armageddon74400 said:
Really? I didn't actually know that :/
But the difference is that it usually doesn't cost anything to write a book and the main cost is manufacturing which is covered by the price, same for cars. The main cost for video games however, development, can range anywhere from a couple of thousand to millions of dollars, but the price for retail games stays has to stay the same for the most part or else less people will buy it (unless it's something like starcraft 2). Cars and books don't have this problem because if a book has more pages or is hardcover or if a car has more things built in they can just raise it's price, not so with games.
But games sell much more than books, much more in most cases, I mean something like To Kill A Mockingbird took 50 years to sell 30,000,000 copies whereas a game can manage something approaching that in a couple of years. That and games cost £40-£50, but books cost very little comparatively. The disparity in the cost of development is addressed thusly. Take yahtzee's Mogworld, it costs something like £4.99 on Amazon brand new. He therefore receives very little for the original sale and is, therefore, harmed to a far greater extent by second hand sales than a company that receives much more than that per sale and sells much more than him in the fist place. Authors get a far worse deal from second hand sales than game devs.I quite honestly have no idea as to the state of the used book market, and won't pretend that I do so I'll just skip this part.
That argument would be valid if used game were fairly rare, which they aren't for the most part. And when a game does become rare then it's fairly unreasonable for the publisher to expect sales of new copies, thus it becomes harmless.
In which case, if a game is already so common, the price should be lowered to a level whereby they provide adequate value for money. if something has already sold, say, several million copies they shouldn't be allowed to charge the price of the item brand new. On play.com MW 2 still costs £39.99. i'm sorry, but for a game that already has such astronomical sales to still cost that much 10 months after release is unfair in extreme. Said product made $310 million dollars in the first day! And you tell me they should have the right to get even more compensation, to the degree that they have the right to siphon yet more money from you from second hand sales. If its yours they should not have the right to interfere in you selling it.MW2 is still selling for so much money
because it already sold so much, not
despite it. Games that sell a lot take longer to cheapen because they keep selling several months after release. I do however agree that this is a bit greedy, seeing as it's already sold more than enough.
Having someone buy a
new game yes, a
used game provides no compensation at all. As far as I'm aware, a second hand game has already been bought new. Something they have received their compensation for. And so many people probably bought that game new that the numbers being sold second hand will be like a drop in the ocean. Not overall, but per game the money lost will be relatively minor an recouped through newly acquired brand loyalty.Yes, that copy has already being bought new but the person buying the used copy is buying the exact same thing except the publisher gets no money, unless the person who originally bought the copy new payed double for it than the person buying it used is essentially getting the game for free as far as the publisher is concerned. This is, of course, as long as the game is still relatively recent and not overpriced compared to used copies. Otherwise it`s unreasonable to expect sales of new copies, thus making it harmless. Also, brand loyalty means nothing if a game doesn`t sell enough to warrant a sequel, take Okami for example: if it had been made by a small company then Okamiden would never have happened even though Okami got critical acclaim and has a large fanbase.
.Those are very popular games though, smaller games can live or die due to used game sales.
Fair enough, but a law (is it a law, I'm from the Uk so am not so sure of the specifics?) designed to protect them also gives larger corporations the ability to better screw you over. I think there should be a limit, an amount of first hand sales a game reaches, before this no longer applies because if that's the true aim of the measure then multi-multi million sellers don't need the protection. No, it's not a law. And even though things like codes and whatnot will benefit smaller developpers most of all larger companies will of course use them as well to siphon more profits. That's how capitalism works.
They're not trying to prohibit you, they are however trying to make a bit of money off of used games sales by doing stuff like making people with a used copy have pay to unlock multiplayer.
Okay, i may have misunderstood exactly what was going on. It depends on how much they charge for a new code. $5, not so bad, $20 a barefaced rip off. What are the exact details? EA seems to have settled on 10$ for the content so that's not too bad, I like what they did for Mass Effect 2 because they were actually adding extra content if you bought new instead of only letting you use basic features such as multiplayer like what they're doing for the new NHL game. It would make sense if they eventually made the multiplayer for the NHL games and whatever other game they choose to do that for free after a while.
The used game market has existed for a while but it's more of a problem now because people are buying used games en masse not long after a game is released and new copies are widely available, so no: people like you aren't a problem but stores like gamestop which facilitate and encourage people doing that are.
In which case, the ruling negatively affects people who deserve it and people who don't. There should be greater specificity, meaning that buying it a day later and buying it 9 months later aren't treated the same.
