in the same boat, thats why I dont buy games that often, there are not that many games I would buy it only lasts 4 hour. Its needs to be worth it to me. Either that or be a novelty, like DNF... if it does come out...johnsom said:
the used games arguement is flawed
- Thread starter crimsonshrouds
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I agree.Dr_Steve_Brule said:
From your first post, I believed that you thought that one should be able to do anything with a game they owned.
I misunderstood.
This my friend is why i play MMO's. When I get tired of the game, i can stop my 15$ a month subscription, then come back to it when they release more content or what not.WanderingFool said:
It is the fault of the publisher when it tore the pages out.bojac6 said:
The analogy is not compatible with your argument.
As far as codes go, I have never had any of my consoles connected to the internet, and have no inclination to do so, so how am I going to validate my code? They can't put them all on the disc because someone would find them and post a generator online.
Did anyone ever stop to consider that the only reason Gamestop manages to write checks for its employees (i.e. friends and family) is because they sell used games?
If they only made money from new releases or were paying royalties to the studio that made the game everytime someone bought a used copy, then they would be bankrupt in a matter of days.
Gamestop isn't getting rich from this. They pay their dues just like everybody else. And since 99% of their employees are videogamers, doesn't it stand to reason that some of their wages go towards new releases/mint copies?
If they only made money from new releases or were paying royalties to the studio that made the game everytime someone bought a used copy, then they would be bankrupt in a matter of days.
Gamestop isn't getting rich from this. They pay their dues just like everybody else. And since 99% of their employees are videogamers, doesn't it stand to reason that some of their wages go towards new releases/mint copies?
Anyone else find the OP's point to be fucking stupid as hell? Seriously does he actually think that first line makes any sense?
I mean I buy used games all the time, but i'm smart enough to know that gaming companies don't get any money from that. In all seriousness the point some people who care about this topic (not me) are trying to make is that pirate the game = $0 for game company. Buy used = $0 for game company.
I'm not saying you shouldn't buy used, i'm just laughing my ass off at the logic fails the OP has everywhere. Someone bought the game new once = used game sales are better than piracy? That my friend is a logic fail. The reason is because it has no bearing on the ultimate point which you are trying to argue against; how much actual dollars a company gets from used versus pirating.
I mean I buy used games all the time, but i'm smart enough to know that gaming companies don't get any money from that. In all seriousness the point some people who care about this topic (not me) are trying to make is that pirate the game = $0 for game company. Buy used = $0 for game company.
I'm not saying you shouldn't buy used, i'm just laughing my ass off at the logic fails the OP has everywhere. Someone bought the game new once = used game sales are better than piracy? That my friend is a logic fail. The reason is because it has no bearing on the ultimate point which you are trying to argue against; how much actual dollars a company gets from used versus pirating.
See this is actually another flaw, because not everyone pre-orders a game. You have sales projections, so for arguments sake, there are "20,000" copies now not being purchased because people are buying used copies soon after the game is released. So they are losing value.Fr33Kye said:It's not like the money is being taken from them, someone else is just making it, Gamestop. Either way they still got paid for 100,000 copies, and only had to manufacture/distribute 100,000 copies.
If you get the chance to open and run your own business I would like to see how you feel when you work to produce a product and someone says, "It's not like the money is being taken from you, someone else is just making it."
As a PC gamer all I can say is suck it up. I don't even own the games I buy new, it says right there in my license agreement, that the publisher is just letting me use their code for a while. I've learnt to accept that.
As someone who produces copyrightable material for a living I say used games are stealing income from the publisher. Everyone has the right to protect their intellectual property from exploitation from others. With all the game companies going under and being bought out why shouldn't game producers look for all the lost profit they can? I haven't bought a Ubisoft game since they introduced their draconian DRM, but I can see why they did it.
If you don't like paying for day one DLC or multiplayer doodads then don't play their games. Because you have no purchasing power if you buy used, you just have to take it.
EDIT: Reminds me of a China piracy joke my cousin told me. There are two Abode sales execs sitting in a bar at a conference one covering China and the other Europe. The European guy says
"Last quarter despite the release of CS5 our Photoshop sales dropped 15% to 60,000 copies, I'm worried about my job."
The other exec says, "You're worried abour your job, last quarter our Photoshop sales only went up 100%".
The first guy says "You doubled your Photoshop sales? China must be a huge market. How many copies did you sell?"
"Two."
