Why is there debate about used games?

[antipirate]

Used clothes, furniture, appliances, ect. aren't really worth comparing to used games. However there is one used product that comes close; used books. Now I could be wrong but I don't remember book publishers ever having a big problem with used book stores and libraries. Is there a possible explanation for this discrepancy besides the games industry just being more greedy than the publishing industry.

I think support is the key. Book publishers provide virtually no support for their product compared to video game publishers/developers. So while I still think people should be able to sell their games used I think it is perfectly acceptable for the games industry to take steps to help mitigate the cost of supporting their games when they are used by players who have bought them second hand.


Also the no developer profit from used games argument doesn't completely work because many people who buy new do so because in their mind the the cost of the game is (price) - (what they'll be able to re-sell it for) and thus wouldn't buy the game at all if they couldn't re-sell it.

Regards,
Jordan

 

[LITE992]

My argument has always been that the game was bought new at some point, and that now the game has been sold from one owner to a new one.

Ok, two people have played one legitimate copy of the game, BUT two people are not playing at the same time, as one person has sold the copy to someone else.

The developers/publishers miss the last point massively. A pirated game is one that has been bought legitmately once but has been copied and can be played by many other people simultaneously. A used game cannot. When you sell your game, you can't play that copy anymore. Only the new owner can, until they sell it to someone else.

With a used game: One person bought it. One person is playing it.
With a pirated game: One person bought it. An unlimited number of people are playing it.

That's also a very good point.

Yes, but to the games industry, buying a used game is a lost sale. That person could have bought the game new, but they didn't, so they don't get the money. But one person is still playing the game, as I argued. Maybe the solution would be to distribute the money from used sales to the devs and publishers, as right now the retailer gets the profits. But I don't think the publishers would settle for a cut of what they would get if the game was sold new. And that's why we're debating on the forums.

 

[BlackWidower]

I don't think that's the issue, I think the issue is places like EB Games and GameStop, who are selling used games at 90% profit. If you buy a game from some guy for $3 only to resell it a day later for $30, you are an asshole. That's the problem. Primarily because of the volume, which takes away massive profits from the game companies, and the fact that they are typically selling the games at almost the same price as the new games.

If you buy a game used, you are getting only a slight benefit, the retailer gets 100% profit, and the publisher gets screwed.

There's no "problem" here at all, it's business. If someone is idiotic enough to sell something worth $30 for $3 then that's their own stupid fault.

So what if they sell it for close to original price? They're taking on the risk by buying a used game back from someone, why shouldn't they be compensated by making a profit for that risk i.e. like every retail business ever?

Why do you even care? The publishers and developers aren't your best friends and it's not your job to look out for their interests. As I've said before, if I can get the same thing for less money then I'll damn well get the cheaper one. It's my job as the customer to get the best deal, not to support these companies.

Exactly, to a certain extent, it's the free market at work, and if you're stupid enough to let them rip you off like that, then go right ahead.

But here's the problem: what risk? We're talking about latest Call of Duty, here. Is there any risk that they are not going to sell the game. Now of course they are allowed to make a profit. My problem is, they are making a 1500% profit. That's not profit, that's gouging!

But regarding your final point, that seems to be more of an argument for piracy. Not used game sales. If it's your job to get the best deal, what's a better deal than free!?

Of course us humans with souls like to ensure that those who created our favourite games are well compensated for their efforts. They put their heart and soul into this, and sending a few bucks in their direction is the least we could do. That's why people don't pirate.

Used game sales isn't much better, but at least it tends to be fair, as long as GameStop doesn't get in the way.

You have to look at the big picture. The fact that GameStop is taking so much of the profits that should go to the gaming companies, means said companies are taking fewer and fewer risks. That's why the biggest games right now are generic shooters, and sequels to proven properties. Nothing new is coming out. That causes the entire industry to stagnate, along with the experience of the user. We just get the same cookie cutter bullshit. I don't want that, and I'm sure you don't want that.

I don't know the best way to encourage risk in the industry, but I do know ensuring the game designers get significantly fewer coin at the end of the day, is not helping.

Here's a man who did a great job of explaining it, you might recognize him: http://www.screwattack.com/shows/partners/game-overthinker/game-overthinker-episode-41-revolution

Of course they're taking a risk and they're also providing liquidity for people wanting to sell their games and a service. It's not money for nothing. Just think, for every Cowa Doody game that is low risk, there are plenty of other games that they may not sell back on again which is dead stock and is only taking up space. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they're doing. The only reason they can make such huge markups is because idiots allow them to buy their games back off them at stupidly low levels, if they wouldn't be so eager to dump their games then they would have no choice put to give better trade in prices.

