Used games

[Cyfu]

What do you guys think of used games?

Jim sterling, who supports used games, have made a videos on the matter

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7370-When-The-Starscreams-Kill-Used-Games?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

and I think he made another, but I can't find it (If someone knows which episode that is please tell me so I can add it here for easy access)

Here's total buscuit's video, who does not support used games.


So what do you think? Who do you agree with?

 

[Sassafrass]

Used games make up half of my current 360 library, so I love them. If you ever find me in a game shop, you'll find me nose deep in the bargain bins, looking for cheap games I may have missed before.

 

[CaptQuakers]

Used games hurt the industry quite a bit, If you go into a store they try and push the used games.

I can't see this being a big issue after all most of my games will be digital downloads ( If rumors are to be believed) So hopefully it will be a lot cheaper than current prices. But if that is not the case I can see me having less games but not really being that bothered by it, The only time I buy used games is when I am not sure if I will like it or not but there are always other ways to find out if I might like it or not.

 

[Rofl Harris]

So what do you think? Who do you agree with?

Neither. Both are lacking data to back up their assertions.

For every person who would in the absence of used games buy a brand new game, but instead buys used, that's one less sale for the industry. Used games do not only not contribute anything to the industry (as far as I am aware?), they detract from the potential value of the market by reducing consumption and driving down prices.

Jim says: "Do you know why Gamestop aggressively hawks (as Ben puts it) second hand games? Because publishers take the lion's share of new sales."

No, they do it because it is profitable to do so. Gamestop are a company out to make money just as Microsoft and EA are. Jim's videos are always heavily biased, and making Gamestop out as an innocent victim of a rampantly capitalist corporation here is no exception.

Additionally, the guy who reckons prices brand new will fall in the absence of the used market is deluded in my opinion (I guess most people would agree with that), if you're going to make bold claims like that you need some evidence to back it up.

 

[Rofl Harris]

digital downloads ... So hopefully it will be a lot cheaper than current prices.

I'm sceptical that this will be the case sadly. This will only be so if there is some competition available, as Jim says. The infrastructure may not support competitors.

 

[CaptQuakers]

Additionally, the guy who reckons prices brand new will fall in the absence of the used market is deluded in my opinion (I guess most people would agree with that), if you're going to make bold claims like that you need some evidence to back it up.

He is just making an assumption after what happened with Pc gaming after the Steam release. I hope it's true but don't see it

digital downloads ... So hopefully it will be a lot cheaper than current prices.

I'm sceptical that this will be the case sadly. This will only be so if there is some competition available, as Jim says. The infrastructure may not support competitors.

Yeah I don't see it either but if the brick and mortar stores disappear and just use codes then it might happen, But I doubt it as well

 

[DoPo]

For every person who would in the absence of used games buy a brand new game, but instead buys used, that's one less sale for the industry.

*sigh* no, it's not that easy. It's the same with piracy measurements - one copy pirated/bought second hand is not one sale lost. It's a partially lost sale - out of 100 people maybe 30 or 70 or another number would have bought the game new, if there was no other choice for getting it. If people really had the money to buy everything new then wouldn't they, you know, do it more?

Used games do not only not contribute anything to the industry (as far as I am aware?)

Advertisement. There are numerous people who got into series, or genre, or developer or something, some even into gaming in general, because they got a cheap second hand game first to show them the way in.

they detract from the potential value of the market by reducing consumption and driving down prices.

Except... driving the prices down isn't that bad. And finally

 

[Rofl Harris]

Yeah I don't see it either but if the brick and mortar stores disappear and just use codes then it might happen, But I doubt it as well

The overheads will come down substantially, all across the board, but without competition there'll be no impetus to pass that on to consumers. The energy market in the UK is a prime example of how savings do not get passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices, and for the digital aspect check how much you save by buying a digital Kindle book these days. The initial low price was used as a hook to get people to buy the e-reader but now there's very little difference in prices. With the added downside you can't sell the book on or give it to your girlfriend to read.

 

[Smooth Operator]

It's a product I bought and I do with it what I want, this isn't just my opinion this is my countries law and any company preventing me from doing so is doing it illegally.

