Why is there debate about used games?

[Erttheking]

People seem to have this screwed up notion that unless you pay money for a game, you're not allowed to complain about it, even if you got it as a gift, which I can't even begin to fathom. So what, I'm not allowed to complain about a game I got for my birthday but I'm allowed to complain if I payees $60 for it? Apparently paying $30 isn't enough either, because the company doesn't see any profits...I don't think that these people have ever heard of capitalism before. This isn't piracy, people aren't stealing copies of the game, they're buying them off of people and then selling them for discounted rates. It's like a pizza shop moving into the same block as your pizza shop, you'll be pissed if they steal your customers, but on the other hand it's perfectly legal.

Also this argument is pretty weak

Why should I buy this game new for $60 and not used for $40?

It goes to a good cause.

What cause?

A multi million dollar company that has already made millions off of this game on its first day alone and wants more money. Also you're not allowed to give it to your friends as a gift either, because then the company wouldn't make money.

....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-no.

 

[isometry]

Over the last decade, publishers have essentially eliminated the used market for PC games, by using internet-access-required DRM. The writing is on the wall, the next generation consoles will shift towards digital distribution and require online registration of physical copies.

 

[Dfskelleton]

I buy used games all the time. For it to be used, someone had to buy it new, right? To make a generalized, biased statement on what developers are saying "You're buying a game that we already got paid for without paying for it again!? YOU SICK MONSTER!!!"
Besides, with used games retailers, I can find a lot of older games that I wouldn't be able to find new.
Also, out of all the industries that could complain about not getting enough money, the games industry doesn't even come close.
Within 24 hours of it's release, CoD:MW3 made 400 million dollars, and that's not even counting however much it made after that. I would say that Activision has no right to complain about not getting money for used copies, but then I remember that they're Activision.

 

[brownie212]

i take the same view as Notch here that the issue isnt the people buying used games or even pirating games, the issue is how the publishers view the practice and deal with it, as notch said what they need to do is stop complaining and find a way turning these people into customers who they actually make money from. A part of the issue in my view is this standard price that ALL games a released at.

A new game that looks interesting but im not sure about or one from a series that i know and like at the exact same price, which one am i really going to choose to buy? im sorry but im not goin to spend £40-£50 on a game that i'm not sure about, if i pick it up later pre-owned for £15-20 and enjoy it i'll pick up the next one in the series new or a similar game from that developer.

The developers need to change their outlook, instead of moaning that the pre-owned market or piracy is hurting their sales they should start A making games good enough to persuade piraters and 2nd hand gamers to buy it new. And to understand what everyone whos done GCSE business studies understands, supply and demand and how this relates to the price you should sell your product at, but then the video games industry like all majjour industries has hit the poingt where its decided to go with the "but thats how we've always done it. why should WE change to suit the market when we can complain about the market and throw money and lawyers at it to try and make it change back" point

 

[everythingbeeps]

If you can argue that this is their right (and you can, I won't dispute that), you must also accept that it's the publisher's right to do what they can (again, legally) to recapture some of those lost profits.

By the same logic customers are also perfectly entitled to complain about any drop in quality, service, or accessibility they encounter. Just as the publisher has no obligation towards the store (and vice-versa), has the customer no obligation towards either of them, and does not have to roll over and mutely accept anything that directly impedes their convenience playing the game (DRM).

In the real world the relative power of publisher / store versus consumer is of course hugely imbalanced - but that does not mean that whenever the customer can do anything to legally benefit himself at the expense of either corporation he should not do so.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "customer".

Someone who buys used is not a customer of the publisher. If they want to ***** and whine, they can really only ***** and whine to Gamestop, who of course can't do anything about it anyway.

 

[Kilo24]

It's arguing over the nature of the license that purchasing a retail (or digital) copy of the game has. Few people would argue that you, a consumer, have ownership of the code for the game to distribute as you wish, just like you can't legally retype a book and pass it off as your own work. Instead, you have the license to use it for personal use.

What precisely the limits are for the phrase "personal use" are difficult to define and enforce. Somewhat akin to the internet changing piracy from a thorn in developers/publishers sides to a much larger issue is Gamestop's retail model being completely focused on used games. When it was friends swapping games or people selling systems over eBay, that was one thing, but a corporate retail chain exploiting that market so heavily turned it into a much bigger problem.

