Is the second hand market really bad for the industry ?

[Continuity]

There's a used market for everything.

Why should games be any different?

There are big differences between other used markets and computer games though. Take cars for example, cars have a limited life span and they deteriorate, when you buy second hand you are buying a product at a lower quality, thus new still has value over and above second hand, also second hand has limited impact because the second hand car wont last forever.

MOvies are much closer to games but even there the movie producers have other ways to monetise their product, they have cinema sales and TV licensing for example. Games just have primary sales, where there is no real difference in the quality or life span of the game, plus the fact that 1 used game copy can circulate among dozens of potential customers... you can see there is a problem, especially as the cost of game development are spiralling.

The only way to square this circle is to create new monetisation methods that directly compete with or undermine secondhand sales, e.g. DLC, project $10, micro-transactions etc...

 

[Deacon Cole]

Is the second hand market really that problematic?

No, it isn't.

In fact, a thriving second hand market is a strong indication of a healthy primary market. Game companies apparently don't want a strong and healthy market in which to survive, so they are trying to kill video games as a medium. Shine on, you crazy diamonds.

 

[Timmibal]

ohlookthisthreadagain.jpg

How many books take 20 million and over to produce?

Gaming is a high stakes industry, and unlike movies, they don't have cinemas to make their cash. They rely on first sales, a direct to DVD release.

THANK YOU! I was looking for a way to say this in last week's thread wherein the argument was the 'herp derp everything has a second hand market' rebuttal being rapidfired back at every post.

 

[veloper]

It's mostly bad for yourself.
Buying used in game shops is like piracy that you have to pay for.

You either support the people who make those games for you, or you don't. If you don't, the how doesn't matter to anyone but you.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

There's a used market for everything.

Why should games be any different?

The reason is that the "everything" people refer to often demonstrate a number of fundamental differences that make a direct comparison useless.

For example, a great many products that are traded among consumers naturally degrade in value. A used computer is of less use than a new computer and a used car is much the same. In both cases, the manufacturer makes most if not all of their money on the initial sale. In the case of computers, one will find that the used market is relatively harmless as there exist new computers (complete with warranty) for a pittance with some models approaching impulse buy prices. Cars work on a different system as a manufacturer can continue to make money through a well thought out warranty plan along with the manufacture and sale of replacement parts. Thus we find a number of important differences. In both examples, the product in question naturally loses value over time and in extreme cases (like computers) this is significant enough that only the most bargain conscious (or desperate) consumer would consider purchasing a used item limiting the theoretical monetary loss the various manufacturers suffer from third hand sales. In other cases we find that there are secondary markets that allow the manufacturers to continue to make money even when the vehicle is in the hands of a second party.

Film and music give us another example of a notable difference as these both offer markets that naturally cannot be impacted by second hand sales. Yes, I can watch that new movie I've been dying to see on video later and hope that I can somehow avoid all spoilers or I can watch it in a theater on a giant screen with great sound. And sure I can listen to that new album by my favorite band but it is simply impossible to compare the home listening experience to seeing the show in person. Access to secondary markets not only helps drive sales later but offers a significant revenue stream. In the case of Avatar for example, more than 1/3 of its total revenue came as a result of its run in the theater.

Many traditional works of art (painting and sculpture) also have an enormous second hand market but even here we find a built in protection. Simply put, these are inherently finite resources. Sure, I can get a print of the Mona Lisa made but there is only one genuine copy in the world.

It is really only in books that we find a similar comparison and we find that books have faced the very same problem. While they do degrade, the process is relatively slow. In the case of a well made hardbound book that is well taken care of, it might take centuries or even millenia before it is wholly devoid of value. What's worse, the second hand market in this case includes a resource that asks next to nothing of its customers and offers the opportunity to check out nearly unlimited books. But, like video games, a great many writers and publishers have decried the used market and the library as great evils working against their industry. The unfortunate thing is that they have no real option to combat it.

Thus even in this most direct case we find a difference: game developers and publishers can, relatively easily, introduce an artificial mechanism designed to ensure a used game is of less value than a new game by doing nothing more than locking out certain bits of content. They can then use this to convert the used market into a secondary revenue stream. While in many cases this means it costs more to purchase a used game than a new game, that is largely the fault of the consumer. I for example have rarely felt it was a sound investment to trade a copy of a game I spent sixty bucks on for, at best, $25 when the company that bought it will put it on the shelf for more than double that.

