the used games arguement is flawed

[auronvi]

The game companies just need to start lowering the prices of their games quicker. That's it. Close the window of opportunity for Gamestop to sell used. You keep a game at full price for a whole year, everyone is going to buy the used for 5 dollars cheaper and a 7 day guarantee instead of full price and you are stuck with it.

I am sure that someone will come up with a better selling model for the games. Also, it is up to us. Stop purchasing the multi-million dollar mediocre and start buying the cheaper hidden gems. Show the industry we don't always need AAA titles to keep our gaming addiction in check.

 

[Plurralbles]

Uh... no. That doesn't render the argument invalid at all. When a used game is sold for only $5 under new price, there's a problem.

Edit: I think you need to become more mature and present arguments in a way that doesn't turn off your readers. You don't have to get pissed because people dont' agree with you. You might want to think like a business man in a competitive environment. That's the bottom line. COmpanies are beginning to figure out ways to force out their competition or at least cut into their profits. That's how the world works. I'd like them to make a more competitive business model that also helps the consumer like more quickly lowering hte price of games, but that's not where we are right now.

 

[Fiend Dragon]

Not that I mean to directly defend the publishers viewpoint, but you seem to have the missed the point.

Someone else bought that game first. You are interested playing the game. You are also willing to pay for the game, even though you want to save a little cash.

You buy the game at discount, and get your enjoyment out of it. Thus, you have received your value out of the product, and those who worked to make it receive nothing.

Now, the value of 1 game has served 2 people and the profit from that second consumer is lost.
If that same copy is sold used again, another potential profit is lost.

It sounds a little extreme, but as far as the publishers are concerned, it has the exact same effect as piracy. Possibly even worse, because pirates never planned on paying for it. So not only are they not getting any money, the profit from the copy that they themselves produced is going entirely to someone uninvolved to save them money.

Apparently you missed my "POINT"

This goes for the used cars as well

Your arguement is just pulling at air to get anywhere.

The used copy was new once meaning they gained a compensation from it. Its the same with books, dvds, and ect.

By the sound of your arguement every copy sold by the companies is just rented by the consumer not owned.

And once again you missed mine, so apparently this argument has devolved into slinging dirt without even being fully aware of what we are arguing about, in which case I will gladly take my leave. I will not continue to waste my typing on you should you not care to even read my comment.

"the used copy was new once meaning they gained a compensation from it."
They gained compensation for 1 consumer's worth of product. The second person could, and likely would have bought a new copy, and compensated the publisher appropriately had the used game not been available.

"Your arguement is just pulling at air to get anywhere."
Actually, I'm mildly amused that you think so, seeing as how the foundations of your argument have the consistency of an expired pudding.

"This goes for the used cars as well"
The primary cost that goes into producing a vehicle is in manufacturing, so each individual vehicle is accounting for it's own costs as well as providing a profit. A videogame can cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to produce and individual copies do very little to make up for this cost.

Secondarily, if a person sells a used vehicle, they are likely to either

A:have another vehicle which was also purchased, possibly shortly before or after. They are still a consumer of the company and continue to produce profits.

B: are no longer in need of a vehicle and thus are no longer a relevant consumer.

Thirdly, a vehicle requires several operating costs, including regular maintenance and replacement parts, as well as fuel and fluids. Thus, individual vehicles continue to produce profits (although maybe for other companies here) for as long as they are in use.

For the most part, the average videogame requires no operating costs in of itself. Console, internet, electrical, and subscription costs are not relevant as they pertain to different services or products.


EDIT:

SNIP

used games are SOLD

that's the problem.

People are willing to Spend Actual Money to get the game, but none of the money goes to the people that make the game. Pirates aren't willing to spend any actual money to buy anything so really shouldn't be a concern. Most pirates if they couldn't pirate games just wouldn't bother. They pirate thousands of dollars of games a year, way more then they could possibly buy, so their "lost value" is ridiculously inflated. Every used game sale of games that are still being sold new (and hence have close to new prices) are actual losses for the game publishers that are quantifiable - 1 used game sale = 1 lost sale.

This, exactly, maybe in a more clear way than mine, but identical to my originally intended point.

 

[kebab4you]

Not that I mean to directly defend the publishers viewpoint, but you seem to have the missed the point.

Someone else bought that game first. You are interested playing the game. You are also willing to pay for the game, even though you want to save a little cash.

You buy the game at discount, and get your enjoyment out of it. Thus, you have received your value out of the product, and those who worked to make it receive nothing.

Now, the value of 1 game has served 2 people and the profit from that second consumer is lost.
If that same copy is sold used again, another potential profit is lost.

It sounds a little extreme, but as far as the publishers are concerned, it has the exact same effect as piracy. Possibly even worse, because pirates never planned on paying for it. So not only are they not getting any money, the profit from the copy that they themselves produced is going entirely to someone uninvolved to save them money.

