I'm talking about was first described in US law because the recording industry was putting EULAs on their records[/footnote], but frankly, the law is pretty darned clear on the matter: the publishers are breaking it.

ok so i kinda dont mind project $10 when its like the mass effect and DA:O kind. you know not really takeing anything out but a little something extra for those who paid full price.(im talking of shale and the cerberus network btw) i do not however suport takeing out stuff from a game that is clearly suposed to be part of the plot(see dragon age 2)

 

[BreakfastMan]

Well, you're in a catch-22 here. If these companies can't survive as long as the used market exists, then you're going to have to live with A. crippled used games from these companies, or B. no games from these companies.

If you're dead-set against the crippled used games, then you shouldn't give a damn, as you're not playing their games either way.

Not sure how I have a catch-22. I am proposing that if a company cannot make a profit without attempting to shutdown alternate markets (what a number of publishers are trying to do the used games market) or inconveniencing it's customers, it should be allowed to fail. This does not necessarily lead me back to the place I am currently.

Of course, I might be misinterpreting you. If I am, feel free to correct me.

 

[Bedewyr]

Adjusted for inflation, no they aren't.

Super Nintendo came out in 1991 for $200 dollars.

In todays dollars that's only $332. AND it came with Super Mario World and 2 Controllers!

Wii launched costing houshold $249 Dollars.It only came with a Nunchuck and Remote and needed another Remote and Nunchuck to be the same as a SNES Release Box. another USD 39.99 and 19.99.

250 + 40 + 20 = $310 Dollars.

Wii Launched in 2006. Adjusted for inflation to equal a Super Nintendo it would be $347.87

$348 > $332. Not by much but still.

If you had the choice between an SNES for $332 and a Wii for $348...

I mean, the Wii could probably beat out twenty SNES' hooked together to form a Super Super Nintendo in processing power. The Wii is, by leaps and bounds, the better system. It's on an entire different plane of existence...and it's $12 more.

This is also disigenous anyways due to the fact that technology gets cheaper and cheaper to produce as it gets better and better. The actual cost of producing a Wii would be far greater than that of producing a Super Nintendo nowadays meaning the Super Nintendo would cost far less

.

Which is...irrelevant. I'm talking about price tags then and now. The fact that old stuff can be made with pocket change now doesn't change what the price was back then.

Re-reading that hurt my head...

You're also being disingenuous with your Video Game analogy as well.

$50 dollars = roughly $83 dollars in todays market for Sper Mario World. I can tell you I wouldn't pay $83 dollars for a Super Nintendo Game now but, just look at how many people are paying 60+ for a game then just a month or 2 after paying 15-20 for DLC that CAME ON THE DISC DAY 1 and was simply unlocked. It's Bullcrap.

You really like the word disingenuous, don't you? This is kind of a personal tangent you went off on, though. DLC is a recent invention, so it's 'eh' as far as comparing prices go, but let's just look at base prices, shall we? $83 for Super Mario World, or $60 for Skyrim. You see where the 'If only they didn't charge so much/They need to reduce the price' argument falls apart, right? They did reduce the price. Significantly so.

Anothr point to be made is that distribution of games has never been cheaper for developers. Digital Distribution and DVD/Blue Rays being pennies on the dollar for these companies to produce whereas Catridges are insanely expensive to produce in comparison. In fact the main reason companies switched was the fact that CD's offered an incredible decline in the cost of production with the ability to produce far more far more easily to meet demands as well as reducing the cost further for each copy made.

Again, irrelevant. Games ARE cheaper now than they were back then. They charge you less. They could probably charge you less than they do, but we should be thanking the Lords of whatever that they actually did get cheaper. They could charge more. In any other industry, they would have charged more. The video game industry is pretty much the only industry where price fixing exists, and we should be damn thankful for it.

Digital distribution reduces the cost even more by an even larger factor as the IP only need sit on a server that can hold literally thousands of IP's which can be accessed to meet an infinite demands, infinite copies, and shifts even more of the cost onto the consumer through need of a bandwidth and internet connection while simultaneously demolishing shipping and production costs to the publisher.

