The correct (aka less jerkish) way to combat used sales.

[QuantumT]

*snip*

Cars aren't really a good comparison, as they're a physical object that degrades over time, while a game is more of an intellectual property purchase. A much better comparison is a book.

Imagine that every time I tried to sell a book someone came and ripped out 100 pages in the middle. They aren't necessarily essential to the outcome, but they're still enjoyable to read.

That's the difference here. Wear and tear that occurs on cars is unavoidable, what the game developers are doing is intentional sabotage.

 

[aprildog18]

"Reward consumers who buy new instead of punishing those that buy used."

For most people, it works either way, although I like to think of the word "punishing" as intentional. That is, someone cannot punish someone unintentionally. What is supposed to be a reward cannot be interpreted as a punishment, unless of course, it was intended to be both.

So something like Mass Effect's Cerberus network and BF:BC2 VIP?
I would prefer companies that did that. Make the full game available and then make DLCs free for those who paid the whole price (or waited 20 years for a discount).

I would like if games were $20 though...but if not, maybe developers can ask/enforce a $1 buy-used fee and like...ask for donations for people who pirated it? >_<

I don't really know a solution that will not make the gaming industry crash and make the devs...not seem greedy.

 

[viranimus]

snip

Sorry, but I dont recall claiming that the used sellers are exempt from anything. And when we see the used market try to forcibly change the nature of the industry as well as trying to circumvent the laws that are in place to protect consumers, then yes we call bullshit on it too. However, they arent doing that in this specific case.

Also, I apologize if you feel that by break quoting you I am making accusations against you. My response was in fact a response to your response. Nothing I have or will say is directed at you personally.

Also, you do have the right to see my argument as Logical fallacies, but the thing your missing here is were not talking about theory. Were talking about centuries old documented facts and precedents. If we were discussing something theoretical, yes, a logical fallacy would be relevant, but considering how well understood standards and practices are in this respect what we are discussing is the furthest thing from theoretical

 

[Stall]

Cars aren't really a good comparison, as they're a physical object that degrades over time, while a game is more of an intellectual property purchase. A much better comparison is a book.

Imagine that every time I tried to sell a book someone came and ripped out 100 pages in the middle. They aren't necessarily essential to the outcome, but they're still enjoyable to read.

That's the difference here. Wear and tear that occurs on cars is unavoidable, what the game developers are doing is intentional sabotage.

Even then, your book analogy is rather inaccurate as well, since books suffer from wear and tear damage as well. A used book most certainly will not be in the same condition as a new one. I am well aware that games are intellectual property, but the point I was attempting to convey still stands: why should a used product be as good as the new product, when the new product not only costs more, but supports the publishers and developers? All that is happening here is that publishers are finally making the used product inferior to the new one, which is how other industries deal with their used market (as they can guarantee that individuals who purchase new get something of higher quality).

Now, what is the right way to do it, that I suppose could be up for debate, which is the inevitable purpose of this thread. I personally think that the current method is fine, as it directly rewards people who purchase new, and makes the used product noticeably inferior to its new counterpart. I don't think "goodies" and such make the used product inferior enough to justify the average consumer purchasing new. I think that there needs to be something more palpable to help diminish the impact of used sales.

-snip-

Fair enough.

Anyways, I stand by my assessment of your argument as logical fallacies. Corporations and businesses have been slimy in the past, and there is a danger in corporations becoming "too big," but I sincerely doubt that will happen to the video game industry if they manage to banish the used game market, since they will always have a certain reliance on retailers, as well as it being perfectly understandable that they want to dissuade the consumer from purchasing used, when most other media and industries seem to have some kind of "natural built" mechanism to make sure that their new products are superior to the used ones.

 

[Reaper195]

the better way to combat used games is to make less shitty games...

This. Just....this.

 

[DeltaEdge]

As someone who frequently buys used games I have this to say. I tend to buy games new If I'm buying a single game. But if I'm buying multiple games, then I will almost definitely buy used. I think that companies that place restrictions on their own games if they are bought used are pathetic. Especially since only special stores offer the trading of games used. The amount of people that buy from those stores is high, but an equally large amount of people buy from regular retail stores like Walmart as well. I would definitely reconsider picking one game over another if the one of the games in question threatened a limitation of content if purchased used and I might just stop buying their games out of spite. And to the person who said making less shitty games would solve the problem, I don't think that would help at all. I would buy a game used no matter how good it is. It wouldn't make any sense to me to pay more for the same game just because it's a good game.

 

[intheweeds]

Uhh I might be wrong but isn't that what Day One DLC is? Like Bioware and Bethesda games all having free DLC for those who buy new copies?