EDIT EDIT: Basically it isn't illegal for you to buy and sell your console games. It also isn't illegal for the companies to try an recoup some of the income lost by these practices. So once again buy new, or buy used and suck it up.
As someone who produces copyrightable material for a living I say used games are stealing income from the publisher. Everyone has the right to protect their intellectual property from exploitation from others. With all the game companies going under and being bought out why shouldn't game producers look for all the lost profit they can? I haven't bought a Ubisoft game since they introduced their draconian DRM, but I can see why they did it.
If you don't like paying for day one DLC or multiplayer doodads then don't play their games. Because you have no purchasing power if you buy used, you just have to take it.
EDIT: Reminds me of a China piracy joke my cousin told me. There are two Abode sales execs sitting in a bar at a conference one covering China and the other Europe. The European guy says
"Last quarter despite the release of CS5 our Photoshop sales dropped 15% to 60,000 copies, I'm worried about my job."
The other exec says, "You're worried abour your job, last quarter our Photoshop sales only went up 100%".
The first guy says "You doubled your Photoshop sales? China must be a huge market. How many copies did you sell?"
"Two."
EDIT EDIT: Basically it isn't illegal for you to buy and sell your console games. It also isn't illegal for the companies to try an recoup some of the income lost by these practices. So once again buy new, or buy used and suck it up.
lol sorry what i meant to say is its not like the consumer is taking money from them, yet the consumer is being punished. Yes you are right that would mean 20,000 games that wouldn't be bought new but chances are if the 20,000 people couldn't get the game used they probably wouldn't get it if there is a significant price difference. So even if 20,000 copies are bought a few months later used that doesn't mean the publisher missed out on revenue from 20,000 copies, but in the case of new games, i can see your point, maybe a difference of a few bucks, but once again you can't blame people for seeing the cheaper one and buying it, if Gamestop sells a used game for $54 and the publisher doesnt get any, thats not my fault, all i did was buy from a store. Instead of trying to charge and guilt your customers, why not take it up with the retailers who are selling your games at high prices then selling them again for lower prices without sending you any.Monshroud said:
I sincerely hope to make games one day and i've thought about it, used sales wouldn't bother me, i'd be a developer , i would have already got paid lol it's publishers that would be askkng for more money i'd probably never see.
At the end of the day, if you try to guilt people or punish them you just ruin your image and look ridiculous. Like someone above me said its not illegal for them to try to recover some cash, but why not take it from the people actually selling your used games?
Edit: someone else above me made a valid point about gamestop needing the revenue from used sales, while it is an important part of there revenue stream, retail markup is substantial, which is why games bought digitally or generally much cheaper(despite the distributing and whatnot). Also i dont want to demonize the retailer because they do need to pay there employees, but gamestop for example, pay very little to get those used games.
I rarely buy Used games as I'm a bit OCD with the front covers and manuals looking perfect which you don't necessarily get with Used.
The only game I have pre-owned is Halo 3 and that's because my original disk got scratched and I didn't want to pay £25 for a new copy when I could pay £15.
I think the issue that developers have with used games is that the stores make such a huge profit on them. In my local game shop they offered me £2 for a like-new copy of Assassins Creed 1 and would have sold it for £8-£12.
The only game I have pre-owned is Halo 3 and that's because my original disk got scratched and I didn't want to pay £25 for a new copy when I could pay £15.
I think the issue that developers have with used games is that the stores make such a huge profit on them. In my local game shop they offered me £2 for a like-new copy of Assassins Creed 1 and would have sold it for £8-£12.
Unfortunately, neither the companies nor the consumers are completely innocent in this argument. If everyone were forced to buy new copies, prices would rise, and privacy abuses (such as protection systems phoning home to reveal playing habits) would skyrocket. Yet, games without copy protection are pirated just as ruthlessly as those that have it.
But what I've seen so far is that companies like to alternate treating software purchases as media or as licenses as it suits them. Injustices are more apparent in the music industry, where DRM encrypted music files expire as their CODECs are retired. That song you bought for Zune 1.0 is incompatible with Zune 1.3. Does Microsoft honor your licenses and upgrade your tunes to the new protocol? Nope. You have to buy it again, just as ownership of the LP White Album doesn't entitle you to the CD (which, if it's a license, it should).
Like music artists, we're a couple of steps removed from the development teams. They make the game, and then the publishing houses slap on the DRM devices, the required service requirements, the play restrictions and so on. They're the ones destroying your gaming experience. Of that $60 price tag you pay, the Dev team sees about $5.