Once again, irrelevant. Could games be sold cheaper than they are now? Probably. Steam proves that. But the point I was making was that the price of video games has only gone down, and people still complain about 'how much it is' and how companies are ripping us off with $60 price tags.

There's a reason they've made record profits during a recession you know; they haven't shifted any savings onto us. They've only continued to line their pockets while reducing the costs to them.

I would argue that they make record profits because of the lowered prices and increased saturation of advertisement. Why do you think Steam makes so much goddamn money?

So you're only comparing prices but then say you'd buy a Wii over a Super Nintendo in today's market which is, to use one of your favorite words, irrelevant. In a vaccuum, you've been proven wrong. The SNES cost LESS back then adjusted for inflation than the Wii does now and cost more to produce which meant the companies were making less off of them. However you want to slice it you came out wrong.

The cost of the technology going down isn't irrelevant at all. It's why I bought my Wii for only $119. It is old tecnology that is ridiculously cheap and easy to make now so the price has rock bottomed out. The fact that the Super Nintendo is STILL cheaper even adjusted for inflation and came with arguably more in the box (an actual game and 2 controllers with the hookups for both Mono and Stereo TV's as opposed to Component only with Wii Sports which isn't even a full fledged game) is actually telling.

If you want to get super technical Sega had the Sega Channel for downloading games right to your Sega Genesis, Dreamcast had DLC, and Xbox and the like have been around for a decade with DLC. It's not a new concept by any stretch of the imagination.

No offense but companies need to stop parroting that they need to have DLC on the disc ready to go as well.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=134598
http://64digits.com/users/index.php?userid=S3xySeele&cmd=comments&id=271767
http://www.1up.com/news/bioshock-2-dlc-disc

It's basically a cash grab and a "hidden cost" of the game to get the acual full experience.

In any other industry they would have charged more? Funny I seem to recall CD's beings 20 Dollars a pop back in the day but because production costs of CD's have dropped so dramatically due to new technologies reducing the costs of production I can now g out and buy brand new CD's for anywhere from 13-15 Dollars. With the advent of Digital Distribution that market has actually seen price drops due to competition! Weird!?

You cannot in one breath say tha DLC is "eh" when companies are spear heading project ten dollar. If Super Mario World was released today I'd probably have to pay 10-15 Dollars on top of my original 60 Dollars just get the Star World and Yoshi. Not to mention that t unlock Luigi and 2 Player mode I'd have to enter my activation code to prove the game is brand new or fork out another 10 Dollars, or you know my friend would have to also buy a copy so we could ply over Xbox Live and each pay our 60 a year for the privilege of enjoying our multi player experience.

I cannot possibly stress this enough but, cost of production and distribution is not irrelevant IN THE LEAST. It is THE main driving factor of a game companies profit and loss through production. If the cost is lower to produce more risks can be taken and more savings can be passed onto consumers which is the best scenario for everyone. More money made, more games made, more risks taken, less cost for everyone.

 

[Joby Baumann]

I like how used games only recently became evil. Seriously,places like Gamestop have been around for a long time but they've only been bad since 2010.


I think publishers are just using piracy and used games how far they can get consumers to bend over for their product, some of the measures such as online passes, constant online connections, and other DRM types just seem inane.

Especially considering the pirates will still get around those issues ten days before the game even gets released.

 

[Joby Baumann]

double post, hoorah for crap connections

 

[Flailing Escapist]

You know what else cuts into video game sales?

Death

Thats right, soon video game pubs all over will start to try to stop you from dying. No more smoking, one night stands, reckless behavior or flying and we'll have to eat only healthy foods and vegetables. If you do die you can't buy their video games (new, of course) so your children and their children will have to pay extra money for video games (new, of course).

Because when you die you're throwing off their projected video game sales... you asshole.

