A point of contraversy (part 1) - Buying a game used is as bad as pirating?

[player3141]

Its actually worse, they are making no money off of someone willing to spend money on their product vs not making money off of someone who wouldn't spend money on your product anyway.

If there were no used games, they would make more money, if there were no piracy, there would be little to no difference.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Its actually worse, they are making no money off of someone willing to spend money on their product vs not making money off of someone who wouldn't spend money on your product anyway.

If there were no used games, they would make more money, if there were no piracy, there would be little to no difference.

Actually, there might be less.

After all, people trading in their games is a reason they can afford new ones, no? Without that, people would be buying fewer games.

What obligates me to keep a product that I hated till the end of time?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The industry can cry me a river for all I care. They didn't earn that money, because they were already paid for the copy that I bought. What this whole argument has taught me, really, is that piracy really isn't a problem at all. No industry in the history of humanity has gone under because it was outcompeted by its own used market. If the games industry is in danger of having that happen, it deserves to fold. Further, if the used market is really more damaging than piracy, then let me sign up to pirate some stuff, because it must be downright good for the industry.

Or alternatively, piracy is worse because, you know, pirates introduce new copies of the game into the marketplace and drive the value down, while used markets require each copy to be sold new at some point, and helps it to sustain a higher initial value, because people are able to recoup some of their initial investment by reselling. One of the two.

Basically, this argument is just making me wish a crash on the industry. Such a crash wouldn't affect the indie developers, since they don't generally distribute their products through major channels, and they're just about the only game companies left that treat their customers with any modicum of respect. If the games industry wants me to support them, they'd darn well better treat me like a valued customer, and not like something they just scraped off of their shoe.

hmmmm words in my mouth. Tasty.

I never said Piracy was better, I never said it was worse. I compared an argument you made about used game sales to a common argument used to justify piracy. In fact none of my points we're about piracy. I'm simply arguing that used sales is bad for the entire industry. You don't seem to understand how it's terrible for the industry, and because of that, you want to see it collapsed? You want to see thousands of people lose their jobs?

If their business model is so flawed that used games are endangering their business, yes, they deserve to go out of business. It sucks for the people who work there, but the games companies do have it coming. As for me putting words in your mouth, those sections were aimed at more than just you. I've been seeing people argue this stuff all day, and it's really getting on my nerves.

Edit: Also, you may not have personally made that argument, but the PR guys who supplied your argument have, and what's more, a lot of the people who have been arguing on the industry's side here have been making it. And yes, these arguments came from a bunch of PR guys. It's not like a group of consumers randomly decided one day that they should pay money to someone they don't owe anything to.

 

[Fidelias]

Well, I've been looking at some of the comments on this thread and I have to say...

Gamers are some of the most retarded fucking consumers in the entire world...

Okay, so from what I'm seeing, the major argument about why it's bad to buy used is because the developers won't get their money. This is stupid, they get their money when they sell it to the retailer, just like every other product out there. Most developers of other products don't get extra money just because you bought it in a certain time frame. The money that game developers get from you for pre-purchases is a RIP-OFF, not necessary. And, honestly, do you really think it's hurting the game industry? Most developers are pushing out at least one game per year, some are even pushing out two. With how much money it takes to make these, they'd have to be making a proffit to be churning out so many in a short time frame.

And what's the bright idea with cutting out single-player if you buy used? If you bought the new Disturbed album a month later, do you expect them to cut out the cover song?

Also, forcing gamers to buy every game new (which is basically what developers are trying to do) isn't feasible. I'm a huge gamer, who likes a lot of genres. I have 5 games coming out real soon that I really want, but won't be able to buy new. Why, you ask? Because I have to eat! I can't spend 300 bucks in a matter of a couple months, or else I'll go broke. So I wait for the price to go down and buy used.

 

[Laxman9292]

Help me understand this:

The publisher of the game has sold X copies to Retailer Y for price Z. Retailer Y sells the games, and gets a certain amount of those traded back because they didn't like it or whatever. After that, they prop it up in the used games section for resale at a lesser price.

Retailer Y will get a little more money out of the purchase because they don't have to throw out a game. But the amount of X copies sold, and with that the Z Price, isn't changed is it? It's not that with every single purchase a little of that money has to be put into an envelope and sent to the publisher, right? So how does selling used games hurt the publisher like piracy does?

This is not me trolling or whatever, I'm just curious if my train of logic works or not.

because if 1/2X people trade their games in and another 1/2X don't buy new games because they know they can get it cheaper used the publisher only get's money for X copies sold despite the fact that 1,5X people bought the game. Now without used sales they would get 50% more money, with used sales gamestop get's more cash.

