EA Does it Again
- Thread starter TPiddy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Plus a used car can, and usually does, have significant wear and tear, whereas a used game does not.AfterAscon said:
The problem I'm seeing with people's argument against this policy is that typically they compare it to used physical product X, be it clothes, cars, books, etc. All of these items are subject to wear and tear just from general use, and buying them used means the total "lifetime" of the product while it is in your possession is greatly reduced.
Used games don't have that problem. You buy a used game, and as long as the disc is still readable (which they almost always are, and if not you can usually just go get a free replacement), it is exactly the same product someone who bought new received. There's absolutely no reduction in quality from buying used.
It doesn't matter if they are hurting for sales or profits. This is a capitalist economy. That means trying to get as much money as you possibly can. Not hitting the point where you have "enough" then improving conditions for others.TPiddy said:
And in their other games, they do reward instead of punish. Most of EA's games come with DLC that costs a lot extra if you don't buy new. These are in no way necessary to complete the game. They provide extra depth and playable areas. It is a reward.
But, how can you have "DLC" for a sports game that's fair and equal? Make certain teams DLC? No, that's not fair as it doesn't affect the base as a whole. Make certain jersey colors/styles available only through the DLC? No, not enticing enough. All they can really limit is the online play, which is what they're doing.
And they aren't, as you put it, "taking it out on their on customers". If you buy used, you aren't their customer. If they piss you off, what are you going to do? Not buy their games? Continue not giving them your money? Not much of threat. As for being punished in the ability to resell it? Not really. At the beginning of this year, my husband was able to buy Madden '08 for $2 at GameStop. Looking at Amazon, M10 is going for less than $10, M09 less than $1.50. Unless you get rid of it in the first 6 months of owning it, you aren't going to be able to sell it for much.
I think that's the real essence here is understanding this basic concept: If you buy used, you aren't their customer. If you buy new, these practices have no real effect on your experience with the game itself.
Except when you buy a house used, you expect to have to deal with the problems that arise with oldish houses. Things like a pipe breaking, or the wiring being faulty, or whatever else can happen from the standard wear and tear that happens with all physical products.Yagharek said:
Games do not have that problem. A game is exactly the same 3 years after release as it was the day it was made.
Someone else said it better earlier in the thread, but what you're basically doing is paying less for the same product (and you're not even paying the creator of said product), and then expecting equal treatment. It's like paying a scalper for seats in the nosebleed section and expecting a VIP box.
I have nothing against used game sales, matter of fact I think they're a predominantly good thing. The sense of entitlement people have about them, on the other hand, is definitely something that needs to go. If you pay less for the product, you shouldn't expect equal quality.
All but the absolute worst of game scratches can be fixed easily. And if they can't, you can almost certainly get a free replacement from whatever store you bought the game used from. And in this day and age, the manual/paper extras argument doesn't hold a whole lot of weight. There's almost never any of any quality in games nowadays.Garak73 said:
And you should go ahead and buy the game for whatever price you can manage. Go get it as cheap as you possibly can. Just don't expect to be treated the same as someone who bought it new by the developer.
The cost to the developer isn't the point.Garak73 said:
My entire point is that you shouldn't pay less for something and then expect equal quality. Things just don't work that way. It would be like walking into some random second-hand store, buying an iPod for 50% retail, then getting outraged at Apple when they won't give you free customer service (and they won't).
Long story short, if you want to be treated as equal to the customers who buy new, you should be willing to buy new. If you can live without it, go ahead and buy used.
I have never said anything about the developer, one way or the other. And, as you well know, they are doing it so that a used game sale is a complete loss of revenue. Personally, I think the way they're going about it is all rather silly. I'd much rather they just do the graduated pricing thing Shamus mentioned in his article a while back. That's their decision though.Garak73 said:
Because the bargain bin is what the publisher has decided to charge for the product. There's never an instance where you can find something in the bargain bin, and then on the normal shelf for double the price. You pay what the publisher has decided they will charge for the product. If you want to pay less, and can find someone who will sell it for less, by all means do it. Enjoy the thing, but you should not be expecting the publisher/developer to cater to your whims. That's one of the downsides of buying used.Garak73 said:
Actually, in my hypothetical situation, someone will have paid full price for the iPod, then sold it to a pawn shop or whatever. That's how second-hand stores get their goods. At some point, someone will have paid full retail price. And Apple still won't give you free customer support.Garak73 said:
See my previous section for an answer to the bargain bin thing.
most people who argue against used games buy used games. It's called being a devil's advocate. It's called understanding and arguing a position for someone who's not present (the publishers) so that you can have an actual discussion. It's ok to understand that used games probably hurt the industry (and they just might) and still be a proper consumer and look for the best deals available.Garak73 said:
I know I buy used games.
