Why is there debate about used games?

[Jinx_Dragon]

What I have a problem with is people who ***** and whine when publishers take measures to combat used sales, which absolutely cut into their new sales.

This is 100% incorrect. Please do some research on the subject and stop spreading misinformation.

Yes, piracy is worse, if only because of the numbers.

Again, 100% incorrect. Where have you gotten your information from? Are you just believing what the huge corporations are telling you?

The facts on what effects these things actually have are surprisingly easy to find on the Internet. You might want to look into it.

It's not debatable. It's simple fact.

You buy a game used, that's a game that's NOT being sold new. That's a lost sale. How is this shit so complicated for some people?

The only reason it is not 'debatable,' which by the way is a very poor argument to take and shows you have no willingness to learn, is because you have taken a small chunk of the picture and fixated on it. The truth is, when you look at the whole, he is actually correct and even piracy has been creating some boons for the industry behind it's back.

While you would be correct if we assumed all used and pirated versions subtract a sale from the new product. This is not accurate though because it assumes that the person would purchase the product new to begin with. I would say this is correct in the majority of times, but I know a lot of people who buy use (and a few who pirate) because they can not purchase a game at full price for a range of reasons. Some refuse to blindly throw away what is a considerable price on newer games, knowing that the game play does not justify such a high cost. Others (mostly those who pirate) simply can't afford the full price.

So a chunk of your argument would vanish because of that simple fact. Your assumption that every pirate or used sale is one less is the exact argument people with bias, the developers, use even though it HAS been disproved in and of itself. That still isn't looking at the whole picture either, just the sale numbers that you are fixated on.

Those who have studied the effects used and pirated versions have on the market found out something very interesting.... it increased sales globally for that company. This is caused by an effect known as: ADVERTISING. The used game market does not demand a single cent from the companies for the free advertising they offer by presenting these games to the customers. The people who play these games then spread how good (or bad*) they are which in turn drums up sales. On top of that, if the game produces a sequel (which most do these days) or the company itself produces any other game then the past experiences do affect sales. These experiences come from the fact the person acquired a game in the past and enjoyed it, regardless of where it came from.

This is all FREE advertising the company does not have to pay a cent for, but never includes into the profit margin when it bitches about used sales.

Hell, eliminating the used market could even lead to a situation where companies would lose a lot of money in the long run. The sad fact is most developers function on short term profits, known as the quarterly bottom line. This, in my opinion, is one of the biggest problems with the US economy to date. The short term fixation has led to lot of doubtful business practices and even full on collapses such as the loan scandal.

*Which is why I think they really want to kill the used market, as people are less likely to trade good games away.

PS: Take a look at how, even the more legitimate, studies calculate how many pirated version of games are out there. They don't count each computer with the program installed as a single version of the game but how many times it has been installed. If you, like a lot of gamers without massive storage space, uninstall a game then later reinstall it then every secondary install of the game is considered piracy! If you pirate a game to have a quick look at what it is like and then purchase the game... that extra sale does not wipe out the pirate check on their little study.

So piracy, and used sales as they count as piracy in these studies, rates seem higher then they are... and even the biggest anti-piracy firms admit there is only a 20% piracy rate in the western world. That is a low number when you consider that, if piracy really was a problem, most of us would be doing it and not just 20%. This tells me there is more to piracy then most people focus on and we must not get fixated on the claim that all piracy or used sales are 'a lost sale.'

Also, look at the countries with higher piracy rates and notice they are poorer country. Bringing us back to the fixation you have on the numbers: This seems evidence that it is poor people people who pirate the most, and they don't have the money to buy new which is very likely the primary reason they feel they need to pirate or purchase used.

Hence, your argument that all used/pirated sale would be a new sale if these markets didn't exist has just been disproved by the very studies from the anti-used sale and anti-piracy groups that echo your claims.

I think I did fairly well debating a topic that wasn't debatable in your opinion. I won't fault you for continuing with your mistaken belief that you are correct, internet debates never sway opinion, but I hope you now realize the folly of saying something is not debatable. More so on a topic which is far from conclusive....

 

[Taerdin]

The basic problem with used games is the fact that they don't function like many other used products. Many things like cars, books, etc undergo a process of devaluation because their quality degrades in one way or another as soon as it is used. Games don't undergo this devaluation because a disc is a disc, it either works or it doesn't.