Sure, I understand the argument that games are expensive and the used market is the only way some gamers get to play as much as they do, but most of the time I don't really buy that answer. You save five dollars over the price of a new game if it sells even remotely well and in doing so you deny those who made the game any share of the profits. You cut the people who made the game out of the loop all while being gouged and cheated by the retailer. Yes, the middleman needs his cut just like everyone else but it is rare that the middleman takes such a substantial cut.

Does the used game market hurt? I suppose one could argue that were it not for the market some games would never be played by certain players at all but this is hardly a point in the favor of the used market. After Dead Space was released, EA found that only half of the people who played the game actually bought the game new. More than a million people purchased a used copy of the game thus demonstrating they were willing to pay something for the game in a move that effectively represents a lost sale as far as EA is concerned. When faced with sobering information like that, does it really seem so unreasonable that they would like to figure out a way to wet their beak so to speak?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I agree with the idea behind used sales.

This guy over at destructoid hit the nail on the head with it

Where is the balance, exactly? The used game market benefits publishers, all the available numbers prove that without a shadow of a doubt. According to Gamestop's annual report for fiscal 2010, and the president of Gamestop, they purchased over $1 billion in used products from gamers, $750 million of which was used on new product in the same visit. Extrapolate those numbers across the entire retail space, and you're looking at at least $1 billion dollars the used market injects directly into the new market. That's $1 billion dollars gamers got to spend on new games that they didn't previously have. Now imagine all those extra customers buying DLC.

So where is the fairness or the balance in charging people for doing something that benefits the industry? Find anyone in the industry saying the used market costs them money, instead of costing them potential profit, with actual numbers to back that. You wont, because the numbers prove the opposite. The publishers are losing *potential* short term profit, they are still making tons of money, they simply want to make more.

Where is the balance in punishing consumers when consumers are spending more and more on games every year. Gaming is pulling in twice the money as it was 6 years ago, and the number continues to rise. The industry is booming, there is no shortage of consumer support and cash. If the industry wanted to balance things out, they could pass some of those massive profits gains onto the consumer in the form of savings. Of course, despite the fact that gaming is making more money that it has ever been by miles, gaming is getting more expensive for the consumer.

The consumer is already on the losing end of the scale, all the weight is plopped on us. Now, to balance the fact that we make tons of concessions for an industry growing hugely on our dollar, we have to make another concession to them at our expense? Doesnt make sense.

How many books take 20 million and over to produce?

Gaming is a high stakes industry, and unlike movies, they don't have cinemas to make their cash. They rely on first sales, a direct to DVD release.

I'm not quite getting your point. Are you saying that just because something costs a large amount of money to make that it doesn't get FSD protection? Or that people should feel bad about buying used rather than new?

Also, they have about a week or so at launch to make their money before used games start coming in. That's where I'm told they make most of their money

Gaming is unique in its economy, its NOT like any other medium that has come before it

Again, books are like nothing else. What other medium do you find it where you hold paper in your hands and visually scan for information? All forms of entertainment are "unique". And yet we compare them to one another. We just won a court case that says we get the same First Amendment protection as other mediums. Why should we be treated differently in terms of used sales.

Is the second hand market really that problematic?

No, it isn't.

In fact, a thriving second hand market is a strong indication of a healthy primary market. Game companies apparently don't want a strong and healthy market in which to survive, so they are trying to kill video games as a medium. Shine on, you crazy diamonds.

BINGO! This guy gets it.

And as I mentioned before, I find it funny how some people here try to justify piracy, yet are very anti-used games. That just does not follow. One is a legal sale and transer of liscence. The other is a crime.

EDIT: It also gets people interested in IPs. If my friend wasn't able to get Mass Effect second hand from me and then buy it second hand himself when he liked the game, he never would have bought Mass Effect 2 new and then got all the DLC.

 

[Shameless]

It's mostly bad for yourself.
Buying used in game shops is like piracy that you have to pay for.

You either support the people who make those games for you, or you don't. If you don't, the how doesn't matter to anyone but you.

