controversy over used games

[Dys]

It's slightly different with games, it's more like someone selling a book or dvd second hand. Which is fine, really, those industries don't suffer for it, neither do games, but they don't thrive on it the way the auto industry does from car sales.

Well, actually film and print don't suffer much from the used market because most of the money in film comes from cinema.

Books are extremely low cost ventures. The author typically writes the book on his own dime, the publisher then prints out a few thousand copies for pennies a piece, then sells them for >$24.99 for hardcover, then <$14.99 for paperback. People who buy hardcover usually keep their hardcovers, people who buy paperback usually abuse them to a point where they can't really be resold, making used books less than desirable. Libraries... don't even get me started.

Oh, I absolutely acknowledge that neither the DVD or the book comparison is completely the same, though I'd argue that the book argument, specifically with (expensive) textbooks has a great many similarities to games. My point was that the initial creater doesn't benifet from the second hand sale, as car manufacters do from the sale of their old cars.

I will, however, contest the cost of making them (despite it being irrelevent to my initial point). To write a novel is reasonably cheap and people do it all the time in their spare time, however to write say, a thermodynamics textbook, you need to have years of study behind you, as well as credible experience and usually a few published papers. It certainly isn't nothing, and while a direct $ figure can be placed on the development of a videogame that is probably higher (and the videogame takes more man hours combined), one could argue that the development of the textbook is far less profitable as the time of someone so highly qualified is worth a substancial amount and the return is relatively low.

Unless you come from a country where you are required to agree to the EULA before exchanging money for the product, it's completely powerless[2]. I can't sell you a hotdog and then demand as a condition of use you may not eat it.

The EULA is powerless unless it is upheld by the law (did you read about the ruling that came down yesterday from the 9th Circus). In which case you won't be able to resell your games anywhere. Not eBay, not GS, not a pawn shop, etc..

You may be able to sell it to a friend or at a garage sale if the DRM doesn't lock the game to your console.

Unless you agree to those terms before buying it, there is no contract. I'm not familiar with the 9th circus ruling, but typically in r common law a contract must have all conditions stated before the exchange has been completed, and if a contract is deemed "unreasonable" by the court, the entire contract is voided. Even if such a ruling has been made (which is ludicrus and any competent judge will simply rule against it in future) it will only apply to the country it was in (which I assume is the US in this case). And it's absurd, it simply will not last, and anytime a previous ruling is deemed absurd by a judge, it can be thrown out of court (my understanding is that it's called Statutory interpretation).



On an unrelated note, people are still comparing the sale of games to that of cars.....it's such a stupid, inequal comparison ;_;

 

[JaymesFogarty]

I laugh at those who actually think their arguments would actually stand in the US of A court. Let me point out: in 2008, the gaming industry made 22 billion dollars that year. Also, despite an economic downturn, the video game industry is one of the few industries that is actually increasing profits and will continue to in the future. Ooh, I can see the game publishers suffering so bad right now.

Some of arguments are ridiculous, especially the one that say games are played for experience. Isn't driving a car an experience? Listening to music an experience? Heaven forbid, watching a movie an experience? If these aforementioned experiences are not the same level as the experience in playing video games, then there's something about the experience in playing video games that makes it unique. In fact, the experience of playing video games is so wholly different--so earth shaking, cosmic, better than orgasm--experience that it effects people in a very dramatic way. Such experience is justification for video games to be treated different than any other forms of entertainment and, therefore, the selling of used video games do not reflect this incredible experience. That is just plain baloney.

Hell, if the gaming publishers got away that, then people can sue the crap out of video games for violence because it is not just entertainment but also a 'special' experience.

You all do realize that game publishers make money other than selling video games, right? They make money off of T-Shirts of their games, posters, action figures and the list go on and on. They make hella bank on these items. Also they make money (particularly EA) with advertisements in video games. And every time you log into your xbox live or playonline, they are collecting data on you and selling it off for millions. Not to mention making money off of movies based on their video games (Resident Evil, anyone?).

Tell me again why and how buying used games hurt game publishers? If people want to throw their money to game publishers they should chuck their money and mail it to them with a big thank you note. Even better if they also buy the shirts, action figures, board games and all the things relating to the video games. But for people who want to buy or sell used games, let them be. Let Game Stop and any mom-and-pop shop that sell used video games be because they are just business savvy. Game publishers are not *hurting*. They are just not making more money than they would like to and that's the bottom line.

While I agree with what you are saying wholeheartedly, the problem with video games is that the costs don't end when the physical product is shipped. Paying for servers and such continues long after people have bought their copy, which means that if they don't receive continuous supplies of money, the money they can put towards other games practically evaporates. I don't think the issue of which used games as such; I believe it is in online that problems arise.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

-snip-

Wow... you really have nothing resembling an idea what you're talking about, do you?