Didn't people ***** and whine about that as well? I think People will ***** and Whine. Period.

This is my opinion. People ***** and whine that they have to go online and punch in a code for day one DLC. "It should just be on the disc!" they say. These guys did day one DLC, only they solved your online code problem by having the content already on the disc. Just like you asked for. What do they get? More bitching and whining. Gamers are just impossible to please.

 

[M920CAIN]

Just add DRM to protect the DRM that protects the DRM & sell it... people will buy... they always do.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Just add DRM to protect the DRM that protects the DRM & sell it... people will buy... they always do.

I can't tell if your being facetious or not...

Also, this isn't a matter of DRM, dear reader. Which leads me to believe shenanigans on your part

 

[QuantumT]

Even then, your book analogy is rather inaccurate as well, since books suffer from wear and tear damage as well. A used book most certainly will not be in the same condition as a new one.

A well maintained book won't really suffer significant wear and tear. I have a variety of books in my personal library that are older that my parents.

I am well aware that games are intellectual property, but the point I was attempting to convey still stands: why should a used product be as good as the new product, when the new product not only costs more, but supports the publishers and developers? All that is happening here is that publishers are finally making the used product inferior to the new one, which is how other industries deal with their used market (as they can guarantee that individuals who purchase new get something of higher quality).

Making a used product inferior via sabotage isn't an acceptable method. Again see my book example. Just because your product doesn't degrade over time doesn't mean you have the right to force it to.

Like people have said, if you want to combat used game sales, the way to do it is to make games that are worth owning for more than a week.

 

[Son of a Mitch]

If people aren't buying new in the first place, it's because either A) they don't have the money, or B) They just want to save money(probably so they can buy more games).

In the case of A, no amount of special items or locking people out of content or whatever will make them buy new, because they can't. And they probably wouldn't be able to pay the $15 or whatever to unlock more content, since, again, they're not that financially well-off. Since there's no way to get money from them, there's nothing you can do and you can just ignore them. No way to get money from them.

For B, well simply reducing prices would be a great way to get them to buy new. And with the money they save from reduced prices, they're more likely to buy another game. So, basically, lowering the price would be the best way to get these people, not locking out content or whatever.

Yes, games are a luxury, but if your profits are being hurt so much that you have to try and lock used buyers out of content, perhaps you need to reduce the price to sell more copies so you don't take such heavy hits to profits. You know, reduce prices if consumers aren't willing to pay the current asking price. Pretty sure that's business 101.

And if that doesn't work, well just like with A, there isn't a way to make them pay up, which means they're not really a lost sale, which means you didn't lose any money in the first place.

I also like your example. It definitely is sweet to get a bunch of goodies with a game. Like The Witcher 2, which is awesome.

I like the way you think. I would have said something like this, but not worded quite as well.

 

[M920CAIN]

Just add DRM to protect the DRM that protects the DRM & sell it... people will buy... they always do.

I can't tell if your being facetious or not...

Also, this isn't a matter of DRM, dear reader. Which leads me to believe shenanigans on your part

You're right. It isn't.. but it might as well be.. if it ain't pirates, it's used sales, if it ain't used sales.. it's pirates... fact is: there's always something, there's always a "good" reason behind these content decisions. And yes I am characterized by levity of attitude and love of joking... aka facetious.

 

[natster43]

Since practically every major company that complains about this is going to release DLC for their games, give some discounts on those. Battlefield Bad Company 2 gave everything except for Vietnam and different colored skins for free to new copies. That is all I can contribute to this.

 

[Keslen]

The best way to combat used game sales:

Release the game at $60.
Wait some time (either a set amount or until sales drop down to a certain point).
Lower the price by ten dollars.
Repeat until the game hits rock bottom bargain bin prices.

I believe movies do something similar, don't they?

 

[The Lugz]

my question is what's the problem with used games sales?

people blather on about how gamers believe they are entitled to this, entitled to that ect

but pray tell, how is a company entitled to used sales funds? and why is it suddenly an issue?
oh right, it's because they're ENTITLED WHINERS.

end of story
that's how retail works.

i don't see ford coming along and stripping the engines out of used cars, i don't see laptop manufacturers disabling the web-cams and cd drives out of used laptops because they didn't get paid twice for them

it's pathetic.
every other form of retail views used sales as free advertising for their newer product lines, the gaming industry chooses to moan, ***** and complain like children

the simple answer is release new products and make people want them, and if you 'really' want people to keep them then make having older game saves or installs effect your new games
( bioware, thanks for the idea )
or at least, not sell them on ask them to trade in the drm code for an % off your latest games range so the software becomes unusable but the user gets something in return

alternatively, BE STEAM.
make all your games accessible by one account you cant sell those games without selling the entire account or severely messing up your game-play experiences
( it is technically possible to share a steam account but honestly why would you it's terribly inconvenient )
( also, you could make 50 accounts, but why would you if you can get money off for having a whole series of games? it's slower to find a buyer..)