No ! it's not like piracy, buying the game second handed is a totally legitimate way for buying a game, piracy is basically theft.

 

[veloper]

It's mostly bad for yourself.
Buying used in game shops is like piracy that you have to pay for.

You either support the people who make those games for you, or you don't. If you don't, the how doesn't matter to anyone but you.

No ! it's not like piracy, buying the game second handed is a totally legitimate way for buying a game, piracy is basically theft.

No, it isn't theft, because nobody else has something missing.

It's simple logic: whether you don't play at all, or play and pirate; the effect on the industry is the same: no money is made. And if you do pirate, nobody even has to know.

Only buying an unused copy makes a difference to anyone in the game industry. Between the other alternatives, there is no difference that matters.

There is the legality of the matter, but copying games in the privacy of your home doesn't interest the police and rightly so. There exist important matters.

4 options:

1. You can be a useful fool like me and buy games first hand; join an altruistic minority that carries the entire game industry on their backs for everyone else to enjoy.

2. You can be both clueless and useless, while wasting your money in used game shops.

3. You can pirate like a smart kid would. Doesn't contribute, but no harm done either. That's how almost all gamers start, even the first type.

4. You can trade games directly with other gamers, which is both legal and smart, but that usually means doing some of 1 or 2 aswell.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

It's mostly bad for yourself.
Buying used in game shops is like piracy that you have to pay for.

You either support the people who make those games for you, or you don't. If you don't, the how doesn't matter to anyone but you.

No ! it's not like piracy, buying the game second handed is a totally legitimate way for buying a game, piracy is basically theft.

No, it isn't theft, because nobody else has something missing.

It's simple logic: whether you don't play at all, or play and pirate; the effect on the industry is the same: no money is made. And if you do pirate, nobody even has to know.

Only buying an unused copy makes a difference to anyone in the game industry. Between the other alternatives, there is no difference that matters.

There is the legality of the matter, but copying games in the privacy of your home doesn't interest the police and rightly so. There exist important matters.

4 options:

1. You can be a useful fool like me and buy games first hand; join an altruistic minority that carries the entire game industry on their backs for everyone else to enjoy.

2. You can be both clueless and useless, while wasting your money in used game shops.

3. You can pirate like a smart kid would. Doesn't contribute, but no harm done either. That's how almost all gamers start, even the first type.

4. You can trade games directly with other gamers, which is both legal and smart, but that usually means doing some of 1 or 2 aswell.

Think about this though. For a used sale to exist, a sale would have first been made. Then, say, Gamestop bought it back. The person often puts it towards a new game, as I mentioned in my above post. We can argue about the affects of Piracy (I hate it, personally), but I argue that used games have a net positive on the industry due to all the money flowing around. Piracy does not give. Used games do.

 

[veloper]

It's mostly bad for yourself.
Buying used in game shops is like piracy that you have to pay for.

You either support the people who make those games for you, or you don't. If you don't, the how doesn't matter to anyone but you.

No ! it's not like piracy, buying the game second handed is a totally legitimate way for buying a game, piracy is basically theft.

No, it isn't theft, because nobody else has something missing.

It's simple logic: whether you don't play at all, or play and pirate; the effect on the industry is the same: no money is made. And if you do pirate, nobody even has to know.

Only buying an unused copy makes a difference to anyone in the game industry. Between the other alternatives, there is no difference that matters.

There is the legality of the matter, but copying games in the privacy of your home doesn't interest the police and rightly so. There exist important matters.

4 options:

1. You can be a useful fool like me and buy games first hand; join an altruistic minority that carries the entire game industry on their backs for everyone else to enjoy.

2. You can be both clueless and useless, while wasting your money in used game shops.

3. You can pirate like a smart kid would. Doesn't contribute, but no harm done either. That's how almost all gamers start, even the first type.

4. You can trade games directly with other gamers, which is both legal and smart, but that usually means doing some of 1 or 2 aswell.

Think about this though. For a used sale to exist, a sale would have first been made. Then, say, Gamestop bought it back. The person often puts it towards a new game, as I mentioned in my above post. We can argue about the affects of Piracy (I hate it, personally), but I argue that used games have a net positive on the industry due to all the money flowing around.