Gamestop did, in fact, buy out most of their competition. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameStop or simply stop talking.

As far as the rest of your post... what? I'm sorry, but without something comparable to cinema (film) or concerts (music), the video game industry has every right to pitch a ***** when retailers begin operating as pawn shops and start pricing used copies of games as if they're in competition with new copies. Gamestop is simply the worst offender with the largest gulf between average trade-in value and their standard MSRP minus $5 pricing schemes.

So... if you would like to argue your position like a rational individual, please, do so. If you wish to continue randomly gibbering...

Oh, I absolutely acknowledge that neither the DVD or the book comparison is completely the same, though I'd argue that the book argument, specifically with (expensive) textbooks has a great many similarities to games. My point was that the initial creater doesn't benifet from the second hand sale, as car manufacters do from the sale of their old cars.

I will, however, contest the cost of making them (despite it being irrelevent to my initial point). To write a novel is reasonably cheap and people do it all the time in their spare time, however to write say, a thermodynamics textbook, you need to have years of study behind you, as well as credible experience and usually a few published papers. It certainly isn't nothing, and while a direct $ figure can be placed on the development of a videogame that is probably higher (and the videogame takes more man hours combined), one could argue that the development of the textbook is far less profitable as the time of someone so highly qualified is worth a substancial amount and the return is relatively low.

Augh! Don't get me started on "expensive" textbooks. Yes, committing the knowledge to text was very daunting in the initial editions and required a lot of highly educated people to come together to ensure the information was presented as cleanly and accurately as possible.

But... the current business model of expensive textbooks is pretty much if, say, blizzard started charging full retail price for each patch of WoW or starcraft or diablo, because they could argue they were different games. Its the reason "used" textbooks are in such high demand (college level). There simply won't be sufficient significant differences to pay $100 for the latest edition.

 

[BustaNinja]

As detailed in the Zero Originality movies, there is absolutely nothing wrong with buying used games. Thats fine. But its when you get to the Gamestop philosophy of paying $2 for the newest COD, and selling it back at over 400% profit, then you have a problem. Honestly, when it comes to that, I would fully equate it to stealing a game. The developer is getting absolutely nothing, while someone unconnected to the Dev team is getting nearly free money off someone else's work. It certainly isn't stealing, because the consumer is still paying, but atleast when you download something illegally, you are screwing BOTH the retailer and the developer.

So used games=good, but ripping off developers by buying used games for super cheap and selling them for more than 10 times what you paid for them isn't.

 

[BustaNinja]

But if you sell games at "Almost" retail prices, you are ripping off the publishers. If you sell a a game at almost retail, you're making pretty much the same profit as the publishers, and they are losing money because more people turn to the over priced used games, to save a few Mikey D's cheeseburgers.

 

[Something Amyss]

Books are extremely low cost ventures. The author typically writes the book on his own dime, the publisher then prints out a few thousand copies for pennies a piece, then sells them for >$24.99 for hardcover, then <$14.99 for paperback. People who buy hardcover usually keep their hardcovers, people who buy paperback usually abuse them to a point where they can't really be resold, making used books less than desirable. Libraries... don't even get me started.

The average sales on a book in the US are roughly 500 copies. Publishers expect to lose money on a first book. Your expectations of what the consumer does with their books doesn't match up with the prevalence of used books on the market, either.

Although yes, the author generally writes on his own dime.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

But if you sell games at "Almost" retail prices, you are ripping off the publishers. If you sell a a game at almost retail, you're making pretty much the same profit as the publishers, and they are losing money because more people turn to the over priced used games, to save a few Mikey D's cheeseburgers.

Actually, gamestop makes more off used games than they or the publisher make off new copies.

This is wrong.

[pointless quibbling]No they don't have a right to pitch a *****. They get paid one time for each copy of the game. That is fair. Nobody other industry gets paid twice for a single copy of a physical product.

No they don't have a right to pitch a *****. They get paid one time for each copy of the game. That is fair. Nobody other industry gets paid twice for a single copy of a physical product.

Ah, we're back to this line of bullshit.

Heres a fact, if every new copy is resold an average of one point five times, thats, at least, 75% of the proceeds from a game's sales going nowhere but into a retailer's pocket. It is not possible to argue that is right, good, or fair to anyone.

See, I think the opposite, I think that by selling games for $5 less than new they are actually encouraging new sales.

Oh, I see. You're living in some alternate reality where people aren't easily manipulated and when presented with two practically identical items, one being five dollars less, won't choose to "save" five dollars.

 

[Woodsey]

Personally I'd never buy a game used unless I couldn't find it anywhere new.