And I really can't see how TB would understand the issue, by his own claim he is rolling in cash and review copies are thrown at him left and right (more then he has time to review)... he really couldn't be less qualified to consider the aspect of game costs.

 

[Stinovitch]

Actually I'm on neither side and I can understand both point of views. Limiting the games to one account only is kind of a sad thing since I can remember the fun I had while playing a game I took to friend's house. They're actually taking what I consider the best thing of a console away, namely the fact that you could play one game on different consoles. But it does indeed hurt the industry by buying used games en masse, because they don't get any money from those sales. That's also why I didn't think the online pass was such a bad idea. Like total buscuit said, you're paying for the online service the creators provide.

No, they do it because it is profitable to do so. Gamestop are a company out to make money just as Microsoft and EA are. Jim's videos are always heavily biased, and making Gamestop out as an innocent victim of a rampantly capitalist corporation here is no exception.

I actually agree with this. Gamestop is a big company and it just like Microsoft or EA they're trying to make profit and they're actually hurting the industry by not sharing the profit they make by selling those used games.

 

[CaptQuakers]

Used games do not only not contribute anything to the industry (as far as I am aware?)

Advertisement. There are numerous people who got into series, or genre, or developer or something, some even into gaming in general, because they got a cheap second hand game first to show them the way in.

Hmm whilst good I think Youtube does a good enough job to negate this benefit when it comes to introducing people to games, The getting people into gaming is a great point though

Yeah I don't see it either but if the brick and mortar stores disappear and just use codes then it might happen, But I doubt it as well

The overheads will come down substantially, all across the board, but without competition there'll be no impetus to pass that on to consumers. The energy market in the UK is a prime example of how savings do not get passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices, and for the digital aspect check how much you save by buying a digital Kindle book these days. The initial low price was used as a hook to get people to buy the e-reader but now there's very little difference in
prices. With the added downside you can't sell the book on or give it to your girlfriend to read.

True but if all games stores go to online only ( I.e just selling codes) then a lot of other stores could pop up and make it a real market, In the Uk we have one major game store (GAME) and a few little ones. If the smaller stores didn't have the massive overheads we would see them expand and hopefully begin to sell games a lot cheaper.

 

[Cyfu]

So what do you think? Who do you agree with?

Neither. Both are lacking data to back up their assertions.

For every person who would in the absence of used games buy a brand new game, but instead buys used, that's one less sale for the industry. Used games do not only not contribute anything to the industry (as far as I am aware?), they detract from the potential value of the market by reducing consumption and driving down prices.

Jim says: "Do you know why Gamestop aggressively hawks (as Ben puts it) second hand games? Because publishers take the lion's share of new sales."

No, they do it because it is profitable to do so. Gamestop are a company out to make money just as Microsoft and EA are. Jim's videos are always heavily biased, and making Gamestop out as an innocent victim of a rampantly capitalist corporation here is no exception.

Additionally, the guy who reckons prices brand new will fall in the absence of the used market is deluded in my opinion (I guess most people would agree with that), if you're going to make bold claims like that you need some evidence to back it up.

Yeah, There are some things that we just don't know. But I still think the quote from Jim is still valid. If I remember correctly the manager of game said that when they sold a new PS3 Game only got 4 pounds out of 400. If this is the case with games as well I would understand Game and GameStop on how they go about gamesales. I mean just as Publishers and developers want money the retailers want their fair share as well. altohugh, I'm not sure if this is the case.

 

[BeeGeenie]

I support used games because publishers charge too much for games, just because they can.

Unless they're stupid and spend millions of dollars on a mega-blockbuster, expecting every person in the free world to buy it just because they spent the yearly budget of a small country to make it.

But then, who would do something that stupid?

If the gaming industry had realistic expectations they would make affordable games that people actually want to buy at the retail price. If you can't afford to buy new, you buy used. It's that simple.

It's the game developers' own fault for ignoring the demographic that prefers a reasonably priced good time. That's why the mobile and indie market, and GOG.com are kicking so much @$$ lately. They filled the niche that the AAA industry thinks it's too good for.