All the profit Gamestop makes, is money that the customer cannot spend on games, so NO.

There often won't even be a 1:1 new sale for a used sale. Used games can go through Gamestop for several iterations.
The customers then typically buy a used game for the games they trade in, while putting in more of their own money.

There is no positive effect for the publishers and develoipers. Follow the money: it goes to Gamestop.

 

[BRex21]

Most people i know who trade there used games simply use that money to buy new games, meaning that the money they are losing on the used game market is just coming back to them in the form of a new game purchaise by someone else who probably would not have been able to afford it. People have finite entertainment budgets and often spending that $60-$80 on a new game isnt feasable.
Personally PC's are my platform of choice and we really dont have any sort of used game market, but when we did generally it wasnt a big cost difference between the purchaise of a used console game and the cost of a new pc game, provided they had been out for long enough that someone would be trading in there used copy anyway.
That first burst of sales when something is a new release is really what these companies are trying to get and used games simply arent available then for obvious reasons.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

It's mostly bad for yourself.
Buying used in game shops is like piracy that you have to pay for.

You either support the people who make those games for you, or you don't. If you don't, the how doesn't matter to anyone but you.

No ! it's not like piracy, buying the game second handed is a totally legitimate way for buying a game, piracy is basically theft.

No, it isn't theft, because nobody else has something missing.

It's simple logic: whether you don't play at all, or play and pirate; the effect on the industry is the same: no money is made. And if you do pirate, nobody even has to know.

Only buying an unused copy makes a difference to anyone in the game industry. Between the other alternatives, there is no difference that matters.

There is the legality of the matter, but copying games in the privacy of your home doesn't interest the police and rightly so. There exist important matters.

4 options:

1. You can be a useful fool like me and buy games first hand; join an altruistic minority that carries the entire game industry on their backs for everyone else to enjoy.

2. You can be both clueless and useless, while wasting your money in used game shops.

3. You can pirate like a smart kid would. Doesn't contribute, but no harm done either. That's how almost all gamers start, even the first type.

4. You can trade games directly with other gamers, which is both legal and smart, but that usually means doing some of 1 or 2 aswell.

Think about this though. For a used sale to exist, a sale would have first been made. Then, say, Gamestop bought it back. The person often puts it towards a new game, as I mentioned in my above post. We can argue about the affects of Piracy (I hate it, personally), but I argue that used games have a net positive on the industry due to all the money flowing around.

All the profit Gamestop makes, is money that the customer cannot spend on games, so NO.

There often won't even be a 1:1 new sale for a used sale. Used games can go through Gamestop for several iterations.
The customers then typically buy a used game for the games they trade in, while putting in more of their own money.

There is no positive effect for the publishers and develoipers. Follow the money: it goes to Gamestop.

I never said always. However, as I posted with ACTUAL numbers, it often does

According to Gamestop's annual report for fiscal 2010, and the president of Gamestop, they purchased over $1 billion in used products from gamers, $750 million of which was used on new product in the same visit. Extrapolate those numbers across the entire retail space, and you're looking at at least $1 billion dollars the used market injects directly into the new market. That's $1 billion dollars gamers got to spend on new games that they didn't previously have. Now imagine all those extra customers buying DLC.

So used games have no positive effect? At all? I think this shows that this isn't the case.

 

[JeanLuc761]

All the profit Gamestop makes, is money that the customer cannot spend on games, so NO.

There often won't even be a 1:1 new sale for a used sale. Used games can go through Gamestop for several iterations.
The customers then typically buy a used game for the games they trade in, while putting in more of their own money.

There is no positive effect for the publishers and develoipers. Follow the money: it goes to Gamestop.

If you would look above a few posts, you would see actual statistics showing that 75% of the trade-ins that GameStop took in this past year went DIRECTLY to new merchandise. That would not have happened if used games and trade-ins did not exist.

 

[veloper]

It's mostly bad for yourself.
Buying used in game shops is like piracy that you have to pay for.

You either support the people who make those games for you, or you don't. If you don't, the how doesn't matter to anyone but you.

No ! it's not like piracy, buying the game second handed is a totally legitimate way for buying a game, piracy is basically theft.