Edit: And no, I don't think that tyrannical copyright protections are okay, and I merely meant to describe how the publishers see it themselves.

Riiiight isn't the same thing with everything else that is 2nd hand? Do the makers of the product get any out of it?
If I buy a used car none of the money goes back to the hard working people that made it. Same thing with computers, lamps, houses, mobiles etc. etc..
So what makes game developers believe they are right when they do this?

Edit;
Yes I saw the above post so don't need to spoon feed me the same thing again.

 

[bojac6]

You go purchase a used car but for the car to work you have to pay the company that made the car for a code that allows the car to drive. A car that you just paid for. Any person would be fucking pissed about that. Then you would have some extremely thick people going. "But dude, the company that produced that car deserves compensation, otherwise its just stealing from them"

Sorry just got pissed

But the games work without the code, so it's not like a car that won't drive. The game does the primary thing it is designed for, there's just some bonus material that you miss out on. It's more like paying for a used car with a broken radio and then having to pay extra to get the radio fixed. Also, you know ahead of time that there is content for games that you have to pay extra for if you get it used. It's not like they hide that from you.

Somebody goes to a bookstore and wants to buy a book, but there are only two copies. A new, expensive copy and an old used copy with several middle chapters torn out. It says this clearly over the price tag, that pages are missing. If you buy the used book, is it really the fault of the publisher that the pages are missing?

 

[Fiend Dragon]

Now, the value of 1 game has served 2 people and the profit from that second consumer is lost.
If that same copy is sold used again, another potential profit is lost.

You lost me here.

If I want a game, I'm not just going to buy it for any price. I'm not going to buy the latest bloom-brown-mump-mapped korean torturing simulator for £35, I'm just not that interested.

So that second hand copy isn't going to lose the developers any money if they keep trying to get more than their product is worth.

Wanting to pay less for something isn't the basis behind the anti-used games crusade, and publishers do eventually lower the sale prices for this reason(Not quickly enough to fight used sales though). The point is that potential consumers are paying money for and happily consuming a product and the people who made it are not getting any money for it.

Lower prices is a sale incentive that entices people to buy used games instead of new ones, they have this luxury because acquiring the used game is FAR cheaper than a new copy for the retailer as well.

Despite it defying a terrifyingly large number of human traits and thus being utterly impossible, if they could sell a game used for the same price as new, than they would.

 

[Talon_Skywarp]

Back here again I guess

Don't care a damn. Not at all. In the slightest

I'd advise you all join me in this. The games industry will do what it likes and we will follow it. Coz that's the way it is. So let them do what they like. They already made DLC to screw us out of more money. So bring it on. Guess you want more of my money.

BTW, lets not pretend games companies are run by our friends and relatives. Its a business. You are seen as a customer to gain them profit. That's it. They couldn't care a less about us unless we are giving them money. As proven by case above. They don't care if you are a loyal customer who has brought 7 of their last games. That pre owned one got them no profit. So they don't like you.

To the other side- We will have to accept that these people want their money and will get it from us somehow.

Overall, as stated above. Don't care a damn.

 

[ImprovizoR]

It's flawed for many reasons. You should have the right to do whatever you want with your property. It's like saying used cars are worse than highjacking. It makes no sense to anyone besides those greedy companies who came up with the idea. No matter how much money they make it is never enough.

 

[WanderingFool]

Not that I mean to directly defend the publishers viewpoint, but you seem to have the missed the point.

Someone else bought that game first. You are interested playing the game. You are also willing to pay for the game, even though you want to save a little cash.

You buy the game at discount, and get your enjoyment out of it. Thus, you have received your value out of the product, and those who worked to make it receive nothing.

Now, the value of 1 game has served 2 people and the profit from that second consumer is lost.
If that same copy is sold used again, another potential profit is lost.

It sounds a little extreme, but as far as the publishers are concerned, it has the exact same effect as piracy. Possibly even worse, because pirates never planned on paying for it. So not only are they not getting any money, the profit from the copy that they themselves produced is going entirely to someone uninvolved to save them money.

Apparently you missed my "POINT"

This goes for the used cars as well

Your arguement is just pulling at air to get anywhere.

The used copy was new once meaning they gained a compensation from it. Its the same with books, dvds, and ect.

By the sound of your arguement every copy sold by the companies is just rented by the consumer not owned.

I was done with this, but you bring up the used car arguement has stired me back. Your comaprison of used cars to games has a flaw which Criticle Miss...er...missed. Two points:

1) While Ford may not get money from a used car, they get money from the prson who owns that car now. How? Maintenance. Someone else may make the parts, but those parts are bought by Ford, and sold to autoparts stores and repair shops. So even though they didnt get the resale of that car, they still will get money from you, as your car WILL need to be fixed.

