Why is there debate about used games?

[Something Amyss]

I wasn't. I was saying that people would feel guilty. I never said anything about being guilty.

Right. You just implied people would deny a false link due to an imagined sensation of guilt that really shouldn't exist. That's SO much better.

 

[TheBanMan_v1legacy]

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

You seem pretty stuck on your point that there is evidence, yet neither of your links proves anything. They are both anecdotal whereby the people involved *believe* that Piracy is a good thing, or that people will pay a reasonable amount, etc.

The fact remains there is no direct evidence showing that the fact that 'Super Meat Boy' hit #30 on the most pirated list means their sales were higher than if it had never been pirated. The entire article is filled with comments stating they "believe" this, and they "believe" that. As has been stated, just because someone believes something does not make it true.

Yes, people did write to them to say they first stole it, felt bad, and then bought it. On the flipside there is no way to say how many others who stole it, and did not subsequently buy it would have.

As for the 2nd post there is no facts/figures of how many people did pirate it regardless of the price. As we see with full price games, people will pay it. This does not mean that others aren't pirating it.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Buying a used video game is no different than buying anything else second hand. My car was used when I got it, the manufacturer (and all the designers/engineers/suppliers/etc.) didn't receive any money from that sale yet I've never heard anyone say that the used car industry is a bad thing. The whole deal about used video games is just publisher greed, nothing else.

I see. So your used car was pretty much exactly the same as a new car (full warranty, no mileage, less value depreciation, etc.) and cost only a few percentage points less than a new car?

He shoots and he misses. I bought an used copy of Nocturne recently. It cost me 14$. The cost for a new copy has fluctuated between 25$-70$. In other words, I saved quite a bit of money. The disc isn't in the greatest shape, however. It seems to be a fair comparison to me.

Yes, absolutely, because the used games that the game industry is actually concerned about are niche titles from 10 years ago and not brand new titles that those under the Gamestop pricing policy are selling for $5 or $10 less than new copies.

 

[Vegosiux]

By the way. The game sales money doesn't really go to the developers even in case of new games.. By the time the game is out, the devs have already been paid.

 

[Freyar]

... what the hell does this have to do with the used game argument?

The argument being that games are fundamentally different than books or movies. While all require an audience, books and movies are pretty much an on-rails experience. Barring the choose-your-own adventure books, the story is still put in front of you 100%. Yes, you as a reader make the characters' voices and paint a mental image of the scenario but games require your active decisions to progress.

Someone who is watching a game without input is merely staring at a moving screensaver. There's little to no story because the game requires input by the player. Most good games are designed in such a way that provides a wide range of experiences between each person. Therefore a good singleplayer game such as LA Noir would be a vastly different experience for someone actively trying to fit the role of a "good cop" versus someone who's coming from a very hostile GTA background.

In essence, they're two separate experiences that are unique to each player. Therefore it could be argued that playing a game can be counted like a movie ticket. Once experienced, you can't really take the experience away from a person short of killing them.

End result is that while someone could sell off their copy, the person selling the game still retains their experience and the benefits from it while someone else gets it without the creators of that experience getting paid for the second person's experience.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Buying a used video game is no different than buying anything else second hand. My car was used when I got it, the manufacturer (and all the designers/engineers/suppliers/etc.) didn't receive any money from that sale yet I've never heard anyone say that the used car industry is a bad thing. The whole deal about used video games is just publisher greed, nothing else.

I see. So your used car was pretty much exactly the same as a new car (full warranty, no mileage, less value depreciation, etc.) and cost only a few percentage points less than a new car?

He shoots and he misses. I bought an used copy of Nocturne recently. It cost me 14$. The cost for a new copy has fluctuated between 25$-70$. In other words, I saved quite a bit of money. The disc isn't in the greatest shape, however. It seems to be a fair comparison to me.

Yes, absolutely, because the used games that the game industry is actually concerned about are niche titles from 10 years ago and not brand new titles that those under the Gamestop pricing policy are selling for $5 or $10 less than new copies.