A book is either readable or not, a car either runs or not. The value of games does go down. Try taking a 10 year old game to gamestop and see how much trade in credit they give you.

That's not true at all, a book can have missing pages, it can be worn out, text can be faded, a long list of still usable but completely distinguishable from a brand new book.
The same with a car, parts wear out, things get rusty, paint fades, a whole slew of things can change and yet the car can still run but it is not the same as a new one.
The point was that a used copy and a new copy are essentially indistinguishable and function exactly the same.

So I guess you've never had a disc that has a nasty scratch in a specific spot, that allows the game to play to a point but then falter at another? I know it's rare, but possible.

My point was not to respond to your whole point or post, but merely to correct your statement that games do not devaluate. They certainly do, over time. If you buy a 60 dollar game today in a year you might be lucky to get half that value for it. That's all I'm saying.

Good luck with your debate though, just don't confuse me for someone who cares to be in it, or to read all of what you're posting.

 

[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.

 

[mysecondlife]

I try to buy new games because I like supporting game developers. That being said, none of my money goes to developers bitching about used game sales.

Buying new game isn't a biggie for me. The game drops to $40 within a month or 2. I buy it then.

Escapists, please help me understand something: why are people arguing that used games are bad? like any other product, you pay money for them, then they are yours, and you can do what you want with them.

By what jump in space-logic does anyone think there is justification for trying to stop you from excercising your ownership of a game?

I understand the companies, at least: they are just fishing for bigger profits. But why do people accept this blatant thievery on the part of publishers? Why are people so accepting of getting ripped off? it just does not make sense to me.

.
Because the ones that profit from used games are the retailers, the middlemen... The ones that doesn't make the product, only distributes it. The money doesn't come to the developer when a used game is sold, unless you're a dick and there's a 10 dollar pass for multi-player or more content.

But by that logic, should Ford, for example, hate every car-dealer? :S

Ford is protected by US government. Game developers aren't.

 

[LetalisK]

It's a major issue because some people are gullible enough to believe the bullshit propaganda spewed by publishers about how used gaming is such a horrible epidemic when in reality the publishers are just trying to create a boogeyman to excuse horrible business practices in order to nickle and dime as much as they can out of everyone. When the video game industry ceases to be a huge industry that is growing rapidly and beginning to eclipse other entertainment industries, then we MIGHT take a look at used gaming. Until then, it's just a bunch of corporate apologists raging while being taken advantage of by those they are championing.

 

[Deathmageddon]

Jimquisition covered this. Idiots think used games are bad because they cost the publishers about one million dollars a year. (keep in mind that for a large corporation, one million is a pittance)

 

[Freyar]

However, I pretty much agree with you. We sell EVERYTHING else used, even other intellectual property such as books and movies. Why are video games so different?

Games are an interactive medium that requires you to participate.

 

[omicron1]

Games companies want to make money. Their budgets have been going up, and while their audience has been expanding (especially in the last few years) the audience for the typical game has not.

You can see them combating this in a variety of ways:
* $50->$60 price jump (extract extra money from existing customers for the same value)
* Paid DLC (extract extra money from existing customers for little additional value)
* Online passes (extract extra money from indirect customers while (indirectly) lowering the resale price of direct customers' products
* Attempts to guilt trip used customers into buying new
* Chasing the big guns - trying to build their own megahit and barge in on the truly profitable market

The one thing these groups seem unable or unwilling to do is actually cut prices, in an attempt to exchange over-the-counter income for a larger customer base. This is especially egregious in the case of Activision-Blizzard, which is still selling Diablo 2 gold (10 years old!) for $30, and whose CoD series' price decline over time approximates a straight line more than the typical curve.

Nor do I expect the change in console generations from 7 to 8 to help with this. While all signs point to the industry at least partially following the example of the Wii in expanding outwards while keeping to marginal improvements in hardware, the fact that current budgets still exceed income in a large number of cases means that nothing short of a generational regression will bring an end to this problematic situation.


It is nonetheless interesting to note that PC teams do not seem to have this problem. The 300-strong team of CD Projekt Red found commercial success with just 1 million copies (albeit with their own virtual store to back them up); Piranha Bytes' Risen did well enough to ensure a sequel; and of course there are the numerous indie success stories of late.