 

[Berenzen]

Say a game costs 60 million dollars to make, not an unreasonable amount in this day and age, some can get up past 100 million.

Selling at an EB Games/Gamestop/other retailer selling at $60, publisher's make about $27 profit per game. That means that they need to sell 1.83 million copies, not hard for a major AAA, but what about the smaller games developed by these publishers- like L.A. Noire, or Psychonauts. Even at a 20 million dollar budget, you still need to sell over half a million copies. Every used copy is a lost sale, meaning that they have to sell one MORE game in order to succeed. And that's only to recoup the game, if they're owned by a publisher like EA or Activision, and they need to make a large profit in order to not be shut down.

With digital distribution, it's a 70/30 split, %70 going to the publisher, or about 42 dollars a game. That's why they prefer digital distribution. Furthermore, the reason they can't drop the game price in the digital store to about $38- the point at which they'd be making 27 dollars per sale- is because the physical retailers would be able to drop the price as well, costing the developers money per sale there. This is not what they want to happen, as I'm pretty sure more people purchase from a store like Gamestop/EB Games than from Steam, the purchases that they would get in the digital distribution would probably not outweigh the losses that they would attain from the sales made in the physical stores, a mere 17.1 dollars per sell.

So every used sale means a lost sale, which can be detrimental to smaller developers that need to make a big selling game in order to survive, yet aren't well known, and if they don't, they go the way of Team Bondi.

One more thing, during Desert Bus, James Portnow stated that there was a study that showed that people are conditioned to believe that $60 means quality, and there was less trust placed in the $40 game. Sadly, when I asked if he could share the data, he was unable to give me the survey, due to it being now unavailable. However, I am inclined to trust his word.

 

[Joby Baumann]

then why are the major publishers the only ones working against used games (I'm talking to you ea)

Say a game costs 60 million dollars to make, not an unreasonable amount in this day and age, some can get up past 100 million.

Selling at an EB Games/Gamestop/other retailer selling at $60, publisher's make about $27 profit per game. That means that they need to sell 1.83 million copies, not hard for a major AAA, but what about the smaller games developed by these publishers- like L.A. Noire, or Psychonauts. Even at a 20 million dollar budget, you still need to sell over half a million copies. Every used copy is a lost sale, meaning that they have to sell one MORE game in order to succeed. And that's only to recoup the game, if they're owned by a publisher like EA or Activision, and they need to make a large profit in order to not be shut down.

With digital distribution, it's a 70/30 split, %70 going to the publisher, or about 42 dollars a game. That's why they prefer digital distribution. Furthermore, the reason they can't drop the game price in the digital store to about $38- the point at which they'd be making 27 dollars per sale- is because the physical retailers would be able to drop the price as well, costing the developers money per sale there. This is not what they want to happen, as I'm pretty sure more people purchase from a store like Gamestop/EB Games than from Steam, the purchases that they would get in the digital distribution would probably not outweigh the losses that they would attain from the sales made in the physical stores, a mere 17.1 dollars per sell.

So every used sale means a lost sale, which can be detrimental to smaller developers that need to make a big selling game in order to survive, yet aren't well known, and if they don't, they go the way of Team Bondi.

Then why are the major publishers the ones using online passes.

 

[Jodah]

You know...in a twisted kind of way used game sales could be WORSE. Now stay with me here. Someone who pirates, may actually be doing it for demo purposes (I know many people say they do but don't actually use it as a demo but there are a few that do) and may end up buying the game if it's good. In the end the publisher/developer will get a sale. A used game buyer is buying the game at discount straight away. However, the publisher/developer is getting nothing for it.

Now this is just me playing devil's advocate. Personally I don't care about piracy or use game markets, I'm just being a jerk.

 

[Bedewyr]

Say a game costs 60 million dollars to make, not an unreasonable amount in this day and age, some can get up past 100 million.