The fact is that this relationship between consumer and producer was never defined clearly. EULAs are of debatable value, and occur after the person has bought the software. You do not have complete rights to the data on the disk, but neither do you have no rights whatsoever. The question is where the line is drawn - specifically whether or not the right of resale is included - and that involves a lot of legal wrangling between consumers, developers, publishers, and retailers who all think that the way that gets them more money is the right one.

Anyone who considers it clear and obvious which way is legally correct, please point to the contract that you signed when you purchased a game. No, an implied contract is never clear when it gets examined in court.

Sure, the EULAs may work as an effective contract, and may specify whether the purchaser has the right of resale given to the consumer, but that only applies to that purchase of that game and not as a model for the whole business.

 

[Vegosiux]

We could also twist it the other way and say that even if someone bought used, and provided a complaint/feedback that they contributed something to the development of the future games, even if that something was immaterial - as long as the feedback was, of course, constructive.

Basically, every constructive feedback is a contribution.

It's arguing over the nature of the license that purchasing a retail (or digital) copy of the game has. Few people would argue that you, a consumer, have ownership of the code for the game to distribute as you wish, just like you can't legally retype a book and pass it off as your own work. Instead, you have the license to use it for personal use.

No, but you can sell your own copy of a book that you aren't going to be reading anymore. Buying used games isn't buying books that someone copied and sold, it's buying the original books that someone parted with for some reason. No new copy was created and passed on.

Basically, what you're talking about is something completely different - forgery, which is a felony.

 

[Rednog]

I think the debate primarily exists because people seem to think that you have to stand at either end of the debate and that there is no middle ground.

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.
And this leads to a problem of the insane mark up in retail stores of used games.
They end up competing directly with a new game because there is essentially 0 difference between a new game and a used one. And they just make it cost $5 less. Logically as a consumer you should never buy a new game if there is a choice of a used game because there is no difference, you get the exact same product for less.

This is where the core of the problem for developers/publishers. They really don't care about older games that are out of print or hard to find, rather it is a case of their new product being elbowed out.

But you might argue what about used movies and used cd sales?
Movies make a boatload of money from their theatrical releases, movies just end up being icing on the cake, and even then the used market for movies is rather small and even then the profits are rather minuscule and the incentive to sell for like under $10 doesn't get many people selling their movies.

In terms of CDs...yea that market is damn near dead. Digital copies of music has pretty much taken over. The new CD market isn't huge and even then the used CD market is even smaller.

Now as to the whole project $10 and gating and what not for used games.
I kind of don't have a problem with this, like above there isn't any devaluation in games and this sort of imposes and artificial devaluation on the goods in the market, and you know what that is absolutely legal.
Honestly, I think that with gating people shouldn't be yelling at developers/publishers because why should they care, you're no longer their customers, you're now a customer of whatever used retail store you bought it from. So take the fight to them, make the used retail stores accordingly devalue the games to fit the gated content. A game has gated content for $10, then instead of the used retailer charging $55 for it, they should be charging $45.

Also for the case of well used games will promote the buying of new games, this is not a completely solid argument. Like some people have said they will pretty much never buy new, they will perpetuate the system of buying used, sell back, buy more used; which they are completely entitled to. The money gotten back for selling a game isn't necessarily going to be used to buy a new game.

 

[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.

 

[Frostwhisper21]

The only people who find used games bad are those who buy new, and those who develop and publish games.

Both of these people are hurt by used games (Unless they new-buyers like to trade-in). The only person who profits from Used-Game sales is the retailer (Which is why Gamestop LOVES used games). And people who cant afford $60 games, especially ones that are only 6 hours long and not worth replaying.

But you know what? This is incredibly asinine. This is like saying used-car sales is stealing, or garage sales are akin to fencing. Make a good product and people with enough money will buy it new. They really have a retarded analyst if they don't think the price elasticity of the used game group is much higher than those who buy new. Do they think that all of the used game purchasers will buy the game new? I'm damn sure only a small amount will, and most probably will wait for it to get a price drop.