I do not know how or why PC games seem to cost less than their console equivalents, but it does indicate that perhaps the solution for the next generation may not be as open-and-shut as "Develop better-looking games for faster hardware, sell for more money." I just hope someone listens.

 

[Freyar]

However, I pretty much agree with you. We sell EVERYTHING else used, even other intellectual property such as books and movies. Why are video games so different?

Games are an interactive medium that requires you to participate.

that may be so (though its arguable so are books) but it still doesn't answer why this product is apparently unique in all of human history in relation to the concept of "sale" being the transfer of ownership (which as i said before in the thread is protected by law as a fundamental principal in most countries)

Books are a rail of a story. While games can have the same design, there's plenty out there that require how you deal with the pressures of a game which in turn makes the game unique to each individual player. It's like a play in which you are a member of the cast that you put on to amuse yourself. It's a VERY bad analogy, I know.. but I'm tired.

 

[fletch_talon]

Because the value of a used game does not decrease as much as other used items.

Most used books will show aging or wear.
Most used cars have seen decent use and thus show signs of wear (not to mention all the internal parts that could have been mistreated and may be worn to a greater extent than the mileage suggests).
Furniture has had somebody else's arse in it and so its value drops too.

But games?
Used games (provided they havn't been thoroughly mistreated) generally both look and work exactly the same as new ones. I've bought ten year old games in cardboard packaging that look damn near new.
So unless someone is incredibly pedantic (like myself in some cases) where is the incentive to buy new rather than old?

But having said that, I don't really know why there is a debate. The answer seems simple to me.

-People have a right to sell/buy used games.
-Publishers have a right to incentivise the purchase of new games over old, by adding content to the new or taking content from the used.

If you don't like the price of a new game, or you don't like buying a cut down used version (or paying for the cut content), then there are options for you.

a) Wait till the new game drops in price to something you're willing to pay for. thus telling the companies what you're willing to pay.
or
b) Don't buy it at all.

There are other options of course but they all pretty much boil down to "I have a god given human right to play any videogame I want and have no wish to support the people who create said games".

 

[Tiger Sora]

The developers have had years to do something to stop the sales of used games. And that they've done nothing noticeable to do something about it. Since this thread is going I assume they haven't, lol. I can't feel for them.

The solution isn't into turning yourself into the victim. Playing off peoples pity and such. It's a heavy handed brutal solution that no one would be happy with, but it'd solve the problem and eventually blow over. Now they can keep doing what they are doing now "as for as I know". And we'll never hear the end of it.

And thats why this is still an issue. Cause they have yet to resolve it themselves.

 

[willis888]

Does anyone here work at Gamestop? How many of the used games that you buy do you actually end up selling? Do you end up recycling most of them?

If there is actually a significant margin to be made in the used games market, the only real problem is lack of competition. If a 2nd B&M opened up next to Gamestop that paid more for used games, half the posts in this thread would be irrelevant.

 

[lord.jeff]

Because developers and publishers lose money from used games, so in their eyes it's a bad thing and they have a right to view them that way.

yes. im surprised Ford and GM are so into it...

actually no.

because redefining "sale" as something apart from the transfer of ownership after hundreds of thousands of years is not actually on the cards. neither is affecting the potential for resale by the then owner and thereby incurring "economic loss" on them for buying something.

in the UK both are legally protected statutory rights and have been been for a very, very long time.

and they are going to stay that way inspite of how greedy big name computer software publishers get.

a vibrant economy depends on the free movement of goods and a lack of limits placed on the transfer of ownership and if you think for a moment that the majority of that trade is in "new" goods sold directly from manufacturer to customer...well you are just plain wrong.

the big games publishers are "coming the c*nt" and pushing it and they know it.

no other comparible industry has even attempted the line they are taking (and yet still they survive and prosper) because ultimately in the face of economic reality its utterly inane.

For your Ford, GM example, Ford sells parts to fix cars when they breakdown, so there still making money off old vehicles, also there has been fights against used sales outside of video games, the music industry for one. But that's not really part of my point, I don't agree with limiting used sales myself but when someone isn't making money off half of the sales of there product, they should be upset and should try to find a way to fix the problem.