No, he didn't say bargain bin. He said second hand store and you quoted that - read your own post which you quoted him on.
He clearly says 'It would be like walking into some random second-hand store, buying an iPod for 50% retail, then getting outraged at Apple when they won't give you free customer service (and they won't).'
The used game market isn't competition in the actual game making sense. What it is, is a shop using the second hand market to make money using the industries products without having to pay them.
Competition is something that makes the same product, not something that uses your product while cutting you out to make a profit for themselves.
"As for the publisher catering to my whims. They already got paid for that game, there is no logical reason (unless pissing off customers is their goal) to punish used buyers. They should look to the long term because eventually they will lose too many customers to remain in business."
Let me make this clear for you : YOU ARE NOT THEIR CUSTOMER. You haven't bought anything from them, you have NEVER had a link to them. All your money from a pre-owned game transaction is going to the store.
Once again : YOU. ARE. NOT. THEIR. CUSTOMER. THEY. OWE. YOU. NOTHING.
---
Altorin :
"most people who argue against used games buy used games. It's called being a devil's advocate. It's called understanding and arguing a position for someone who's not present (the publishers) so that you can have an actual discussion. It's ok to understand that used games probably hurt the industry (and they just might) and still be a proper consumer and look for the best deals available.
I know I buy used games."
I argue against used game tooth and nail but I will and already have admitted I buy used games. But, i only do it in certain circumstances.
If, say, I can't get a hold of a game new - I'll get it used. I just don't like people like Garak because all of them who make the same argument always seem so self-righteous, like they deserve everything without actually paying the people who worked to make it and never understanding why the argument is even there and people are against them.
He clearly says 'It would be like walking into some random second-hand store, buying an iPod for 50% retail, then getting outraged at Apple when they won't give you free customer service (and they won't).'
The used game market isn't competition in the actual game making sense. What it is, is a shop using the second hand market to make money using the industries products without having to pay them.
Competition is something that makes the same product, not something that uses your product while cutting you out to make a profit for themselves.
"As for the publisher catering to my whims. They already got paid for that game, there is no logical reason (unless pissing off customers is their goal) to punish used buyers. They should look to the long term because eventually they will lose too many customers to remain in business."
Let me make this clear for you : YOU ARE NOT THEIR CUSTOMER. You haven't bought anything from them, you have NEVER had a link to them. All your money from a pre-owned game transaction is going to the store.
Once again : YOU. ARE. NOT. THEIR. CUSTOMER. THEY. OWE. YOU. NOTHING.
---
Altorin :
"most people who argue against used games buy used games. It's called being a devil's advocate. It's called understanding and arguing a position for someone who's not present (the publishers) so that you can have an actual discussion. It's ok to understand that used games probably hurt the industry (and they just might) and still be a proper consumer and look for the best deals available.
I know I buy used games."
I argue against used game tooth and nail but I will and already have admitted I buy used games. But, i only do it in certain circumstances.
If, say, I can't get a hold of a game new - I'll get it used. I just don't like people like Garak because all of them who make the same argument always seem so self-righteous, like they deserve everything without actually paying the people who worked to make it and never understanding why the argument is even there and people are against them.
A car that has been used or a piece of furniture that has been used (generally) come with wear and tear that degrades their intrinsic value, and as such the correlation you are trying to draw is moot. A video game, unless something is intentionally broken after a use, maintains the same value used as it does new. A system like this actually brings video games (artificially) in line with other common consumer products that are bought and sold used.TPiddy said:
It isn't as though you HAVE to buy used or even that you save much used. In order to save around 8% you cut the publisher and developer out of the loop entirely. I'm fairly certain that, were I in their shoes, I wouldn't give a toss about offending such a person either.