No, it isn't theft, because nobody else has something missing.

It's simple logic: whether you don't play at all, or play and pirate; the effect on the industry is the same: no money is made. And if you do pirate, nobody even has to know.

Only buying an unused copy makes a difference to anyone in the game industry. Between the other alternatives, there is no difference that matters.

There is the legality of the matter, but copying games in the privacy of your home doesn't interest the police and rightly so. There exist important matters.

4 options:

1. You can be a useful fool like me and buy games first hand; join an altruistic minority that carries the entire game industry on their backs for everyone else to enjoy.

2. You can be both clueless and useless, while wasting your money in used game shops.

3. You can pirate like a smart kid would. Doesn't contribute, but no harm done either. That's how almost all gamers start, even the first type.

4. You can trade games directly with other gamers, which is both legal and smart, but that usually means doing some of 1 or 2 aswell.

Think about this though. For a used sale to exist, a sale would have first been made. Then, say, Gamestop bought it back. The person often puts it towards a new game, as I mentioned in my above post. We can argue about the affects of Piracy (I hate it, personally), but I argue that used games have a net positive on the industry due to all the money flowing around.

All the profit Gamestop makes, is money that the customer cannot spend on games, so NO.

There often won't even be a 1:1 new sale for a used sale. Used games can go through Gamestop for several iterations.
The customers then typically buy a used game for the games they trade in, while putting in more of their own money.

There is no positive effect for the publishers and develoipers. Follow the money: it goes to Gamestop.

I never said always. However, as I posted with ACTUAL numbers, it often does

According to Gamestop's annual report for fiscal 2010, and the president of Gamestop, they purchased over $1 billion in used products from gamers, $750 million of which was used on new product in the same visit. Extrapolate those numbers across the entire retail space, and you're looking at at least $1 billion dollars the used market injects directly into the new market. That's $1 billion dollars gamers got to spend on new games that they didn't previously have. Now imagine all those extra customers buying DLC.

So used games have no positive effect? At all? I think this shows that this isn't the case.

You post some numbers, but you don't realise they prove the opposite of what you claim.

Firstly, it only says they puchased over 1 billion, but it doesn't say for how much they sold those same 2nd hand games. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that number is much higher. 5 billion is a reasonable guess considering they sell for 10 times as much, as that they give you.

They gave 1 billion. They took 5 billion.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

It's mostly bad for yourself.
Buying used in game shops is like piracy that you have to pay for.

You either support the people who make those games for you, or you don't. If you don't, the how doesn't matter to anyone but you.

No ! it's not like piracy, buying the game second handed is a totally legitimate way for buying a game, piracy is basically theft.

No, it isn't theft, because nobody else has something missing.

It's simple logic: whether you don't play at all, or play and pirate; the effect on the industry is the same: no money is made. And if you do pirate, nobody even has to know.

Only buying an unused copy makes a difference to anyone in the game industry. Between the other alternatives, there is no difference that matters.

There is the legality of the matter, but copying games in the privacy of your home doesn't interest the police and rightly so. There exist important matters.

4 options:

1. You can be a useful fool like me and buy games first hand; join an altruistic minority that carries the entire game industry on their backs for everyone else to enjoy.

2. You can be both clueless and useless, while wasting your money in used game shops.

3. You can pirate like a smart kid would. Doesn't contribute, but no harm done either. That's how almost all gamers start, even the first type.

4. You can trade games directly with other gamers, which is both legal and smart, but that usually means doing some of 1 or 2 aswell.

Think about this though. For a used sale to exist, a sale would have first been made. Then, say, Gamestop bought it back. The person often puts it towards a new game, as I mentioned in my above post. We can argue about the affects of Piracy (I hate it, personally), but I argue that used games have a net positive on the industry due to all the money flowing around.

All the profit Gamestop makes, is money that the customer cannot spend on games, so NO.

There often won't even be a 1:1 new sale for a used sale. Used games can go through Gamestop for several iterations.
The customers then typically buy a used game for the games they trade in, while putting in more of their own money.

There is no positive effect for the publishers and develoipers. Follow the money: it goes to Gamestop.

