If we were talking about a privately owned business where you can sell/trade games, is that considered criminal too? Or does the blame rest solely on Gamestop?
the used games arguement is flawed
- Thread starter crimsonshrouds
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I dont see the problem here, If they remove features from preowned games, gamestop has to sell the preowned game cheaper because its not a whole game.
I get the game even cheaper than before and everyone is happy, no?
I get the game even cheaper than before and everyone is happy, no?
It's not like there exists any legislative or logical entitlement for a Creator of goods to reap every profit of what is their Creation when it has gone out of their hand and exchanged owners.Fiend Dragon said:
It's interesting to see yet another paradigm shift. Or perhaps the defendants are just not online right now.
I completely agree with this. If developers are concerned about a lack of sales, it should suggest to them that the game they've made isnt good enough for people to either buy in the first place or keepRowdyRodimus said:
If a game is released that only lasts five or six hours, with a strong emphasis on multiplayer, then there will always be people who don't really care about the multiplayer, so once they complete the game (in a very short space of time) there is little incentive for them to keep it, especially if those five or six hours weren't even that great
Similarly, developers don't lose any money in terms of multiplayer from used game sales. They just don't gain as much as they want. If I go out and buy a used copy of Modern Warfare 2, for example, I would be able to play it online, taking the place of the original buyer of the game. So there is one game, and one person playing online. No loss, just no additional profit
For me, I think that a reasonable solution to the 'problem' of used games, would be to make games DLC-heavy, but release them new for a lot less money. This would solve the issue of developers not making money from used game sales, as people could still buy the DLC and give money to the developers. It would also be better for the customer, as you have to pay less money for a new game; if you like it, then you can pay some money for extra content for the game, if you don't like it then it's less of a loss than it currently is. Also, this system could be used for mulitplayer, so that the game you buy new from the shop is single-player, and you can buy the multi-player aspects if that's what appeals to you
Obviously there are a few flaws to this idea,but I like to think that in principle it's a reasonable solution
I don't really understand people that find buying used games wrong. Mainly because how is it any different to buying anything else used?! You know, cars, Tvs, PCs, books, clothes and what not... unless of course you find that wrong as well, do you people?! So why are games so... er, special?!
Oh boy, this old chestnut again? Oh well, let's cover the bases:
The "Developers get nothing from the second hand sale" argument. There are two respones I have to this:
Response 1: Same goes for EVERY used item industry EVER. Why should games get special treatment?
Response 2: Why should I care? Arguing that publishers and developers want to make money is all well and good, but in the end it's simply Capitalism. So why am I not allowed to be a capitalist as well? They want to make money, I want to save money. Why should I feel bad about wanting to keep my profit? Why should their bottom line be more important to me than my own? And if there's a legal way for me to get games that saves me money, why shouldn't I take it? The "They need money" argument cuts both ways. You can't have just the half that serves your point.
- - -
However, here's some ammo for the other side as well:
The reason games are different than cars is that there is minimal (if any) loss of value due to it being used. Used cars are cheaper, but they are also worn, torn, smell funny, etc. Used clothes are worn, used books might be damaged. Used games either work (no loss of value) or they don't (in which case you return them and demand your money back). There is no downside to buying used. That is also why second hand dealers can sell used games at almost the same price as new ones.
This is also the logic behind EA's "Project $10", with one-use codes in new copies of games. They are trying to create an artificial "decay" of value of the used product as well as bring in some money from those sales. Personally, I support that idea and think it's far better than just ripping people off on overpriced DLC later on (which EA also does, but that's another matter).
- - -
Finally, comparing Piracy to Used game trade:
Are you serious? Legality aside... no, wait, you can't just say "Legality aside". Used games are LEGAL. Saying people shouldn't sell their old games is saying that those people don't have any rights as customers and consumers. It's saying they are simply paying for a VERY expensive rental. It's also spitting in the face of the very concept of ownership.
Gaming industry needs to get over itself on MANY levels...
The "Developers get nothing from the second hand sale" argument. There are two respones I have to this:
Response 1: Same goes for EVERY used item industry EVER. Why should games get special treatment?
Response 2: Why should I care? Arguing that publishers and developers want to make money is all well and good, but in the end it's simply Capitalism. So why am I not allowed to be a capitalist as well? They want to make money, I want to save money. Why should I feel bad about wanting to keep my profit? Why should their bottom line be more important to me than my own? And if there's a legal way for me to get games that saves me money, why shouldn't I take it? The "They need money" argument cuts both ways. You can't have just the half that serves your point.
- - -
However, here's some ammo for the other side as well:
The reason games are different than cars is that there is minimal (if any) loss of value due to it being used. Used cars are cheaper, but they are also worn, torn, smell funny, etc. Used clothes are worn, used books might be damaged. Used games either work (no loss of value) or they don't (in which case you return them and demand your money back). There is no downside to buying used. That is also why second hand dealers can sell used games at almost the same price as new ones.