there are ways, means and ideas allot of which DO NOT negatively impact the user
and almost none of those are being explored which from my point of view means far from being entitled whiners gamers are simply concerned with being ripped off
this argument is about 'value'
frankly if i buy a £50-60 game i WANT an entire dvd's worth of content, period my money is simply worth that much entertainment
and if you don't think it is, i'll buy someone else's entertainment instead, end of discussion.
now if you offer half that cd locked, it better damn well come to the same through other means
if it's £30 for the initial game, and i decide i like it i'm more than happy to pay more by making an account on-line, and unlocking more content even if most of it was on the cd anyway purely because the VALUE is there this is fair trade gaming, effectively.
i don't feel i'm being ripped off. and if you make it so i can buy several gigs of new maps, locations, missions cars tools, cool mechanics i'll probably be happy to spend upto £100 on your game, because if the story, mechanics and general fun is there i'm going to want more and i'll probably be willing to give far more £-hour of entertainment purely because i really enjoy that entertainment even if it doesn't last as long as an entirely new game
but you cant EXPECT that kind of interaction upfront and offer only baubles and some silly emotes as leverage..

that's the big problem here..
especially with pre-orders which is akin to giving your money away and hoping a company has done something logical with it, if they haven't earned that trust with an epic success of a game, such as batman then i would say they don't even have the right to request pre-orders
let alone demand them for additional content that would otherwise be in the game anyway
all that does is make people more likely to pirate the game because
'what the hell, i wont get xx bonus anyway because that company hates me'
it's a feeling of oppression
the simple fact is, if someone can view this as an insult in any minor way they can and will use it right back at you
it's all a pointless exercise and nothing remotely good can come of it

and this is why i refuse flay out to buy bioware's 'massively money-grabbing on-line game'
because they're doing it wrong.

and yes, i went off on a bit of a rant, but i'm leaving it in here.

 

[Frost27]

Why not just plan out more DLC during the development process and reap the benefits of the used buyers buying up the DLC for your game and make the folks that paid full price for it feel that much better because of all that new content at the same time? Or better yet, EA, Bethesda, Id, et al. Can pull their heads out of their greedy asses, wipe the dollar signs off of their eyes (because that is all this is about. New profit, not entitlements) and realize that there isn't a single other resale industry on earth where the original manufacturer profits from second hand sales.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

I still don't understand the reasoning behind this. Is it just that they have the ability to fuck the used market? No other industry fucks the used market, even if they can.

The independents are the only ones I'd accept doing this since they need every cent. But it's not them who's doing it, it's the already profitable and powerful major devs and publishers who just want to make an extra buck off of us.

Granted, Gamestop and its used market is a scam anyway, but it's a 10-15% cheaper scam for the buyer and at least lets the original owner recoup more of what he originally spent.

Another fucking stupid thing is you can't loan a game to someone and have it be whole, which sucks for me because me and my brother basically have a free trade that goes back and forth since we both have 360s and live near each other.

 

[hyzaku]

-snip-

Perhaps they expect new/used equality because we already have it in a sense.Used games often do have physical degredation much like cars or anything else. Scratches are just that, degredation. Used games simply may not work due to phydical damage just like everything else. The data on the game however, is not subject to degredation the way a physical object is. I have games I have played for thousands of hours and every single time I see the same data (read: content). Lending said games to a friend, selling it, or anything other than causing physical damage to the game medium does not degrade the data(content) of that copy of the game in any way. These publishers are attempting to take away something that is already on the disk, data you are paying for, because you did not give them your money. If they burn the data(content) to the disk then you are paying for that data(content). I own games for older consoles, many of which were purchased used, often long after buying new was an option. Should my megaman 2 game only have 7 robot masters because I was not capable of ever buying it new? No, it shouldn't. The data is already on the cartidge. Regardless of the type of game the content that is on the disk(or cart) is what you are paying for. Why should that change, much less now? Used games have been around nearly as long as new games and the industry has survived just fine. Exclusion of something that is already there is a punishment not a reward. Imagine buying a book but you don't get to read chapter 3 because you bought it used. That would suck don't you think?

It feels like the publishers are just imagining a new boogeyman to "justify" screwing players (you know, just like the whole pirates/DRM business). Seriously, the two are eerily similar...people not buying new games. That is it, nothing more complicated. The publishers just want more money and they are not getting it through DRM, so they just go after someone else. Who really knows the truth, but that makes sense to me.