Multi reply to a bunch of posts follows:
hitheremynameisbob said:
Mouse_Crouse said:
The publishers not seeing any money dosen't hold up either, because EVERY used game anywhere ever, was once a new game that was purchased.
That's just wrong. The point people make when they say that is that the publisher could have sold TWO games, not just one, because two different people bought it. If you couldn't sell used games, some of the people who bought it used WOULD buy it new. Meanwhile, that person who first bought the game which was later sold as used is fairly likely to still buy it - hence two new sales instead of just the one.
As usual, when people make this argument, you fail to take into account people who simply look at the price of two new games and say, no thank you to one or both. So whether a person buys one game, or one new game and one used game, it's still only one new sale for the publisher.
There's absolutely no guarantee that if there weren't used games available people would buy those very same games new for full price. Without the option of a used title, those very same people would wait for a price drop.
It as an unassailable fact that while video gaming is not the most expensive hobby, it is clearly a hobby that takes a significant amount of disposable income if you want to play new games. If you're like me, and you don't play online and you're happy to play older games, it's not a problem. However, there are lots of different types of consumers and some people, who really, really love gaming and playing new games may not be in a position to pay $60 every time a new game comes out.
JustaGigolo said:
You know what hurts the game industry even more than online passes? Cheap people who wait a month after a game comes out just to get a used copy of a game, thus giving all their money to Gamestop, and not the creators or publishers of the game.
"Oh no, I can't play this shitty multiplayer without putting in a code. Oh woe is me."
Totally disagree. It's not "cheap" people, it's
overpriced games. Tell me another entertainment medium that expects you to pay $60+ for a new product? Bluray movies? Nope. CDs? Not even at their highest prices. Movie theatre tickets? Nuh uh. The only comparable price range is live theatre and music tickets and with that you're getting a
live experience, watching your favourite artist or real human beings work their craft.
Like many others, I think that $60 is too expensive for new games. I mostly buy new games when they come down in price, a smattering of used and the occasional new game at full price if it's something I'm looking forward to or I'm feeling especially flush. Regardless of whether or not you consider me "cheap", the pricing model of the gaming industry is losing publishers new sales from customers like me, and I'd feel pretty safe betting that for every person that is willing to shell out $60 every time a game comes out, there's two or three of us who don't.
Paragon Fury said:
Online passes are good for games.
They fight used sales (and often times the cost of the Online Pass + Used Game is still almost $10-$20 cheaper than the new game) and don't actually do any harm to new customers. Rental customers are such a small part of the base and by their very nature don't plan on having the game very long so the multiplayer is likely not a terribly important part of their experience.
Wrong and wrong. Online passes and other DRM schemes drive people to pirate games because it's easier, much easier in the end, to pirate a game than it is to jump through the hoops the publisher puts in front of their paying customers.
Second, I don't know where you live, but here, used games at GS or Best Buy are typically only $5 cheaper for the first 4 to 6 months of a games release. After that time period they generally drop down. (Personally, I think that's a ridiculous pricing scheme on the part of those companies, because I'd hazard that a majority of gamers would happily pay the $5 extra for a new copy instead of the used, with the result that retailers just end up with loads of used games sitting on their shelves. At various times I've seen dozens and dozens of copies of games like Resistance 1&2 and MW 1&2 sitting on shelves for $54.99 unsold for months on end)
Azuaron said:
I believe Penny Arcade said it best when they said: news section [http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8/25/] that day.)
If nothing else, servers and bandwidth are expensive. If you want to use a publisher's servers and bandwidth, they have a right to bloody charge you.
Here's the thing though: regardless of whether the person playing the game bought it new or used, there's a finite number of games out there that are being used. Say, for simplicity's sake, it's 100. There's 100 games sold and 100 people playing on line. I sell my copy to you. I'm not playing anymore, but you are, so there are still 100 gamers playing the game. Yes, that's grossly simplified, but all Game Stop and other companies are doing is being the middleman between two customers. Sure, we could all use craigslist to sell and buy our used games and no one would make a peep, but no one wants to go through the hassle of posting listings every time they want to sell a game, or searching the internet for a used copy of something they want.
As has been argued many, many times, used sales are not an issue in other media (books, CDs, movies, cars, etc.) so why games? I've yet to hear a good answer.