If you want to support the developers, pirate the stonking game and then cut the development house a check for $20. And then encourage your buddies to do the same.
Incidentally, as a PC user, my sources for preowned games have been eBay and Craigslist. But these days, I'm patient enough to wait until a game drops to a reasonable price. This also has the lovely side effect of ensuring those bugs that would be patched out, are.
U.
But what I've seen so far is that companies like to alternate treating software purchases as media or as licenses as it suits them. Injustices are more apparent in the music industry, where DRM encrypted music files expire as their CODECs are retired. That song you bought for Zune 1.0 is incompatible with Zune 1.3. Does Microsoft honor your licenses and upgrade your tunes to the new protocol? Nope. You have to buy it again, just as ownership of the LP White Album doesn't entitle you to the CD (which, if it's a license, it should).
Like music artists, we're a couple of steps removed from the development teams. They make the game, and then the publishing houses slap on the DRM devices, the required service requirements, the play restrictions and so on. They're the ones destroying your gaming experience. Of that $60 price tag you pay, the Dev team sees about $5.
If you want to support the developers, pirate the stonking game and then cut the development house a check for $20. And then encourage your buddies to do the same.
Incidentally, as a PC user, my sources for preowned games have been eBay and Craigslist. But these days, I'm patient enough to wait until a game drops to a reasonable price. This also has the lovely side effect of ensuring those bugs that would be patched out, are.
U.
Hahaha love the comparison more than anything that's happened all day.Bosola said:
True, but I think the point is the purchase of the new game would be able to support the player that bought it. If that copy moves owner it's still one person; an uploaded copy multiples whereas a preowned game doesn'tUltratwinkie said:
I only buy used games because that's all I can generally afford. If I like the series, or really want to support the developer, I'll save up and will buy it new.
Also, buying a copy of a game means you can do almost anything you want with it. It's like buying any other form of art/entertainment media. that physical copy is yours to stomp on, lose, get stolen, or lend (or use, obviously). you can't reproduce it, or use it's data, in any professional (for money) way.
I just now realised that someone already said this, so yes, I did just pull a noob move
I appologise for the plagerism.
Also, buying a copy of a game means you can do almost anything you want with it. It's like buying any other form of art/entertainment media. that physical copy is yours to stomp on, lose, get stolen, or lend (or use, obviously). you can't reproduce it, or use it's data, in any professional (for money) way.
I just now realised that someone already said this, so yes, I did just pull a noob move
I appologise for the plagerism.
Normally I would stay out of this, but unfortunately the few people who have brought up the real point seem to have been ignored. None of you, on either side of this, have any sort of valid arguments:
When a game is made, a publisher orders what is known as a "Print Run". This is the sum total of copies of the game that have been ordered by retailers. Each and every copy of those games is then payed for by the individual retailers who will be selling the game. So if Walmart orders 250,00 copies of the game and Gamestop orders 100,00 and Best Buy orders 150,000, those retailers pay for all 500,000 copies of that game. They then sell those games for an amount that they agreed with the publisher would be a fair amount of profit (The MSRP, or Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price). If the game proves popular enough to sell out that first run, a "Second Print Run" is ordered and often times a new amount of payment per unit is negotiated. this second run can be more profitable than the first for the Publisher and the Development Houses, but not always. No matter what, both Publisher and Developer have received fair payment for ALL COPIES in circulation. Their current argument is merely an attempt to make slightly more out of their IP.
All that being said, I actually hope the game companies succeed. If I am thinking about buying a game used, I will factor any cost associated to play online into my decision and buy accordingly. Not rocket science here.
When a game is made, a publisher orders what is known as a "Print Run". This is the sum total of copies of the game that have been ordered by retailers. Each and every copy of those games is then payed for by the individual retailers who will be selling the game. So if Walmart orders 250,00 copies of the game and Gamestop orders 100,00 and Best Buy orders 150,000, those retailers pay for all 500,000 copies of that game. They then sell those games for an amount that they agreed with the publisher would be a fair amount of profit (The MSRP, or Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price). If the game proves popular enough to sell out that first run, a "Second Print Run" is ordered and often times a new amount of payment per unit is negotiated. this second run can be more profitable than the first for the Publisher and the Development Houses, but not always. No matter what, both Publisher and Developer have received fair payment for ALL COPIES in circulation. Their current argument is merely an attempt to make slightly more out of their IP.
All that being said, I actually hope the game companies succeed. If I am thinking about buying a game used, I will factor any cost associated to play online into my decision and buy accordingly. Not rocket science here.