2) Do you know how much you are getting from turning in an old car for a new one? Much less than what you paid for the old car. Cars or horrible investments, because as soon as you sign the paperwork, it loses value. And if you put 100k miles on it, that even less. And what if you had to replace the bumper? It may have cost money to do, but that money doesnt exactly go back into the value of the car. And have you ever seen some used cars? Ive seen some that looked like utter shit because the person before beat them to hell and back (Protip: dont buy a used car that belonged to a rental car agency.) You will never get a good return on investment with any type of automobile. So brands do have great RoI, like Hondas and Toyotas, but thats not whats important...

actually, there is a third one...

3) do you use your used game to play, or ride around town? The major difference between a videogame and used car is that the videogame doesnt see anywhere the same kind of ware as a car. Unless you are using the disc as a frisby, odds are it wont lose to much value from putting into your playstation or Xbox; and if you take care of it, not letting it get scratched or damaged, it will last for a good long time. Games have almost no resale value because a place like Gamestop buys them at low price to sell at high price, because they are fucking business geniuses. Gamers may not like it, but they are doing it for a profit, not popularity. Used cars rarly are bought low and sold high unless there was work done on them. Like I said above, Ive seen, and heard of, used cars being beaten to shit. If that car is traded in, many dealers will have the car inspected and if they find something bad, do what is needed to fix up the car before reselling it. (story: Ive heard of a used car lot that actually sold a car for $10 grand, and the car was practically a death trap. Because the person buying the car had it inspected before anything bad happened, they are alive today, and the used car lot was shutdown damn quick.) If a used car seller is unable to fix up a car and make a profit on it, they wont sell it, they junk it. You wont usually see a used car that not road worthy (unless you deal with a less than scrupulous dealer)being sold without some past history. Thats why there exist services like CarFax, why many lists are made of the best cars that can be bought used, and why it is advised to have a used car inspected by professionals before using it extensively. People dont want a death trap, ecspecially if the car is for their own child.

But the major difference between a used car and a used game is, simply, the game has zero maintenance. You dont need to have a new coat applied to the surface od the disk every six months. Cars have much more maintenance to them, because of that, they are in completely different ballparks.

Also, Criticle Miss' and your's "code that is needed to make the car work properly" is probably illegal under some law... unless its made clear on the package.


[sub]and damn, did I right all that???[/sub]

 

[mrx19869]

i thought game dev. were pissed because a used game that is playable online looses the company money..

 

[RowdyRodimus]

I'll care about the developers and publishers getting my money as soon as they care about my finances. I don't care that Gamestop gets the profits from used game sales because they offer a service that saves me money. The publishers complain that they aren't making money on multiplayer, well quit focusing on that and make compelling single player games, but then they wouldn't sell 25 million copies of Modern Warfare 12.

The used games argument is all because of a problem the developers and publishers partially created by making sub par games at a cheaper price by adding multiplayer and neglecting the actual game and now they need to create a boogeyman to demonize so they can beg for more money.

 

[IzisviAziria]

I personally am less pissed at codes to play used games online then xbox that declares you cant play any games online what so ever with out giving them money.

xbox live can suck a fat one. Wanna play PS3 online? SURE! Wanna play Wii online? SURE! Wanna play PC games online? SURE! Wanna play on a Microsoft console online? MONEY PLEASE!

Granted, Xbox live works more fluidly than Wii or PS3 online does, but I've never had any real trouble with my Playstation Network and it's never cost me a dime.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Not that I mean to directly defend the publishers viewpoint, but you seem to have the missed the point.

Someone else bought that game first. You are interested playing the game. You are also willing to pay for the game, even though you want to save a little cash.

You buy the game at discount, and get your enjoyment out of it. Thus, you have received your value out of the product, and those who worked to make it receive nothing.

Now, the value of 1 game has served 2 people and the profit from that second consumer is lost.
If that same copy is sold used again, another potential profit is lost.

It sounds a little extreme, but as far as the publishers are concerned, it has the exact same effect as piracy. Possibly even worse, because pirates never planned on paying for it. So not only are they not getting any money, the profit from the copy that they themselves produced is going entirely to someone uninvolved to save them money.

Edit: And no, I don't think that tyrannical copyright protections are okay, and I merely meant to describe how the publishers see it themselves.

its ok. I just saw some idiots defending the game companies and it pissed me off.

Think about that for a little while. Oh okay, sure. Let's just sabotage all of the companies (filled with hard working people that these days have less than great job security) that make the games that we want to play!

The reason it isn't worse than piracy is this, how many times is a used game going to be sold? Less than ten, I can guarantee it. If the game is good, maybe only once.

Whereas when a game get's uploaded to a site like the Pirate Bay, how many people are gonna pirate it? Thousands, and there's no way to guarantee that they wouldn't have other-wise bought it.