Selling at an EB Games/Gamestop/other retailer selling at $60, publisher's make about $27 profit per game. That means that they need to sell 1.83 million copies, not hard for a major AAA, but what about the smaller games developed by these publishers- like L.A. Noire, or Psychonauts. Even at a 20 million dollar budget, you still need to sell over half a million copies. Every used copy is a lost sale, meaning that they have to sell one MORE game in order to succeed. And that's only to recoup the game, if they're owned by a publisher like EA or Activision, and they need to make a large profit in order to not be shut down.

With digital distribution, it's a 70/30 split, %70 going to the publisher, or about 42 dollars a game. That's why they prefer digital distribution. Furthermore, the reason they can't drop the game price in the digital store to about $38- the point at which they'd be making 27 dollars per sale- is because the physical retailers would be able to drop the price as well, costing the developers money per sale there. This is not what they want to happen, as I'm pretty sure more people purchase from a store like Gamestop/EB Games than from Steam, the purchases that they would get in the digital distribution would probably not outweigh the losses that they would attain from the sales made in the physical stores, a mere 17.1 dollars per sell.

So every used sale means a lost sale, which can be detrimental to smaller developers that need to make a big selling game in order to survive, yet aren't well known, and if they don't, they go the way of Team Bondi.

One more thing, during Desert Bus, James Portnow stated that there was a study that showed that people are conditioned to believe that $60 means quality, and there was less trust placed in the $40 game. Sadly, when I asked if he could share the data, he was unable to give me the survey, due to it being now unavailable. However, I am inclined to trust his word.

To my knowledge the only game ot hit 100 Million to produce, distribute, market etc etc, was Grand Theft Auto IV.

The next closest game being Shen Mue (Dreamcast awesome game series) which cost 70 Million to produce.

Also think about the fact that MW2, Black Ops, and MW3 make 1 Billion combined while their production costs where not even 20% of what they made in profits.

AFAIK the average production cost of a AAA title is between 40-60 million with indie developers and mid sized studios costing far far less to produce games as well.

 

[Berenzen]

then why are the major publishers the only ones working against used games (I'm talking to you ea)

Then why are the major publishers the ones using online passes.

They're trying to make money off of a lost profit. They're a business first and foremost. If they could I'm pretty sure that the Auto industry would try to make a profit off of their used vehicles, same with the literature industry and the movie industry- though they already make money off of both theatres and home releases. The video game industry is really the only one that can do so however due to the nature of the product.

 

[Lunar Templar]

of course its not piracy, its just publisher being but hurt cause they aren't getting the money they only THINK they deserve. sorry publishers, but after its been bought its no longer yours, its mine, and i can do what ever i want with it, including sell it to some one else, and i am under no legal or moral obligation to give you a cut.

wanna up you profits and cut down on used sales?

How about you do what Skyrim did and make a game you don't want to give away?

this is the kind of sage like wisdom that will go a long way in doing that

 

[Krion_Vark]

The used game market has recently become a pariah for developers and publishers alike to blame for reduced gains or increased losses to their sales. Many equate used games to piracy, and find no value in its existence.

And they're full of shit.

Used games are nothing like piracy: a used game is only one game. It can only be given or sold to one person and played by one (or two if there's split-screen) person at a time. The person who owns the copy of the game can do what they want with it. It is THEIRS. Piracy, is very different. It is the unauthorized use or REPRODUCTION of copyrighted material, meaning that this copy was stolen online, then the pirate made copies of it and distributed it to thousands. How are these concepts similar? They're not.

Why are developers and publishers pissing and moaning about used games? Simple. They want more money/ If I buy a used game, then the publisher sees none of that money. But, if I want to sell a game to a friend for cheaper than retail, then why can't I? It's my game, I'll do with it what I wish. Killing the used game market also kills some of our rights as consumers to do with our games what we wish. It's asinine.

Publishers have taken EA's "Project Ten Dollars" and applied it to their games, meaning you buy a game new, and you get a code to access a part of the game that would otherwise be locked if you bought new. This isn't perfect, but it does encourage people to buy new. The annoyance is the constant menus. I can't just start a fucking game anymore; I have to go through mountains of menus to get to it. Or I have to download a damn patch. Game consoles are becoming more like PCs.