The bottom line is that you can't equate a used sale to a lost sale for the publisher one to one. It's just not the case. If I can't buy, say Madden 12 (just an example) used for $20, I simply will not buy it at all, period. So either way, as far as the publisher is concerned, it's a "lost sale".
Furthermore, in regards to that PA strip... guess what? Either way I'm a customer of Gamestop. The publisher does not sell directly to me. They've already made their profit from the copies that GS has ordered. I've never purchased a game directly from the publisher because the industry is not set up that way. EA, THQ or whoever does not care
who is buying the games, just that they are purchased.
alinos said:
except the games industry is like no other.
when you buy a used car it has wear and tear. A game does not. (if a used game has wear and tear generally it's painstakingly obvious. But trying telling whether or not the headgasket on the used car you have bought doesn't have a crack in it. That's going to break in a month.
You don't buy a car drive it to Mcdonalds then decide you want a new car. take it down to the lot you just bought the thing from slap a 10% discount on it and sell it. It simply doesn't work that way.
The only other industries that have even a comparable product to games are DVD's and Music CD's. Most of which when you buy you don't resell. And if you do you resell them yourself. They aren't being sold next to brand new copies of the same product the very next day.
I agree that the games industry is not quite like any other, but I disagree with your other assumptions.
A game may not have "wear and tear", but there are other considerations. Does it have online play? Are people still playing, are the servers up? Is the manual beat up?
Some people do in fact, buy a new car once a year and trade the old one in, or lease yearly.
So, you've never, ever been to a store that sells both new and used DVDs/CDs? I sure have. In fact, there's still one big one going in my city. Just because you don't personally see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Sylocat said:
Nurb said:
I'm surprised that he hasn't pointed out that there is NO OTHER INDUSTRY that feels entitled to more money when a customer resells their product.
Shit, that's like companies demanding a cut of the sales from ebay.
There's no other industry where CONSUMERS feel entitled to buy a much cheaper used product that is functionally identical to the original.
When you buy a used car, you are accepting that there will be a certain amount of wear and tear, and thus some decreased functionality. When you buy a used book, you are risking page damage. A used VHS will have degraded some, a used DVD will probably have scratches and scuffs. Consumers don't care, or at least they don't blame the manufacturer.
But used games? When you play online, you are using the PUBLISHER's bandwidth. Bandwidth costs money. If you don't pay for the game, you are stealing money from them. Even the tired pirate argument of, "DURR, THEY DONT LOOZE ANY MUNNY FROM PIRACY, LOL!" doesn't apply, because you are costing them money for bandwidth.
"Page damage"? Really? Come the fuck on. Unless a page is actually missing, a used book is "functionally identical to the original". And guess what? Used games can also have scratches and scuffs.
Sure, bandwidth costs money, so if publishers want to charge a subscription fee that's fine. But to claim that playing a used game online is
stealing is the highest form of bullshit. You buy the game new and play for a while. Then you give the game to me and I play. There's still just
one player using that copy and the publisher got their full price. So where does the stealing come in, pray tell? It doesn't, plain and simple. If my brother and I share a copy of a game that I've paid for is he "stealing" every time he plays it? Of course not and it would be ludicrous to say so, but that's essentially what you are claiming. Instead of parroting some bullshit spouted by some douchebag CEO, trying thinking for yourself.
pheipl said:
The very existence of used game selling (in this format) is total bull.
I don't care what you Americans complain about, a game in central europe is the exact same price but in some countries (mine) our salaries don't hold a candle to US salaries (it's a joke to compare them) yet I still buy new games. HOW DARES GAMESTOP to re-sell a game and give nothing to the publisher / developer (what ever) ?
I don't understand developers that let their game be re-sold and get NOTHING from that process. I 100% disagree with you sir!
You really don't understand how commerce and business works at all, do you? Certainly it's your privilege to take your hard earned cash and buy one new game, but why cheat yourself that way? You're supporting an industry that says $60(CDN/USD) is acceptable. Do you really think that's an appropriate price? If it was, we wouldn't have so many people buying used games.
In my opinion $60 is
too much and I only pay it rarely. I would buy a
lot more new games if they were $40 for me. But publishers want $60 from me. Guess what, they don't get it at all. I would happily pay $80 for two new games, but I rarely pay $60 for one. And
that's fact. Publishers are greedy and they won't sustain this pricing structure for much longer.
Sorry for the epic post, dudes! haha