There are many reasons why people are willing to shell out $60 for a game, and likewise reasons we'll wait an hour at midnight to get it. But there are also more reasons why millions will wait for a cheaper used copy and get it later. To say they're stealing because they're patient or poor is just stupid. Another disconnect between Rich people and Poor i suppose.

 

[darthotaku]

the argument about used games is basically the argument between rights of corporations and rights of consumers. the one side argues that corporations have a given right to ensure they make the most profit, while the other argues that consumers have a given right to do as they please with what they've bought.

take the example of a bank. I can use cash back to both pay for something and withdraw money. this saves me one service charge, which can build up greatly over time to save thousands. My bank could easilly make a system to stop this, and thus increase their profit. it would require me to go out of my way, and it would be very inconvenient, but there is absolutely nothing stoping them from doing this.

now, the main reason my bank doesn't do this is because I'd immediately switch to a different bank. in fact, I'm planning to switch anyway. but the game industry has yet to find what is considered "too far". yes, in my personal opinion, used games do no harm. but in my personal opinion any service charge is too much. it's all subjective and will only end when it negatively impacts the bottom line.

 

[Kargathia]

If you can argue that this is their right (and you can, I won't dispute that), you must also accept that it's the publisher's right to do what they can (again, legally) to recapture some of those lost profits.

By the same logic customers are also perfectly entitled to complain about any drop in quality, service, or accessibility they encounter. Just as the publisher has no obligation towards the store (and vice-versa), has the customer no obligation towards either of them, and does not have to roll over and mutely accept anything that directly impedes their convenience playing the game (DRM).

In the real world the relative power of publisher / store versus consumer is of course hugely imbalanced - but that does not mean that whenever the customer can do anything to legally benefit himself at the expense of either corporation he should not do so.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "customer".

Someone who buys used is not a customer of the publisher. If they want to ***** and whine, they can really only ***** and whine to Gamestop, who of course can't do anything about it anyway.

Agreed, terminology was slightly flawed. It should be "consumer".

Point being that our only responsibility as consumer is to ourselves: to get the best deal we can. Companies can and should look after their own interests, and it is only natural that occasionally there is a disagreement based on conflicting interests. The trade in used games is one of these conflicts.
The consumer side to this whole thing is almost absurdly clear: cheaper is better (ceteris paribus ofc). Any arguments about developers/producers not benefiting from used sales have no impact on consumer welfare, and are the industry's concern.

As to whether second-hand buyers are customers of the developer: No, they're not. But when they ***** and whine about the product, it'll still be the developer/producer's name on the box.

Bottom line: "it is better for the industry" is not a valid argument for a consumer. No exceptions.

P.S. I certainly hope I'm not the only one to realise this, but the defining difference between second-hand sales and piracy is not whether the industry profits. Piracy multiplies product, an activity legally reserved by the producer.
Buying an item second-hand transfers ownership, but keeps quantity of product the same.

 

[seyirci]

I honestly don't get why there's so much damned debate over this either... {{snip some}}

So I get to be rid of a game I didn't like, the Developer get's his profits, EB Games earns some cash and some Random gets to play a game cheaper then normal.

So, win for everyone, right? We all got a slice of the pie in the end, didn't we?

I tend to sit on the side of the argument that goes "I bought it, I own it - I am not renting the game from you (Why Computer games can't be sold second hand) you do not have any claim on what I do with the game after the money leaves my hand. I could smash it with a sledge hammer - but instead I opted to sell it back to the retailer, who then sold it to someone else. You know, something that's completely and utterly legal as the object in question is no longer owned by you."

And at least in the USA, Shanicus would be completely and utterly right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the argument in the USA, actually. Used bookstores run on the same principle. Libraries run on the same principle.

 

[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.

 

[Rednog]

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. I can play a game for ten thousand hours, pull it from the disc tray and lay it next to a brand new one and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference the same is not true for a car.

To clarify a bit, by working or not its a case of with games you can have a bunch of scratches and blemishes and whatnot and there is a fine point of the game working at 100% or it not working at all. A car can be damaged in several way and it won't work at 100%, the same with a book. And even then scratches on a disk are a joke, some retailers will just go to the back and buffer/remove a layer from the damn thing, bam with no cost or effort the disc is as good as new.