This is also the logic behind EA's "Project $10", with one-use codes in new copies of games. They are trying to create an artificial "decay" of value of the used product as well as bring in some money from those sales. Personally, I support that idea and think it's far better than just ripping people off on overpriced DLC later on (which EA also does, but that's another matter).
- - -
Finally, comparing Piracy to Used game trade:
Are you serious? Legality aside... no, wait, you can't just say "Legality aside". Used games are LEGAL. Saying people shouldn't sell their old games is saying that those people don't have any rights as customers and consumers. It's saying they are simply paying for a VERY expensive rental. It's also spitting in the face of the very concept of ownership.
Gaming industry needs to get over itself on MANY levels...
Yup.Alandoril said:
I cannot fathom why people would support the games industry on this. If you buy something legally you are then the owner of that item. What you choose to do with this item is entirely up to you.
2nd hand games trading has been going on since the dawn of time. Companies are only getting on their high horse now because these days they spend too much making shitty crap that's half finished and nobody wants to own once they realise. Stop spending gazillions of $s on crap and focus on making games people will want to keep...
I think the biggest problem with used games is that it is a five dollar difference most of time. It strikes me as ridiculous that the people who buy it at the price $55 for a used game would be completely against paying for a $60 new game if the used option was unavailable.
legally though, aren't all ownership rights given to the person who buys a new copy of a game when they actually buy it? Wouldn't it be their legal right to sell it off used as they have total ownership of the copy of the game. If this is true, and held to the letter, then game companies restricting access to content on the disk after it has been sold used would infringe on the ownership rights of the person who bought it new. When they bought it, it became their legal property 100% and it is their right to sell the game in it's entirety. Companies that restrict content are infringing on the ownership rights of the original owner, that were transferred to the second owner when the game is sold used. Perhaps we'll see a lawsuit on this issue in the future...
This is exactly it. The markdown is not enough. Movies start out at the theatre, where they are typically $12 - $15 a ticket, then they come out on demand or for rent at about $7, and then they later they start becoming free on TV. They have a graduated pricing model. Games stay the same damn price for way too long!auronvi said:
MW 2 is still over $50 pretty much everywhere I go. Brutal Legend, new, I got for $20 from Future Shop. And I liked it. Left 4 Dead 2 I got new, on special, for $40. The games industry is doing this to itself. They need the Gamestops and EBs of the world to distribute, but at the same time they have created a niche that Gamestop will happily fill and must fill in order to remain in business.
There are a couple of inherent problems with the current model:
1. Used games are indistinguishable in quality from new games.
2. Used games are available pretty much 1-2 weeks after the new version was released.
3. New game prices are so high that people are very picky about what they buy. New movies are around $20. Much less thought goes into what you will and will not spend $20 on than what you will or will not spend $60 on.
Well, it is legal, but many companies now are locking access to online play if you buy used, making you pay extra for it. If the game is sold largely based on its online feature this is just unfair. It'd be like selling Avatar but making you pay extra for the 3D if you bought it used.Su.zaku said:
It's about experience. Only way to control that is to enforce some sort of central authorization. Ways to do that properly is an another discussion. But you certainly can't compare used games to piracy. It's just a way of admitting they can't think of anything else.
This. One of the reasons I buy games preowned is because I dont want to pay $65 for a game Im going to play once. Therefore I wait til the game goes down in price, this takes time and more often than not the preowned games gets lower price faster.TPiddy said:
Developer ships out copy of game. Person A buys game new, developer makes money. Person A plays game and sells game back to store. Person B wants game, but doesn't want to spend as much money.
Option A: Buy used game. Store makes money, developer doesn't.
Option B: Pirate game. No one makes money.
Either way, the developer doesn't stand to make any money. It doesn't matter what happens to a used game because the developer already made all the money they possibly could off of it. Buying a game used doesn't have any effect on whether it was sold new because a used game can only be bought after it was already sold new. Therefore, buying a used game is equal to piracy in regards to the developer.
Option A: Buy used game. Store makes money, developer doesn't.
Option B: Pirate game. No one makes money.
Either way, the developer doesn't stand to make any money. It doesn't matter what happens to a used game because the developer already made all the money they possibly could off of it. Buying a game used doesn't have any effect on whether it was sold new because a used game can only be bought after it was already sold new. Therefore, buying a used game is equal to piracy in regards to the developer.
OK, I'm not going to look through the last 3 pages to see if anyone else did this already, but here it goes.
Specifically, I'm addressing the argument that buying used means that 2 people enjoyed the game but the company only got paid for one.
-Person 1 buys the game for full price (lets assume $60). By doing so they have purchased the right to own the game.
-Then they sell it to Person 2 for $30, which in turn transfers their right to own to Person 2. Person 1 no longer has the right to own the game.
-They've received $30 of their Original $60 back, so they paid $30 to play the game but no longer have the right to own it.
