the used games arguement is flawed

[Salem_Wolf]

I hear all this talk about used games, but what about video game rentals? Not trying to defend or attack anything, but I'm actually curious on the views of that. If Blockbuster, let's say, buys a few copies of the games and rents it out to dozens of people, how much of that profit is seen by the gaming company? Sure you could argue renting could lead people to buying the game later, but can't you just as well use that argument for piracy? And the same thing with GameFly, they purchase how many copies and rent maybe 10 times the amount they've purchased? Like I said, not trying to defend or attack anything, but I am curious on what people think on that.

I also like to say that this is on topic, since technically you're renting used games. So let's not question the validity of my discussion. But to be aligned perfectly with the topic, I don't typically support used game sales if the game is less than six months old or something, typically at that point you're saving maybe 5 bucks and I'd like to support the developers directly with a brand new sale instead of purchasing a game already sold. Now, if the game is hard to find, like I recently purchased Digital Devil Saga II used, then that's different, because a new copy will cost more money than I typically have to spend. It's a thin line with used games, and it often depends on the circumstances, but I try to support companies directly with a new sale than a used copy, only because they'd make more off the new than the used which, typically, I like to think will translate into a bad ass sequel.

Thin line, like I said, where do you cross and where do you not? I don't believe it's all black-and-white. Though I'm still curious what people think of renting.

 

[ItsAPaul]

When you get 5-6 figures for a car, you can probably afford to not care about who buys and sells that car. Apparently the developer/publisher's cut from new video games isn't enough to just let that game fly on and off Gamestop's shelves. Why you'd sell a game to Gamestop for 1/4 of the price so they can mark it $2 below the new version of the same game's price is beyond me, but apparently enough stupid people exist to keep Gamestop afloat doing just that.

 

[ItsAPaul]

When you get 5-6 figures for a car, you can probably afford to not care about who buys and sells that car. Apparently the developer/publisher's cut from new video games isn't enough to just let that game fly on and off Gamestop's shelves.

Ok, would you be more concerned if $20,000 went missing from your savings account or if $60 went missing?

Yeah, thought so. What was your argument again?

Used cars are okay, and while used games are legal and nothing can be done, they somehow aren't okay. I was pointing this out and you decided to make a retarded reference for some reason.

 

[halbarad]

Yes, we also believe in paying people for their work but not over and over again for a single copy. It sounds like you are saying that it's ok to buy, yet not own something. See, when you own it you don't owe anyone else money when you sell it.

As for calling me a thief. Grow up. Just because no one in the gaming industry likes the used market doesn't make it theft. If it were theft it would be illegal (like theft actually is).

BTW, if you don't know the true purpose of DRM (to kill the used market) then I suggest you do some web surfing. Did it ever occur to you that DRM doesn't actually stop pirates? Did you ever wonder why publishers keep putting money into DRM when it just doesn't stop pirates?

The reason is because DRM is not really designed to stop pirates, it's designed to stop the used game market.

It sounds like you really don't believe that, or at least the law doesn't.

I have to grow up? Well, due to my aggressive stance I can see your statement having a tiny base but the fact that you have failed to even comprehend post by myself and a number of other people, just chalking us down to being the games industries bitches would obviously lead people to be like that.
At least others were able to see both sides of the argument, you were only able to see your incorrect and highly flawed side.

You do realise that what you read from random people who say "THE TROOF BEHIND DRM IZ" aren't always correct?
It's been highly publicised by such as Ubisoft, EA, etc that the whole point of DRM is to attempt to squash pirach. DRM existed long before this little whining policy of having people who own a used copy of a game paying for extra.
New DRM on Blu-Ray films - http://filesharefreak.com/2010/03/03/cinavia-drm-aimed-to-stop-piracy-on-blu-ray-ps3s/

You sound like one of those nut-jobs who think that the US government caused 9/11 or that there's a secret world police trying to rule the world. There is no backhand 'destroy the second-hand market' crap going on. The industry fully admits it doesn't like it, that's why this new thing of items that only new-buyers can access has come about. DRM was around a LONG time before that - it is really not that hard to grasp.
-----

DRM on Dead Space [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Space_(video_game)#DRM] Something else to consider: It was a financial success [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Space_(video_game)#Reception] Dead Space was a commercial success as well, with EA CFO Eric Brown confirming 1 million sales in 2008 across three platforms

Mirror's Edge was unique, but it lost points for repetition, a bad story, and no true freedom in the levels other than preordained paths. Even the director of ME said that it was something he felt they could have done better on. Regardless, it is getting a sequel. Perhaps they can clear that up. But telling me that because someone bought it used that it is killing EA is truly a lot to swallow.