And like I said (seriously did you read what I wrote or only the first part?) we're talking about games that are in direct competition to new games, we aren't talking about games that are out of print. Developers and publishers really don't care about games that are old. The only thing that devalues a game that is 10 years old is the lack of interest and not a case of used or not.
I have a copy of GTA San Andreas that I never opened, if I brought it to a gamestop they would give me the same low price for it as if I were trading in an old game.
Another "interest" value can be seen in something like collectibles, just because something is old doesn't mean its value will go down if there is interest in it. If I sold an original star wars figure it would fetch a high price because there is interest in the item, it being old doesn't devalue it.

The problem in the used game argument, once again I stated this before, is the fact that used game are directly competing with brand new games because there is quite literally no difference between used and new. And it is priced to a point that as a consumer you should in every case buy the used copy. Why spend $5 more for the same exact product?
And the problem is that this can last for quite some time you'll see some games (especially triple A titles) hold a high price for new and in turn used. Even though the used copy can be a year old it will still turn over for $55 if the new copy is $60. Try that with a car, if you've used it for a year there is no way anyone will turn it over for a price as close to the original retail price (we're assuming someone actually used the car, so don't throw any silly thing like oh what if the person kept it on the lot in an air tight box and didn't use it at all).

 

[Smeggs]

-snip-

I agree with everything you said, TestECull.

I basically refuse to buy any game right-off new unless I have played the series and know I can more-or-less expect a good product.

For example, the first time I saw Mass Effect my first words were, "Runs on the Unreal Engine? Looks like Gears of War with aliens and talking. Booooooriiiiiing." (Note: I hated Gears of War 1). My buddy who bought the game kept telling me, "No, man, you gotta play it, it's nothing like Gears of War." So I decided I had nothing to lose by just borrowing it from him, after specifically telling him that I'd only play for twenty minutes to see if it was any good. I clocked over forty hours in that game, did every mission and even made another character to play through as a different class. Eventually bought it myself for something like $40

When Mass Effect 2 went on preorder I slapped down the full payment for that thing two months in advance. Same thing with Dragon Age: Origins. "That looks like crap."
"Borrow my copy for a couple hours while I'm at work and see if you like it."
"This game is pretty cool. Okay, I'll buy it." *Bought used copy for 50-something dollars*
That's nearly $200 Bioware would have never seen had I not first played my friend's copies of the games.

 

[Electric Alpaca]

Essentially on the grand scale, if everyone were to switch to only purchasing used versions of software, there wouldn't be an industry.

Whether people on the 'corporations are evil' side of the fence are blind to this fact or not it can't be denied that used sales are a negative entity for the industry.

Until the cows come home it can be argued that developers should thus lower their prices to increase their saturation and this will work to an extent, but there will always be those with a vague sense of entitlement that will still wait to obtain a copy for a lower price to assume the place of a bargain.

What also seems to be forgotten is that this is a business, an industry. Without the greed of the corporations you wouldn't have any product. Your entertainment is a by-product of their business.

And before people bring out the used car sales argument on me again, manufacturers of motor vehicles are taking steps to ensure their own profitability past the sale of a new car. With built in items such as car servicing lights that are only extinguished when serviced by that manufacturer. This can be seen as comparable to DLC protecting developer/publisher interest.

Personally, I believe it shows a complete lack of maturity to be able to take an objective look at something and take arms against a view that does agree yours.

Myself; I buy both new and used - but it doesn't stop me seeing what potential ramifications my actions have.

 

[spartan231490]

Because admitting that would mean that they would start to feel guilty for buying used games, or when they pirate.

Or, more likely because the logic has large holes in it. Like so:

If piracy and buying a used game are equivalent for no other reason than developer.income = 0, then my not buying a game because I don't want it is just as equivalent, because developer.income = 0.

No, it really doesn't. Buying a used game and piracy are not equivalent. When you buy a used game, the publisher was already paid for that copy of the game, by the person who sold it. When you pirate, the developer never received any money for that copy at all. And if you don't buy the game at all, then no copy of the game is involved at all. That is why piracy is stealing, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with buying used games or not buying at all.

 

[kenu12345]

Just putting this out there but games do lose value. They gets scratched, they get warped, they skip, and they lose their cases and their manuals.