Obtaining a game through piracy isn't really getting a "deal" but I take your point.

So we seem to be in agreement to a certain extent. Used game sales for old games makes sense because the game companies stopped selling them. So it's either buy it used or download it off the web. I have no problem with that. But...

I don't understand this point of "the money should go to the gaming companies". They don't deserve a single penny of the profit made from used sales. They haven't done anything for it, all that has happened is that two private individuals have entered into a transaction in which a game changes hands. The publishers have already been compensated for the original copy that was created and sold as new. Why should they get paid twice for one copy?

I read this and I thought you were joking at first. That has to be the dumbest damn thing I've ever read.

They haven't done anything for it? What about the years of work they did making the game?

Games are not desks. Each individual copy did not require a lot of work. They don't expect to be compensated for the work they put into each copy, they expect to be compensated for the work they put into the one copy that was replicated a million times and sold. They get the profits from the collective, not the individual.

By this analogy, you can argue that the company was already compensated for the game, so what if I posted in on the internet!?

Yes, they expect to get paid for people playing the game they spent several years of their lives on. That's not unusual.

Look, it wouldn't be too much to ask for these game companies to request GameStop to pay residuals. You aren't buying the game because it's from GameStop, you're buying the game because it's Call of Duty or whatever. So why should GameStop get all the profits!? Of course it would probably set a bad president. but I'm just spit-balling here.

Yes, they took some risk. But not $50 worth of risk for one copy.

 

[BlackWidower]

I don't think that's the issue, I think the issue is places like EB Games and GameStop, who are selling used games at 90% profit. If you buy a game from some guy for $3 only to resell it a day later for $30, you are an asshole. That's the problem. Primarily because of the volume, which takes away massive profits from the game companies, and the fact that they are typically selling the games at almost the same price as the new games.

If you buy a game used, you are getting only a slight benefit, the retailer gets 100% profit, and the publisher gets screwed.

There's no "problem" here at all, it's business. If someone is idiotic enough to sell something worth $30 for $3 then that's their own stupid fault.

So what if they sell it for close to original price? They're taking on the risk by buying a used game back from someone, why shouldn't they be compensated by making a profit for that risk i.e. like every retail business ever?

Why do you even care? The publishers and developers aren't your best friends and it's not your job to look out for their interests. As I've said before, if I can get the same thing for less money then I'll damn well get the cheaper one. It's my job as the customer to get the best deal, not to support these companies.

Exactly, to a certain extent, it's the free market at work, and if you're stupid enough to let them rip you off like that, then go right ahead.

But here's the problem: what risk? We're talking about latest Call of Duty, here. Is there any risk that they are not going to sell the game. Now of course they are allowed to make a profit. My problem is, they are making a 1500% profit. That's not profit, that's gouging!

But regarding your final point, that seems to be more of an argument for piracy. Not used game sales. If it's your job to get the best deal, what's a better deal than free!?

Of course us humans with souls like to ensure that those who created our favourite games are well compensated for their efforts. They put their heart and soul into this, and sending a few bucks in their direction is the least we could do. That's why people don't pirate.

Used game sales isn't much better, but at least it tends to be fair, as long as GameStop doesn't get in the way.

You have to look at the big picture. The fact that GameStop is taking so much of the profits that should go to the gaming companies, means said companies are taking fewer and fewer risks. That's why the biggest games right now are generic shooters, and sequels to proven properties. Nothing new is coming out. That causes the entire industry to stagnate, along with the experience of the user. We just get the same cookie cutter bullshit. I don't want that, and I'm sure you don't want that.

I don't know the best way to encourage risk in the industry, but I do know ensuring the game designers get significantly fewer coin at the end of the day, is not helping.

Here's a man who did a great job of explaining it, you might recognize him: http://www.screwattack.com/shows/partners/game-overthinker/game-overthinker-episode-41-revolution

Of course they're taking a risk and they're also providing liquidity for people wanting to sell their games and a service. It's not money for nothing. Just think, for every Cowa Doody game that is low risk, there are plenty of other games that they may not sell back on again which is dead stock and is only taking up space. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they're doing. The only reason they can make such huge markups is because idiots allow them to buy their games back off them at stupidly low levels, if they wouldn't be so eager to dump their games then they would have no choice put to give better trade in prices.