I never said always. However, as I posted with ACTUAL numbers, it often does

According to Gamestop's annual report for fiscal 2010, and the president of Gamestop, they purchased over $1 billion in used products from gamers, $750 million of which was used on new product in the same visit. Extrapolate those numbers across the entire retail space, and you're looking at at least $1 billion dollars the used market injects directly into the new market. That's $1 billion dollars gamers got to spend on new games that they didn't previously have. Now imagine all those extra customers buying DLC.

So used games have no positive effect? At all? I think this shows that this isn't the case.

You post some numbers, but you don't realise they prove the opposite of what you claim.

Firstly, it only says they puchased over 1 billion, but it doesn't say for how much they sold those same 2nd hand games. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that number is much higher. 5 billion is a reasonable guess considering they sell for 10 times as much, as that they give you.

They gave 1 billion. They took 5 billion.

Oh no! They are a business! They made money! Quick, call the Justice League! Batman will stop them!

Joking aside, I think I get what you are saying. I just diagree with the "demonize Gamestop" line of thought. If someone makes money legally, I'm all in favor of it. And that's all they are doing. They are helping to create sales that would not have existed in the first place.

Also, we are throwing around hypothetical dollars for sales that might not have existed in the first place

 

[veloper]

It's mostly bad for yourself.
Buying used in game shops is like piracy that you have to pay for.

You either support the people who make those games for you, or you don't. If you don't, the how doesn't matter to anyone but you.

No ! it's not like piracy, buying the game second handed is a totally legitimate way for buying a game, piracy is basically theft.

No, it isn't theft, because nobody else has something missing.

It's simple logic: whether you don't play at all, or play and pirate; the effect on the industry is the same: no money is made. And if you do pirate, nobody even has to know.

Only buying an unused copy makes a difference to anyone in the game industry. Between the other alternatives, there is no difference that matters.

There is the legality of the matter, but copying games in the privacy of your home doesn't interest the police and rightly so. There exist important matters.

4 options:

1. You can be a useful fool like me and buy games first hand; join an altruistic minority that carries the entire game industry on their backs for everyone else to enjoy.

2. You can be both clueless and useless, while wasting your money in used game shops.

3. You can pirate like a smart kid would. Doesn't contribute, but no harm done either. That's how almost all gamers start, even the first type.

4. You can trade games directly with other gamers, which is both legal and smart, but that usually means doing some of 1 or 2 aswell.

Think about this though. For a used sale to exist, a sale would have first been made. Then, say, Gamestop bought it back. The person often puts it towards a new game, as I mentioned in my above post. We can argue about the affects of Piracy (I hate it, personally), but I argue that used games have a net positive on the industry due to all the money flowing around.

All the profit Gamestop makes, is money that the customer cannot spend on games, so NO.

There often won't even be a 1:1 new sale for a used sale. Used games can go through Gamestop for several iterations.
The customers then typically buy a used game for the games they trade in, while putting in more of their own money.

There is no positive effect for the publishers and develoipers. Follow the money: it goes to Gamestop.

I never said always. However, as I posted with ACTUAL numbers, it often does

According to Gamestop's annual report for fiscal 2010, and the president of Gamestop, they purchased over $1 billion in used products from gamers, $750 million of which was used on new product in the same visit. Extrapolate those numbers across the entire retail space, and you're looking at at least $1 billion dollars the used market injects directly into the new market. That's $1 billion dollars gamers got to spend on new games that they didn't previously have. Now imagine all those extra customers buying DLC.

So used games have no positive effect? At all? I think this shows that this isn't the case.

You post some numbers, but you don't realise they prove the opposite of what you claim.

Firstly, it only says they puchased over 1 billion, but it doesn't say for how much they sold those same 2nd hand games. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that number is much higher. 5 billion is a reasonable guess considering they sell for 10 times as much, as that they give you.

They gave 1 billion. They took 5 billion.

Oh no! They are a business! They made money! Quick, call the Justice League! Batman will stop them!

Joking aside, I think I get what you are saying. I just diagree with the "demonize Gamestop" line of thought. If someone makes money legally, I'm all in favor of it. And that's all they are doing. They are helping to create sales that would not have existed in the first place.

Also, we are throwing around hypothetical dollars for sales that might not have existed in the first place

It's may not a crime to dupe fools, but you're still a fool if you do business with them.