-Person 2 paid $30 to play it and own it, but now it's used, which significantly lowers it's perceived value.
-Together Persons 1 & 2 paid $60 for the game. That means that one person is allowed to own the game.
-Person 2 has the right to own the game. Person 1 does not. All that has happened is that the price was divided between two people rather than one person paying for all of it.
I think where a lot of people are stumbling here is the misconception that "enjoying" a game is the same as owning it. It's not. If I lend a game to my friend for a weekend, should he have to pay the devs for it? No.
Having the right to own means that you keep it in your possession permanently unless you sell that right. Once sold, you no longer have that right. That means that selling your used games is legal. Copying them and selling the copies is not.
Personally, I think this argument is funny. Not so much what people say, but where it came from.
Developers and Publishers LOVE the console market, because gamers play a game for a while, then shelve it for a new one. That means that they're almost always looking for a new game. That's a ton of money for the game's industry.
Unfortunately for the games industry, they failed to consider the downside to this - Console gamers see no need to own a game long term. Owning it for a month or two is usually enough. That means that rather than let their games collect dust, they sell them to recoup their losses.
So the industry is placed in a difficult position. The very economic model that garners so many new sales also yields increased trade in used games.
So what do they do? Do they accept it as a part of the process? Do they welcome the chance to target more and more audiences when people who wouldn't have purchased the game at full price buy it used instead (btw, contrary to belief this can be good, if the game is good, because it can bring in new fans)? Do they start developing games with more long term appeal so that people don't want to sell them?
No. They piss and moan and try to claim that it violates their rights.
This is only an issue because of the mainstreaming of games and the generally disposable nature of console games. It would not be an issue if people had a reason to keep games, but the very disposable nature of console games is what the developers want because it keeps demand up.
In short, the used games controversy only exists because the industry wants the best of both worlds. They want gamers to continually purchase new games, but they don't want them getting rid of their old ones. They can't have both. At least not without some really stupid legislation.
Oh, and btw.
Ahem - STOP TRADING AT GAMESTOP (or similar retailers). SELL/BUY ONLINE FROM OTHER PEOPLE. IT WILL SAVE YOU MONEY.
Seriously, the buyer gets the game for less than the stores sell them, and the seller gets more than the stores will buy them for.
Specifically, I'm addressing the argument that buying used means that 2 people enjoyed the game but the company only got paid for one.
-Person 1 buys the game for full price (lets assume $60). By doing so they have purchased the right to own the game.
-Then they sell it to Person 2 for $30, which in turn transfers their right to own to Person 2. Person 1 no longer has the right to own the game.
-They've received $30 of their Original $60 back, so they paid $30 to play the game but no longer have the right to own it.
-Person 2 paid $30 to play it and own it, but now it's used, which significantly lowers it's perceived value.
-Together Persons 1 & 2 paid $60 for the game. That means that one person is allowed to own the game.
-Person 2 has the right to own the game. Person 1 does not. All that has happened is that the price was divided between two people rather than one person paying for all of it.
I think where a lot of people are stumbling here is the misconception that "enjoying" a game is the same as owning it. It's not. If I lend a game to my friend for a weekend, should he have to pay the devs for it? No.
Having the right to own means that you keep it in your possession permanently unless you sell that right. Once sold, you no longer have that right. That means that selling your used games is legal. Copying them and selling the copies is not.
Personally, I think this argument is funny. Not so much what people say, but where it came from.
Developers and Publishers LOVE the console market, because gamers play a game for a while, then shelve it for a new one. That means that they're almost always looking for a new game. That's a ton of money for the game's industry.
Unfortunately for the games industry, they failed to consider the downside to this - Console gamers see no need to own a game long term. Owning it for a month or two is usually enough. That means that rather than let their games collect dust, they sell them to recoup their losses.
So the industry is placed in a difficult position. The very economic model that garners so many new sales also yields increased trade in used games.
So what do they do? Do they accept it as a part of the process? Do they welcome the chance to target more and more audiences when people who wouldn't have purchased the game at full price buy it used instead (btw, contrary to belief this can be good, if the game is good, because it can bring in new fans)? Do they start developing games with more long term appeal so that people don't want to sell them?
No. They piss and moan and try to claim that it violates their rights.
This is only an issue because of the mainstreaming of games and the generally disposable nature of console games. It would not be an issue if people had a reason to keep games, but the very disposable nature of console games is what the developers want because it keeps demand up.
In short, the used games controversy only exists because the industry wants the best of both worlds. They want gamers to continually purchase new games, but they don't want them getting rid of their old ones. They can't have both. At least not without some really stupid legislation.
Oh, and btw.
Ahem - STOP TRADING AT GAMESTOP (or similar retailers). SELL/BUY ONLINE FROM OTHER PEOPLE. IT WILL SAVE YOU MONEY.
Seriously, the buyer gets the game for less than the stores sell them, and the seller gets more than the stores will buy them for.