So maybe publishers need to stop making such short games that people trade in so quickly. Maybe they should make it longer, or add replay value. Hell, if I heard a game was going to have free DLC, I'd keep it, even if I normally would have sold it to a friend. Because I like free shit.

And sometimes games come out at only forty dollars, (I believe Matt Hazard did, unless it was on sale), I buy those. Because sixty dollars is too much, and thirty dollars is great, but I'll pay forty simply because it's better then sixty.

 

[Dr_Steve_Brule]

When I buy a game, Game=mine
Therefore, I can do whatever the fuck I want to do with it, except copying it.
The End.

 

[AnOriginalConcept]

When I buy the game, Game=mine
Therefore, I can do whatever the fuck I want to do with it.
The End.

This isn't so clear cut. If the game was truly yours, then you would be able to share it online for free. Of course, this is obviously unfair on the developers.

So, no. Purchasing a game does not entitle you to do whatever you want with it.

A single game can pass between any number of people at a used game store and the developers will still only earn money from one copy.

I am honestly uncertain as to what a fair solution would be.

 

[MarsProbe]

I've only ever purchased one pre-owned game (Halo 3) as it was my first foray into that particular series and I wans't sure at that point if I would like the games or not, so picking it up at a lower price seemed ideal.

Sadly, the disc I received was basically scratched even beyond the abilities of my disc repair kit (one which slipped past the game shops rigerous "glance at the bottom of the disk and move it around under a light a bit" quality check procedure).

Anyway, pointless story there, but my point being I doubt I will every purchase a pre-owned copy of a game again without very good reason. I've got to side with the game developers/publishers on this one. They are the ones that spend years working to make/publicise the game, therefore they deserve the renumeration for it.

Likewise, if they have spent all those man hours to put out a game for us to enjoy, then I feel they reserve the right to put whatever extra features in place they want in order to protect their potential source of revenue. All I ask that is that it's kept outside of the game world, I don't want some in game character asking me to spend some kind of "real world" currency to access some bonus content (you know who you are!).

And if anyone doesn't like it, I'm sure there's a corner they can go cry in somewhere, as it's unlikely these practices will stop anytime soon.

 

[johnsom]

Most games I've beaten I've rented. In fact, I am to the point were I wont buy a game unless there is a very compelling reason to do so.

 

[Monshroud]

You go purchase a used car but for the car to work you have to pay the company that made the car for a code that allows the car to drive. A car that you just paid for. Any person would be fucking pissed about that. Then you would have some extremely thick people going. "But dude, the company that produced that car deserves compensation, otherwise its just stealing from them"

I think you missed something in your logic here. For instance, when people buy a car, they don't drive it for 3 or 4 days then trade it in for another car the next week, wash, rinse, repeat. There aren't thousands of people waiting to pay a few bucks less for the used car a few days after someone drives it.

This is exactly what happens in the game industry. Someone pays $59.99 for some new title. They play it, beat it, do a bit of multi-player, realize it's not as good as Halo or CoD and trade it in next week to some store for the next hot title. That store now sells the used copy for $56.99 to some kid who is more than willing to wait a week to save a couple of bucks. So while a game might sell 100,000 copies new, let's say 20% wind up on used shelves and the company now doesn't have 20,000 additional sales the next week. That 20,000 equals over a million dollars. I would be pissed off too...

Now I am just making up those #'s. I think you can see the point I am making. Companies aren't losing a few bucks, we are talking possible millions. They also don't care too much about older titles, but newer ones have a huge impact on their sales and profits; which equate to their ability to create new games and take chances on smaller new IP's.

 

[Jkudo]

If they want money for used games, take it up with gamestop. No reason to punish consumers for making the logical choice when buying a game. Gamestop is the one making money off your game, not us.
Also i've said this before, i cant be a fan of anything that stops me from taking a game to my friends house and playing online. Only being able to play online on one console is ridiculous.

 

[Dr_Steve_Brule]

When I buy the game, Game=mine
Therefore, I can do whatever the fuck I want to do with it.
The End.

This isn't so clear cut. If the game was truly yours, then you would be able to share it online for free. Of course, this is obviously unfair on the developers.

So, no. Purchasing a game does not entitle you to do whatever you want with it.

Unfair=/=Illegal
I can give out my game online for free, the same way I can give out any book in my house for free, but only if I "relinquish" the original copy, be it a steam account or an actual DVD. It's mine, It is MY property now, and I can give it to my family, my friends, my dog, whatever the fuck.
What you call sharing online is actually me giving someone the original copy without relinquishing my own, which is the same as copying pages from a book and sending it to someone online. Unlike what some people here seem think, writers invest countless hours and loads of effort on writing just one book sometimes, but they don't start bitching when someone gets bored of reading it and gives it to a friend.

Copying=Illegal
Trading something that I own=Legal