Gamestop don't create sales. Someone who will buy a used game for $55, will also buy a new game for $60, if the used option is taken away. He'll buy 9 games out of 10, out of the same budget.

 

[Worgen]

the big problem is that they charge too much for new games, if games only cost like 20 bucks like movies then you can bet people wouldnt be so quick to trade them in and would probably not really care about buying them used since new wouldnt be much more of an investment

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

It's mostly bad for yourself.
Buying used in game shops is like piracy that you have to pay for.

You either support the people who make those games for you, or you don't. If you don't, the how doesn't matter to anyone but you.

No ! it's not like piracy, buying the game second handed is a totally legitimate way for buying a game, piracy is basically theft.

No, it isn't theft, because nobody else has something missing.

It's simple logic: whether you don't play at all, or play and pirate; the effect on the industry is the same: no money is made. And if you do pirate, nobody even has to know.

Only buying an unused copy makes a difference to anyone in the game industry. Between the other alternatives, there is no difference that matters.

There is the legality of the matter, but copying games in the privacy of your home doesn't interest the police and rightly so. There exist important matters.

4 options:

1. You can be a useful fool like me and buy games first hand; join an altruistic minority that carries the entire game industry on their backs for everyone else to enjoy.

2. You can be both clueless and useless, while wasting your money in used game shops.

3. You can pirate like a smart kid would. Doesn't contribute, but no harm done either. That's how almost all gamers start, even the first type.

4. You can trade games directly with other gamers, which is both legal and smart, but that usually means doing some of 1 or 2 aswell.

Think about this though. For a used sale to exist, a sale would have first been made. Then, say, Gamestop bought it back. The person often puts it towards a new game, as I mentioned in my above post. We can argue about the affects of Piracy (I hate it, personally), but I argue that used games have a net positive on the industry due to all the money flowing around.

All the profit Gamestop makes, is money that the customer cannot spend on games, so NO.

There often won't even be a 1:1 new sale for a used sale. Used games can go through Gamestop for several iterations.
The customers then typically buy a used game for the games they trade in, while putting in more of their own money.

There is no positive effect for the publishers and develoipers. Follow the money: it goes to Gamestop.

I never said always. However, as I posted with ACTUAL numbers, it often does

According to Gamestop's annual report for fiscal 2010, and the president of Gamestop, they purchased over $1 billion in used products from gamers, $750 million of which was used on new product in the same visit. Extrapolate those numbers across the entire retail space, and you're looking at at least $1 billion dollars the used market injects directly into the new market. That's $1 billion dollars gamers got to spend on new games that they didn't previously have. Now imagine all those extra customers buying DLC.

So used games have no positive effect? At all? I think this shows that this isn't the case.

You post some numbers, but you don't realise they prove the opposite of what you claim.

Firstly, it only says they puchased over 1 billion, but it doesn't say for how much they sold those same 2nd hand games. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that number is much higher. 5 billion is a reasonable guess considering they sell for 10 times as much, as that they give you.

They gave 1 billion. They took 5 billion.

Oh no! They are a business! They made money! Quick, call the Justice League! Batman will stop them!

Joking aside, I think I get what you are saying. I just diagree with the "demonize Gamestop" line of thought. If someone makes money legally, I'm all in favor of it. And that's all they are doing. They are helping to create sales that would not have existed in the first place.

Also, we are throwing around hypothetical dollars for sales that might not have existed in the first place

It's may not a crime to dupe fools, but you're still a fool if you do business with them.

Gamestop don't create sales. Someone who will buy a used game for $55, will also buy a new game for $60, if the used option is taken away. He'll buy 9 games out of 10, out of the same budget.

Oh, goody, you are making a statment of objective fact. In debate that means I get to say this: Prove it. The burden of proof lies with he who proclaims, not he who denies. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

Here's a hint: you can't. Just as I cannot prove piracy = a lost sale, you cannot show that 9 times outta 10 the person would have bought new. And they likely won't, as I posted above, if they don't have the money the can get by trading your games in.

Prove that people would buy a $55 dollar game rather than a $60 one. Or, if you are a member of that club you they, it's $50 insted. $10 is a rather large difference.