Partly because I'm a bit of a snob, and partly because I want the publishers and developers to get my money. If you buy all your games used then you're pretty useless to the industry.

 

[Brandon237]

Well... the whole used car analogy is completely flawed anyway. You're not comparing two similar goods.

A car is an ITEM. With rare exceptions, the car is never used for itself, it's simply used as a mode of transport from A to B. When you buy a used car, the car has been damaged by wear and tear, and is not the same product as was purchased from the manufacturer.

The same is not true for a game. A game is an EXPERIENCE. Nobody (again with rare exceptions) buys a game to have the game! They buy the game to PLAY it - to experience the game the developers have created. Even if the manual is missing, and the disk is a bit scratched up, the experience is still the same.

It would be more accurate to compare a game to a movie or concert. If I buy a movie ticket, I'm purchasing the experience of watching that moving in the cinema. If I buy a concert ticket, same deal.

Buying a used game, is effectively the same as purchasing somebody's used movie ticket or concert ticket, and using it to get into the performance (sure, you wouldn't ACTUALLY be able to get away with it, but the concept is the same).

By purchasing the used game, you get the same EXPERIENCE as any new purchaser, but the developer doesn't get any additional remuneration. I wouldn't go so far as to call buying used games 'theft' - but purchasers of used games are at least partially guilty of creating the situation the games industry is in today.

If I had to pay the equivalent of $50 for every 8 hour "experience", I would be broke in 3 weekends. You resell the game to someone else to help cover the cost, or some people would not pay for any games at all due to the massive cost factor.

And you are still purchasing a tangible item from the store, and once you have purchased it, you can do with it as you wish, selling included. And the games industry is in the shape it is out of its own stupidity, greed and user-unfriendliness.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Personally I'd never buy a game used unless I couldn't find it anywhere new.

Partly because I'm a bit of a snob, and partly because I want the publishers and developers to get my money. If you buy all your games used then you're pretty useless to the industry.

You're actually a detriment. The bigger gamestop gets, the more power they have to influence pricing.

Retail is based entirely upon the supposition that any scale of distribution is possible only through them. Making gamestop bigger just makes this argument more persuasive.

Oh, I see. You're living in some alternate reality where people aren't easily manipulated and when presented with two practically identical items, one being five dollars less, won't choose to "save" five dollars.

Let's start a poll and find out then.

Fair enough. Since its been pretty well established that most people don't give a shit about supporting the developers, the poll question would have to read something along the lines of "Two seemingly new copies of a game are on a shelf. Due to a barcode printing error, one is priced $59.99, the other is priced $54.99, which do you buy? (they ring up as sticker price, the till monkey doesn't notice anything off)."

at best, the results would only be skewed by that sanctimonious "i'd do the right thing!" bullshit.

 

[Woodsey]

Personally I'd never buy a game used unless I couldn't find it anywhere new.

Partly because I'm a bit of a snob, and partly because I want the publishers and developers to get my money. If you buy all your games used then you're pretty useless to the industry.

You're actually a detriment. The bigger gamestop gets, the more power they have to influence pricing.

I buy all my games from Steam, with the exception of 2 or 3 360 games that I get a year (which are normally from HMV).

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Personally I'd never buy a game used unless I couldn't find it anywhere new.

Partly because I'm a bit of a snob, and partly because I want the publishers and developers to get my money. If you buy all your games used then you're pretty useless to the industry.

You're actually a detriment. The bigger gamestop gets, the more power they have to influence pricing.

I buy all my games from Steam.

Er, sorry. I was speaking about your "hypothetical person," not you specifically.

 

[Woodsey]

Personally I'd never buy a game used unless I couldn't find it anywhere new.

Partly because I'm a bit of a snob, and partly because I want the publishers and developers to get my money. If you buy all your games used then you're pretty useless to the industry.

You're actually a detriment. The bigger gamestop gets, the more power they have to influence pricing.

I buy all my games from Steam.

Er, sorry. I was speaking about your "hypothetical person," not you specifically.

OK then, so people that actually give their money to the people that make games are much more harmful than those who don't.

Of course.

And don't quote me again, because whenever you spurt something out we disagree (fiercely).

 

[Cynical skeptic]

...

If you buy all your games used then you're pretty useless to the industry.

You're actually a detriment. The bigger gamestop gets, the more power they have to influence pricing.

"I'm going to disagree with this person" is self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Woodsey]

...

If you buy all your games used then you're pretty useless to the industry.

You're actually a detriment. The bigger gamestop gets, the more power they have to influence pricing.

"I'm going to disagree with this person" is self-fulfilling prophecy.

The last 3 or so times you've quoted me on different topics I've ended up thinking of imaginative words to replace the "Skeptic" in your screen name. It's also not self-fulfilling prophecy after we just disagreed on something else before I said it.