And? The consumer is supposed to look for the best deal. I don't understand industry apologists. And I have no sympathy for a majority of publishers. They are the ones who promote GameStop by giving them pre-order exclusives. Then they whine when GameStop is successful. And I used that example to illustrate that "used games" is a very broad statement.

 

[spartan231490]

I wasn't. I was saying that people would feel guilty. I never said anything about being guilty.

Right. You just implied people would deny a false link due to an imagined sensation of guilt that really shouldn't exist. That's SO much better.

Emotions have very little connection to reality. And people are stupid. Just because a person has no real reason to feel guilty, doesn't mean they wouldn't feel that way. Look at survivors guilt. And I didn't imply it, I said it. I just used normal words.

Same with thoughts. The link might not be logical, that doesn't mean that some people don't think it exists. As this thread aptly demonstrates.

 

[Suicidejim]

I try to buy new games as frequently as possible, because I want that money to go to the people who made this game, so they make more in the future. I couldn't care less about the publishing companies, but some developers have spent a lot of time and money crafting their product, and I want to reward them for doing so in whatever way I can.

I have no problem with used games or people buying used.

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.

Things like day-1 DLC and online passes. People object to those because they interfere with the used market. They can't trade in their game for as much, and you miss out on those things if you buy used.

But why the hell does the publisher need to care about the used market? Why shouldn't the publisher be allowed to do whatever they legally can to recapture money lost to the used market?

I dislike those measures mostly because none of my games consoles are hooked up to the internet (with the exception of my 3DS), so I lose out on that stuff even though I've bought the game new. Not only that, but rather than extras that can add to the gaming experience, a lot of games lock away content that should have been part of the game. I realize that I'm part of the minority, and that my own refusal to go online isn't, and shouldn't, make the industry stop making things like DLC, but I believe that selling your customers a skeleton of a game until they prove they bought it first hand only increases resentment on the part of the customer.

 

[brownie212]

The gaming industry seems to have developed this sense of entitlement that even though you have legally bought my product, albeit from someone other than me, you don't get to use it properly because i don't like that you didn't pay me.

Im sorry but all your doing there is alienating potential customer base, if they relized rather than moaning about it they could find a way to start making money off this person without basically hamstringing something THEY LEGALLY OWN first, not only do you end up with happy costumers who are likely to buy new next time you are likely to make more money out of it, if you don't believe me look at the accounts of champions online before and after it F2P.

by making the main part of the game playable and enjoyable FOR FREE but then asking a reasonable price for new conttent or certain charcter types they give the people that play for free an enjoyable high quality game, are earning more money from those willing to pay for the content they want, and not making anyone feel like they're playing with any real disadvantage from anyone else, now how come the developers for none MMO games can't adopt a similar approach to combat this "negative force" that is 2nd hand games?

 

[everythingbeeps]

I dislike those measures mostly because none of my games consoles are hooked up to the internet (with the exception of my 3DS), so I lose out on that stuff even though I've bought the game new. Not only that, but rather than extras that can add to the gaming experience, a lot of games lock away content that should have been part of the game. I realize that I'm part of the minority, and that my own refusal to go online isn't, and shouldn't, make the industry stop making things like DLC, but I believe that selling your customers a skeleton of a game until they prove they bought it first hand only increases resentment on the part of the customer.

1. It's getting harder and harder to really justify not hooking your console to the internet, at least temporarily. Long enough to download something and then unhook it. Developers and publishers are expecting that sooner rather than later, every console will be online, at least part-time. I don't think that's an unfair expectation.