But humor me: You don't think people should be able to trade in games they don't want any more? What if they don't like the game? They're stuck with it?

 

[veloper]

It's mostly bad for yourself.
Buying used in game shops is like piracy that you have to pay for.

You either support the people who make those games for you, or you don't. If you don't, the how doesn't matter to anyone but you.

No ! it's not like piracy, buying the game second handed is a totally legitimate way for buying a game, piracy is basically theft.

No, it isn't theft, because nobody else has something missing.

It's simple logic: whether you don't play at all, or play and pirate; the effect on the industry is the same: no money is made. And if you do pirate, nobody even has to know.

Only buying an unused copy makes a difference to anyone in the game industry. Between the other alternatives, there is no difference that matters.

There is the legality of the matter, but copying games in the privacy of your home doesn't interest the police and rightly so. There exist important matters.

4 options:

1. You can be a useful fool like me and buy games first hand; join an altruistic minority that carries the entire game industry on their backs for everyone else to enjoy.

2. You can be both clueless and useless, while wasting your money in used game shops.

3. You can pirate like a smart kid would. Doesn't contribute, but no harm done either. That's how almost all gamers start, even the first type.

4. You can trade games directly with other gamers, which is both legal and smart, but that usually means doing some of 1 or 2 aswell.

Think about this though. For a used sale to exist, a sale would have first been made. Then, say, Gamestop bought it back. The person often puts it towards a new game, as I mentioned in my above post. We can argue about the affects of Piracy (I hate it, personally), but I argue that used games have a net positive on the industry due to all the money flowing around.

All the profit Gamestop makes, is money that the customer cannot spend on games, so NO.

There often won't even be a 1:1 new sale for a used sale. Used games can go through Gamestop for several iterations.
The customers then typically buy a used game for the games they trade in, while putting in more of their own money.

There is no positive effect for the publishers and develoipers. Follow the money: it goes to Gamestop.

I never said always. However, as I posted with ACTUAL numbers, it often does

According to Gamestop's annual report for fiscal 2010, and the president of Gamestop, they purchased over $1 billion in used products from gamers, $750 million of which was used on new product in the same visit. Extrapolate those numbers across the entire retail space, and you're looking at at least $1 billion dollars the used market injects directly into the new market. That's $1 billion dollars gamers got to spend on new games that they didn't previously have. Now imagine all those extra customers buying DLC.

So used games have no positive effect? At all? I think this shows that this isn't the case.

You post some numbers, but you don't realise they prove the opposite of what you claim.

Firstly, it only says they puchased over 1 billion, but it doesn't say for how much they sold those same 2nd hand games. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that number is much higher. 5 billion is a reasonable guess considering they sell for 10 times as much, as that they give you.

They gave 1 billion. They took 5 billion.

Oh no! They are a business! They made money! Quick, call the Justice League! Batman will stop them!

Joking aside, I think I get what you are saying. I just diagree with the "demonize Gamestop" line of thought. If someone makes money legally, I'm all in favor of it. And that's all they are doing. They are helping to create sales that would not have existed in the first place.

Also, we are throwing around hypothetical dollars for sales that might not have existed in the first place

It's may not a crime to dupe fools, but you're still a fool if you do business with them.

Gamestop don't create sales. Someone who will buy a used game for $55, will also buy a new game for $60, if the used option is taken away. He'll buy 9 games out of 10, out of the same budget.

Oh, goody, you are making a statment of objective fact. In debate that means I get to say this: Prove it. The burden of proof lies with he who proclaims, not he who denies.

People will buy games for $60. Proof: pick any early sales charts. Hits will sell millions in the first couple weeks.

Here's a hint: you can't.

And even if you don't accept that. There's also common sense. 10% is not signifcant enough an amount to make much difference.

Just as I cannot prove piracy = a lost sale, you cannot show that 9 times outta 10 the person would have bought new.

You cannot prove that because it's implausible. People cannot spent money they don't have in the first place. Kids.

But humor me: You don't think people should be able to trade in games they don't want any more? What if they don't like the game? They're stuck with it?

I think it would be nice if people were actually smart and cut out the middle man who is ripping them off. Trade directly with other gamers.
Wishful thinking, but I can still call people out for their idiocy.