Bit of light reading :
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/02/04/dead-space-mirrors-edge-pass-1m-unit-sales-left-4-dead-nears/

Both mirrors edge and Dead Space have sold in the long run across all formats. Dead Space was an easy investment for some, it was just a 'horror' shooter with a few interesting points in, people know that. Mirrors Edge got good reviews but still suffered due to the fact people weren't sure because it's a completely new game, unique in every way making comparisons impossible. I'll be honest, the only reason I bought it first was because I wanted to support EA in their breaking the industries trend of making samey games over and over again.

I'm not saying the one sale is killing a company, it's obviously a combination of factors - which I have clearly stated. Loss of revenue due to pre-owned sales can hit very hard.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=246073
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=261330
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=247171

From the middle link - ""I don't think we really care whether used game buyers are upset because new game buyers get everything. So if used game buyers are upset they don't get the online feature set I don't really have much sympathy for them."

"That's a little blunt but we hope it doesn't disappoint people. We hope people understand that when the game's bought used we get cheated," he continued."

Shenanigans. It distorts your argument by trying to attack the person. Basically it's bad form in a debate by trying to hit a person "below the belt" so to speak. The question is, why should anyone believe you if you have to resort to calling someone thief for their own personal decisions? That's the part that makes no sense.

The thief thing I still stand by. Maybe thief is too much of a word, but people are knowingly taking from the industry and then complaining when it doesn't like it is just wrong. Ask anybody who works in the industry and we always say that it's damaging.

Oh they do, but the thing is, they're attacking the DVR at the current moment because the DVD has been an established market for 10+ years. It's almost as funny to watch them attack digital recording as it is the RIAA trying to put in 3 strikes rules in the US.

They are against it. But my statement was that they don't rely solely on the DVD market.
I'm against used anyway, in any format, I've made that abundantly clear. I only buy used when there is no 'new' option.

Since you're pulling up God of War-like numbers, let's link to that: Linkage [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98960-God-of-War-III-Developed-for-44-Million]

Part of the large budget may have something to do with the amount of people that worked on God of War III, which Hight said was a "shocker" to him. God of War took roughly 30 people to create, God of War II took around 60, but God of War III was completed with the efforts of no less than 132 separate human entities. Why so many? Hight reveals: "The biggest area that we grew was graphics, on the art side.

So no, that's not normal except for AAA games such as God of War. Most games have less staff and less of a budget to produce a fun game. Ex: Steam produces fairly good games with ~30 people employed full time. Epic Games is larger so is on par with God of War with their games. We won't get into Activision or Ubisoft since they're similar to Epic and Sony. Now you have to understand the deals that these big guys tend to do. For the first 60 days, most of the revenue (say... 35%) goes to the developer. After those 60 days, as the game sells, it goes to the publisher in a higher percentage. So the publisher makes more money than the developer for a game as they use the proceeds to fund their next game. But that's all with the publisher and developer who have little, if any control on how a game is received. All this explains numbers far more than used sales. Greatly received games give more profits to the developer, poorly received games fill up Gamestop. (Just to clarify, Beyond Good and Evil is a great game, but I can now buy it used for much cheaper than I could new. Where do you think my incentive lies?)[/quote]
I was using moderately high numbers to make the point clearer. I can make the same argument with small numbers though.
If a game costs 3 million to make, sells 2.4 million then another 1 million in sales, it still loses 0.6 million. The point is, the used industry is still taking away from the industry which does prevent future games having the funding, then we have people whining like crazy about that future game maybe not even being made while saying that the company has the money so it should just make it.

Where is the incentive for EA, Ubisoft, Valve, Taleworlds, insert any dev/pub, large or small, to make a game if all they're going to do is lose? It is there to make games that people enjoy but nothing is free and as a result it is an industry as well. That's what the other person isn't accepting and you haven't said anything on that point yet, but I assume you will see that point because you appear more logical.