 

[Rofl Harris]

*sigh* no, it's not that easy. It's the same with piracy measurements - one copy pirated/bought second hand is not one sale lost. It's a partially lost sale - out of 100 people maybe 30 or 70 or another number would have bought the game new, if there was no other choice for getting it. If people really had the money to buy everything new then wouldn't they, you know, do it more?

Please don't sigh like I'm a schoolboy and you're a dismissive headteacher, it's rude. If you read the comment properly you'd realise I'd factored that in. "For every person who *would in the absence of used games buy a brand new game*, but instead buys used, that's one less sale for the industry."

Advertisement. There are numerous people who got into series, or genre, or developer or something, some even into gaming in general, because they got a cheap second hand game first to show them the way in.

I hardly think the amount of advertising generated from this would make up for the loss of revenue if the used sales weren't there. I think people that buy used games in the first place generally buy used games as standard subsequently (I do myself for 90% of the games I buy), why would I buy new when the used one is just as good? The games I'm buying used really do nothing for the developers and publishers. The only people who win are the retailer (who don't really add value at all, they're leeching from intellectual property) and me, the consumer.

Except... driving the prices down isn't that bad.

It is for the market. It's up to the publishers to determine what price results in the greatest amount of profit. Selling 100 at £10 profit is better than selling 20 at £20 profit. But that's how best to work the market. The drop in prices because of used games isn't good for the market, it's only good for consumers.

And finally...

I don't think it's really on to demand citations from me while your retort offers no such evidence either. I think the points I've made make sense, and I think it is reasonable to expect game journalists to provide some sort of data to back up the opinion they're voicing, seeing as it's their job.

 

[sethisjimmy]

I can't really think of a reason why you'd be against them unless you work for a large publisher. Games are meant to be recycled. It's a gigantic consumerist, materialist waste to let a game I'm finished playing or don't want to play sit on my shelf until the end of time when it is perfectly servicable for others to enjoy.

Gamestop has stated that 75% of all their used games sales go right back into new products in the same store, fueling industry growth. Now that's a company that makes over 50% of their profits FROM used games, so take it with a grain of salt.

BUT, you'd have to be a fool not to realize that a large amount of used games sales profits go to gamers, who have this strange habit of actually buying more games with their money! Huh, who would have thought?

 

[Rofl Harris]

Advertisement. There are numerous people who got into series, or genre, or developer or something, some even into gaming in general, because they got a cheap second hand game first to show them the way in.

Exactly. There's always a good chance that someone buys a used title and enjoys it enough to buy an expansion or sequel.

...from Gamestop?

 

[Rofl Harris]

True but if all games stores go to online only ( I.e just selling codes) then a lot of other stores could pop up and make it a real market, In the Uk we have one major game store (GAME) and a few little ones. If the smaller stores didn't have the massive overheads we would see them expand and hopefully begin to sell games a lot cheaper.

And that, in my opinion is the key. So long as there's infrastructure available to allow competition to flourish, that's great for us consumers if the used market is closed off.

 

[DoPo]

Advertisement. There are numerous people who got into series, or genre, or developer or something, some even into gaming in general, because they got a cheap second hand game first to show them the way in.

Exactly. There's always a good chance that someone buys a used title and enjoys it enough to buy an expansion or sequel.

And there are even more modern monetization methods - microtransactions (when in not F2P games), DLC (though that's pretty much the same category as expansion), and monthly subscriptions (for MMOs, obviously) would not really differentiate between a used and a new game. The argument is even more meaningless in the face of that.

Used games do not only not contribute anything to the industry (as far as I am aware?)

Advertisement. There are numerous people who got into series, or genre, or developer or something, some even into gaming in general, because they got a cheap second hand game first to show them the way in.

Hmm whilst good I think Youtube does a good enough job to negate this benefit when it comes to introducing people to games, The getting people into gaming is a great point though

I was talking more historically - yes, nowadays YouTube can be used to show you new games but just 5 years back wasn't as big a deal, another 5 years back and YouTube didn't exist. Heck, even if it did, I was not going to be able to watch a Let's Play or anything of the like on the 56K I was sporting at that time.

I don't think it's really on to demand citations from me while your retort offers no such evidence either.

So, I am supposed to just shout "burden of proof" over and over again? OK, then - burden of proof. Prove what you're saying is true or you there literally cannot be any discussion.