Obtaining a game through piracy isn't really getting a "deal" but I take your point.

So we seem to be in agreement to a certain extent. Used game sales for old games makes sense because the game companies stopped selling them. So it's either buy it used or download it off the web. I have no problem with that. But...

I don't understand this point of "the money should go to the gaming companies". They don't deserve a single penny of the profit made from used sales. They haven't done anything for it, all that has happened is that two private individuals have entered into a transaction in which a game changes hands. The publishers have already been compensated for the original copy that was created and sold as new. Why should they get paid twice for one copy?

I read this and I thought you were joking at first. That has to be the dumbest damn thing I've ever read.

They haven't done anything for it? What about the years of work they did making the game?

Games are not desks. Each individual copy did not require a lot of work. They don't expect to be compensated for the work they put into each copy, they expect to be compensated for the work they put into the one copy that was replicated a million times and sold. They get the profits from the collective, not the individual.

By this analogy, you can argue that the company was already compensated for the game, so what if I posted in on the internet!?

Yes, they expect to get paid for people playing the game they spent several years of their lives on. That's not unusual.

Look, it wouldn't be too much to ask for these game companies to request GameStop to pay residuals. You aren't buying the game because it's from GameStop, you're buying the game because it's Call of Duty or whatever. So why should GameStop get all the profits!? Of course it would probably set a bad president. but I'm just spit-balling here.

Yes, they took some risk. But not $50 worth of risk for one copy.

No, when you sell a game back to gamestop or wherever, the developers haven't done a damn thing in that transaction, so why should they get money out of it? I cannot believe you actually think that they should get more money just because a copy has changed hands. Seriously, how can you justify that? Yes, they made the game in the first place, so what? That's not an excuse to get money over and over again because it's been sold more than once.

And who are you to say that $50 is too much for one copy? If that's what price they can set and still do business then that's their prerogative. Anyway, I'm done with this debate, I can't be bothered to argue anymore why it's a moronic idea for used game retailers to give money to the publishers and why somehow games deserve special treatment.

It's not the problem of the copy changing hands, the problem is, GameStop is selling a game and pocketing all the money instead of giving it to those who deserve it.

But whatever, fine, you can debate the morals and ethics till the cows come home, so you know what, fine, I concede. There is no moral reason a consumer can't sell a game or buy a used one, and there is no moral reason GameStop can't act as the middle man and earn millions doing it.

But the fact remains, it's bad for the industry. It means that there is money to be made only in the same old, same old. Proven franchises that will sell millions on opening day. Because any copies that sell after opening day will likely be used copies that they can't make money on. It's a risk averse formula. Which is really bad for the public and the industry. You got a new idea for a game, one that gamers might think is interesting but aren't going to go out of their way to get. Good luck making your money back, because 90% of sales will likely be from used copies.

 

[daubie]

The video game industry needs to have a biiiiiiig conference with Game Stop.
Game Stop does just as much damage to the industry as piracy does, and it could be rectified even easier. Too bad they'll never make any compromises for the better of us all.

Sigh. This is getting old. Game Stop does ZERO damage to the industry. Same with piracy. Where did you get your information from? Do you just believe whatever the big corporations tell you? Do some research and stop spreading misinformation.

*SNIP*
It doesn't really matter what the price of the original object in question is; various indie developers have long since proven that even if you put something on sale for a penny, people will still pirate the shit out of it.

Oh good lord the ignorance. Virtually everything you said in your post is 100% incorrect. However, since I have to assume you don't care to be informed based on what individual random people tell you, I'll just provide you with a couple links you may find interesting based on that last "point".

Here is an article of independent game developers explaining why piracy is good.
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/118/1184550p1.html

Here is an article about Louis CK(admittedly ignorant on how piracy works) doing an experiment by offering a stand up special for next to nothing.
http://m.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/funny-money-louis-ck-earns-1-million-in-12-days-with-5-video-20111227-1pb6g.html

If it was information I was providing, I would have offered numbers. There is nothing about my post that should offer indication of anything more than a superficial reaction. It was just something to consider. To make my point more clear, I'll rephrase it as a question.

Wouldn't the financial situation of most game studios be improved if they got a small cut of used game sales?