All fairness though, I see games with great and those with crappy reception littering game stores. The problem now is that the used-game market is bigger than the new because people are buying used more than new (when it comes to consoles). At least that's the case in the UK.

Also, there's still a number of games that retail for $60 here, for PS3 that are 3 years old. Price differentiation is something the publishers really need to work on.

That's up to the pub. Activision, for example, pushed stores to keep the price of CoD4 high, they always will if the game is still selling.

Amen. DRM has always been the wrong answer to an imagined problem.

Oh yeah, I fully admit that it's the wrong answer and that the problem with piracy was never high enough to risk the problems with consumers. EA have got the right idea though, these incentives to get the game new are punishing both pirates and people with used copies and this will be spreading to all games, believe me.

Don't think he was either.

Really sounds like it, with the whole "I bought the game... not from them but I want them to give me everything". They don't owe him anything since he hasn't bought the game from them, that's my point and there's no disputing it.

Gaming isn't about "screwing" people out of their work. A few things that some people can do is give away their game (League of Legends, DnD Online, Dungeon Fighter Online...) away but charge for other things. There's plenty of free to play games as well as other ways to make a buck. So if you're on about one business model aspect, you should look into others. Nothing says I'm entitled to give MY money to a developer of a game just because the game is at Walmart. If Gamestop offers it for 25% less, then I'm going to respond to that incentive. It's the same as people choosing a Ford Focus over a Mercedes because the cost is higher.

Part of it is getting there. There are different business models but they don't always work, simply because it's impossible to match them.
A single player game can't take from the whole F2P models because it has no competition factor that keeps those going as they are about competing with other people.

My argument isn't about your entitlement to give money away. My argument is about the dev's entitlement for recompense for their hard work. Not everybody believes it but even those who buy used can still see how it can damage things, but for some it's hard to justify buying new when they haven't always got the cash for it - at least they see the argument. Then there are others who buy used and expect the world without even thinking about the other side of the argument.

 

[TPiddy]

I wasn't trying to rip on you. Maybe there should be a percentage cap for how much you can sell the same item used compared to the new one in the same store. I usually buy from people so I didn't know much about used stores policies. Upon investigation, EbGames here is selling GTA 4 for 3$ less than new, which they also carry. That's reason enough not to shop there too much/anymore.

Oh yeah, EBGames / Gamestop are evil. I would never go there, outside of the fact that I get such good value from trade-ins. I traded in Dragon Age:Origins and got Dragon Age:Awakenings straight up. Most recently, traded in Alan Wake and Crackdown 2 and got Halo: Reach straight up. I get a couple of games a year as gifts, but I can turn them into 2-3 more just through trade-ins alone. I buy, on average, 3-4 games at full-price per year.

Yeah I know it's not good for the developer but really, as a consumer if the market is there for it, why not save money?

 

[Krantos]

I came up with another reason for the "Enjoying the game" =/= "Owning the game."

My wife plays the same games that I do (Yeah, I'm that lucky). Should we have to buy two separate disks for each game just because there are two of us in the household who play the game?

If you counter with the argument that it's the household that Owns/gets to enjoy the game, what about if a friend comes over and wants to play? Does that violate rights?

What about if I take it over to a friend's house? Does that violate it because it left the household?

What about games that incorporate splitscreen? That's two (or more) people enjoying the same game simultaneously. Should devs stop incorporating it because it violates rights?

Clearly "enjoying" is not the same as "owning." When a game is purchased, what is purchased is the right to own that particular disk(s). When a person sells their used game, they're selling their right to own that game. At the end of the day 1 person still owns the game that was paid for. It hasn't morphed into two games. By switching hands it hasn't multiplied, it's still one game with one owner.

To paraphrase what I said a couple pages back, the Industry only has itself to blame for the Used Games Issue. They tried to bolster their sales (and succeeded) by turning the console market into a more disposable venue. People "finish" a game and they're done with it. That means they need a new one. That in turn means more revenue for the Industry.

I can't believe that in the entire group of industry professionals, no one realized that people would not keep their "finished" games. Thus I can only assume that they knew about it and accepted it, but are now trying to stonewall it by claiming rights violations that make no sense when you think about them.

It's not the gamestore's fault (they just rip off gamers, not the industry). It's not the consumer's fault. It's the industry's fault for developing games that people don't want to keep long term. They know this, I'm sure. What this is, is an attempt to increase profits. Nothing else.