I will tell you the problem I have with the current used game market that Gamestop has. RELEASE DAY used for 5 dollars cheaper. Is there time for someone to be able to buy the game try it and then return it just in time for the store to open up at 10 AM? I really don't think so and I have seen this multiple times at the Gamestops near me.

 

[phreakdb]

Same thread, different day.

No. Buying used isn't piracy. That is established.
Is it wrong? Not really. It's a moral grey area. What we need here is more thought.

Gamestop buys 1 copy from EA. EA get's 60 Bucks, 10 of which is profit over a projected period (We'll say a year, just to keep thing's easy). Project 10 dollar for used games.... makes sense. Sort of.

Pretty much, the only way to continue getting those franchises you love, is to support the makers of said games, no matter how much you hate them. When comparing apples and oranges (new vs. used for 5 bucks less), I'll go for the new. 5 bucks over something that isn't a guarantee? is a fail.

Now, tangentially, no matter how good a game is made, if the used market is there, any gamer will use it, save for a few. Especially if the used game isn't really missing anything. I prefer the bonus over the whole buy parts of the game as well. I can do without multiplayer as well.

Which Ironically, I see that there is a direct correlation among those who don't care for multiplayer, and those that are willing to buy a game new, that is guaranteed to work.

Also, by the by, there are in fact hundreds of games created each year. Not every game is a Skyrim or First Person Brown Note Shooter with a loyal fanboy following.

just, think of things, and support the games you like.

 

[Catalyst6]

Why are developers and publishers pissing and moaning about used games? Simple. They want more money/ If I buy a used game, then the publisher sees none of that money.

It seems like you kind of proved the opposite point right here.

I know, I know, it's crazy. People actually wanting to be *paid* for the thousands of hours of work and (in the cases of the AAA titles) millions of dollars spent to make their game a reality.

Sorry, sorry. "Rah rah, down with developers, the greedy husks! They only want money for bread and rent and crap! Rah rah!"

 

[Sectan]

Here's the thing. If you make a shitty game I'm going to sell it to a used game shop. If you make a decent game I'm going to keep it.

 

[everythingbeeps]

I think the fact that you need to be able to access a game on multiple accounts is kind of your problem, not the publishers'.

Having multiple people on one console who want to play the same game shouldn't require each person to pay extra. When you buy a disk it is bought, not licensed, no matter how much the publisher whines.

And that shit's changing thanks to the cheapskates.

Now, you're effectively buying the single-player game on the disc and licensing the online material and DLC. They're basically different products now.

Which is fine for DLC, but unless they have their own servers (instead of Microsoft or Sony) they shouldn't be charging for multiplayer. And they shouldn't take chunks out of the main game and try to sell it back to me (multiple times) just because other members of my household want to play the same game.

Maybe the other members of your household should just man up and spend the ten bucks, which is still way less than the cost of buying the whole game.

 

[loc978]

...I just don't understand what possesses people to sell back those almost-new games less than half of what they paid in the first place... you'll see used copies of games on the shelves of Gamestop two days after release for $55. When those sell, it's easily $30 in pure profit for the place (on top of the initial profit of the new sale). How people can stand to keep such an exploitative business model going is beyond me.
I honestly see nothing wrong with the used games market... it's the consumers who are allowing it to exploit them. Therein lies the problem.

 

[teebeeohh]

of course not.
what i don't get is why publishers don't try to get in on the action, people want used games and not jumping up and down is not gonna solve this.
Why not cut the store-price in half and using the project ten dollar thing to have people pay another 25 to unlock something(let's say MP). This way you cut the price a little, increased your profit margin(i think) and forced gamestop to be the ones to pull customer-unfriendly dick move.
i know this is not viable for a lot of AAA titles since only about half of console owners are buying DLC(and would most like not pick up that game) but why does nobody ever try something like this with a smaller title