2. The idea of "content that should have been part of the game" is changing. As I've said before, people have to start getting past this notion that just because something (i.e. multiplayer) has always been included before, that doesn't mean that developers/publishers must always provide it as "part of the game". Things change. We either adapt, or we grow bitter and resentful. Of course some people will always be bitter and resentful, but the game companies could never hope to appease everyone anyway. With time, the hope is that most people will relax their expectations. And by "people", I really just mean new buyers, of course. I really don't think the publishers should lift a finger to do anything for the used buyers, and I expect I'll watch with amusement to see what new ideas they come up with to screw them. If they come up with an idea that isn't legal, then they'll be called on it. But until then, all I can do is roll my eyes at people (not you, I glanced upwards at another post and immediately wished I hadn't) who go on and on about their "rights" as a consumer.

 

[Harbinger_]

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 some developers are just plain greedy.

 

[Freyar]

This... is the worst argument I've ever heard in my life.

You can pretty much replace "game" and the generic examples of them with "movie" or "Books" and the generic examples of those mediums and effectively make the exact same argument against used movie/book sales.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with used games sales... I just... this argument's painful.

I can't see how the argument could be twisted against Movies and Books considering there was a very careful consideration made for the fact that games are interactive and thus require the player to be an actor (otherwise it cannot proceed).

 

[Freyar]

it has NOTHING to do with it being used. Your argument makes no sense in that way, and if a used games should somehow be a "worse thing" than used movies or books because they're interactive, you make a poor argument to show that point.

I'm sorry, are you able to keep in mind the whole conversation? Please read back, the argument flows to this point pretty well if you'd read the whole thing. Feels like I was having a discussion with someone else only to have you come in halfway and apparently rage (as evidenced by the hostile tone interpreted from your later remarks in your response) that I dare to look at the situation differently.

Because it is an interactive medium, gamers have the POTENTIAL to develop an emotional attachment with a game as they see fit. If a game isn't particularly immersive or the gamer decides such an experience should be shared, they should have the right to share it based on their own disgression, or get rid of it and get some of their money back. Further, if a game has "worn its welcome" in the eyes of the gamer, the gamer should be able to sell it. Never mind the fact that I disagree books and movies can't be as impactful to an individual as games can be, your argument is essentially, "Games BECOME a part of gamers so they shouldn't get rid of them just like they shouldn't get rid of their own memories." And I disagree. Games should be the property of the people who bought them, and just like my $2-to-produce Nike's or my own car, I should be able to sell them.

First and foremost, we're talking about an experience and a digital product that does not expire, therefore any reference to a physical good such as shoes, clothes, hell even hardware is irrelevant. That was already covered and you're starting to push me to re-iterate what was already discussed two or three pages ago.

When a game is sold, to a user, you're given a right to experience what was put together. Each experience is unique and cannot be revoked. Therefore the argument is made: Each person should pay the developer, publisher, and investors for the privilege of being able to have that unique experience. The $60 price tag is the cost to get in, and have your experience, but short-cutting it to essentially allow for two in for the price of one (as far as the publishers and developers go) defeats and damages the value of the experience, reducing the value of the product.

The problem with your argument is its substance. Where most every other person on here uses logic, economics, developers rights, talks about games as art and how artist should be supported (or the opposite points thereof) you talk about some pseudophilosophical nonsense that is absolutely weak, can be applied in one way or another to any other media, and has little to do with the benefits or consequences of used games sales.

Have you considered that because "every other person" has discussed rights and economics that I might have brought up a different point of view that should be considered? You seem to think that I am fully against your position when I'm merely arguing a viewpoint that could very well be a source of the ire against used game sales. I support used game sales, I buy used games as part of my collection of classic games through older eras such as the Atari 800, Commodore 64, all the way up to the original Xbox.

Take a chill pill mate. Stop assuming people are out to "get you".

Besides, if games are interactive and require the player to be an actor, wouldn't you want more actors to be able to "allow it to proceed", not less?

From an artistic point of view, hell yes. More people would be great. That said, from an economic point of view and from the argument that I've made, it could be damaging in the immediate (though long term benefits may crop up.)

 

[Vegosiux]

Games may be "interactive", but are we really going to say everyone gets the same experience from a book or movie?

 

[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