 

[Pimptimus_Prime]

How many people here are actually under the assumption that a game company isn't payed for it's work until a game is purchased off the shelf? That all these stores are being kind enough to hold their games on commission? The game publisher has been payed for every copy of every game you have ever seen on a shelf. Game Developers are usually payed a lump sum by the publishing company before the game is even done being transfered on to disks. It's just that simple.

Does anyone here think Valve started Steam because it was more convenient for the end consumer, or even as a means for DRM? It was started so that they receive all of the profit from games it sells through the system. It comes down not to turning a profit, but to turning MORE of a profit.

Say I have a development house, Ghettobot Games. We make a new FPS called Bad Ass Game (BAG). We shop around for publishers to release our game: That means we look for the company willing to give us the most for our game, then it becomes their burden to print the game on to disks, distribute it to national retailers, foot the bill for advertising, and ship the copies to retail outlets. Usually in these deals there is some sort of bonus for the developer if the game sells over a certain amount, and that amount is also usually the amount of copies that need to be sold before the Publisher will print to disk new copies of the game.

So let's say EA picks up BAG, they pay Ghettobot Games $10 million, and we are pretty much done with the process. For all intents and purposes, EA owns BAG. EA then contacts the retail outlets that sell the game worldwide, Walmart, Best Buy, Gamestop, Toy 'R' Us, etc., etc., and negotiate the amount of copies of BAG they are willing to purchase.

Let me repeat this for effect: All of the retail outlets BUY copies of the game.

So let's say our negotiators do a bang up job and EA gets an average of $20 a copy (an unrealistic, highballed number but it's my fake game, and it's just that damned good.). Now let's say EA distribute $5 million copies world wide, meaning EA just made $100 million, before factoring in TV commercials, Magazine articles, Payola Reviews in Magazines and Websites, and the shipping costs to get the game out to the Distribution Centers of the companies they just sold copies to.

I am again going to repeat myself for emphasis here: EA just SOLD 5 million PHYSICAL copies of the game to retailers.

From this point on, the Developer and Publisher have been payed their fair due for ALL copies of the game "In the Wild". The problem at this point is companies that are willing to buy used copies are going to order less new copies of the games if they feel they will have a decent turn around on copies, lowering the profit margin the Publisher receives.

The problem isn't that we buy or sell our USED games, it's that less NEW games are ordered by a select few companies, primarily Gamestop. Unfortunately, Gamestop has become big enough that when they decide to order less NEW games, that can be a decent chunk of change. Nothing worrying just yet, but Walmart and Best Buy both tried to implement a Used Game trade in System over the course of the last year. Both failed, but the video game companies noticed, and have been scrambling for a way to protect themselves. They are acting out of fear and aren't thinking about how the people who buy games will react.


I have been playing games a long time, and remember when online multiplayer didn't exist. I also remember when it was introduced and single player NEVER suffered for it. It was a gift or an afterthought. On occasion it was added a pay content, and if you liked the game enough it was worth it. Now it seems that if a game has no multiplayer it is panned as incomplete but if a game's single player suffers because multiplayer was added and drained funding from the main game. I personally would like to see more games that are released as single player and/or local co-op/multiplayer, and you can purchase multiplayer as DLC. Then if a company wants to give out free codes to enable multiplayer, it's value added, not robbing people of things they think they are entitled to.

It's also what game companies are talking about doing to make more money off of used copies of games. Not making up for losses for used games: MAKING MORE MONEY OFF OF USED GAMES... You know, what with them having received full compensation for all copies of the game already.

 

[Catalyst6]

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"

You're assuming that buying a used car is just as good at buying a new one, though.

A car degrades, unlike a game, which is the key fact. You can buy and sell a single copy of the game a virtually infinite time without it degrading at all (except for disk scratches, etc, that comes with improper storage), which means that buying used is in no way inferior to buying new. A car, or any other product for that matter, degrades over time which makes buying used risky, or at least the product will be inferior to what it was originally. Thus, there is a market for new in most products. But not games.

Yes, the used games industry does parasite off the genius and work of other people. I compare it to books of poetry where the long-dead writer's work is bound together by someone else and then sold by that person, and the person pockets the money. It's not technically stealing, but it's still a dick move.

Still, it's more a question if you care.