Where are you getting that completely random and baseless statistic from? Like, you literally pulled 50% out of your ass. You can't have 50% more of 100%. They made 100% of the money they were gonna make off that game. You're assuming the same number of people who bought the game new would buy it used, which isn't true. In fact it's more accurate to say, if I was going to default to such retarded logic, that they would have made 120% more money without the used sales. But that would imply I don't have even the most basic rudimentary knowledge of how economics work.

You're dumb. He made a mistake saying 1.5X when it would actually be 2X because in his account for every copy sold, two people get to play it. So the publisher gets half of what it should get that way (50%, because they sold say 50 of their 100 copies, but 100 people total bought it [50 new, and 50 used]). Now the pubs/devs have only sold half of their stock, but all the customers have played the game either used or new. So, if there were no used games market then those who bought it used would have to buy a new copy, and that is where the pubs/devs would actually get 100% more money (not 50%, because they doubled their money over the situation where two people shared the disc). It's just simple logic, more people buy new, more money for pubs/devs. And if you buy used then you should accept a decreased level of functionality.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Well, I've been looking at some of the comments on this thread and I have to say...

Gamers are some of the most retarded fucking consumers in the entire world...

Okay, so from what I'm seeing, the major argument about why it's bad to buy used is because the developers won't get their money. This is stupid, they get their money when they sell it to the retailer, just like every other product out there. Most developers of other products don't get extra money just because you bought it in a certain time frame. The money that game developers get from you for pre-purchases is a RIP-OFF, not necessary. And, honestly, do you really think it's hurting the game industry? Most developers are pushing out at least one game per year, some are even pushing out two. With how much money it takes to make these, they'd have to be making a proffit to be churning out so many in a short time frame.

And what's the bright idea with cutting out single-player if you buy used? If you bought the new Disturbed album a month later, do you expect them to cut out the cover song?

Also, forcing gamers to buy every game new (which is basically what developers are trying to do) isn't feasible. I'm a huge gamer, who likes a lot of genres. I have 5 games coming out real soon that I really want, but won't be able to buy new. Why, you ask? Because I have to eat! I can't spend 300 bucks in a matter of a couple months, or else I'll go broke. So I wait for the price to go down and buy used.

I did the math earlier. To break even at $60 a game, assuming it cost $50 million to make (which is on the high end, even for a AAA game) the companies only have to sell 833,333 and a third copies. I've never heard of a game that has less than that in pre-orders. Games companies aren't starving, they're just trying to get every dime of profit they can possible make.

Incidentally, if you sell that same $50 million game for $25 a copy, you break even at 2 million copies. If the game only cost $30 million to make (which isn't unreasonable; like I said, $50 million is a lot for a video game), it breaks even at 1.2 million units. Basic economics say that people will buy more of a product at a lower price point, so these game companies are pretty darned stupid for sticking with $60 a game. They could easily find a better price point, but they don't, because they like gouging the consumer and then crying that said consumer isn't paying them enough, and that the consumer feels "entitled," whatever that means. If anyone has a false sense of entitlement here, it's the publishers, not their customers.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

If their business model is so flawed that used games are endangering their business, yes, they deserve to go out of business. It sucks for the people who work there, but the games companies do have it coming. As for me putting words in your mouth, those sections were aimed at more than just you. I've been seeing people argue this stuff all day, and it's really getting on my nerves.

It's no their fault that gamestop is stealing sales and profits from them. Saying it is is a very childish way of looking at things. That's what it is, every time gamestop sells a game used, it's depriving a developer a sale and any profit they would have made on that sale.

For the record, I am a 21 year old, piss poor college student, and i buy ALL of my games new. If given the option of paying less for something or paying more to support the people who make it. I will ALWAYS choose to support the making of something I enjoy.

Gamestop is not stealing sales and profits from the industry; the industry is trying to steal sales and profits from Gamestop. If they can't compete with their own used market, they are running their business terribly, and, capitalism 101, they should go out of business. The fact that they aren't doing this in large numbers suggests it's all a bunch of BS that they're telling consumers to try to get them to shell out just a little bit more money. Also, if you can afford $60 on any kind of entertainment product, you aren't piss poor, just sayin'.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

If their business model is so flawed that used games are endangering their business, yes, they deserve to go out of business. It sucks for the people who work there, but the games companies do have it coming. As for me putting words in your mouth, those sections were aimed at more than just you. I've been seeing people argue this stuff all day, and it's really getting on my nerves.

It's no their fault that gamestop is stealing sales and profits from them. Saying it is is a very childish way of looking at things. That's what it is, every time gamestop sells a game used, it's depriving a developer a sale and any profit they would have made on that sale.

For the record, I am a 21 year old, piss poor college student, and i buy ALL of my games new. If given the option of paying less for something or paying more to support the people who make it. I will ALWAYS choose to support the making of something I enjoy.

And do you buy everything new? clothes, cars, furniture, etc?

Haha! saying yes would explain being piss poor, and saying no creates a hypocritical statement!

I feel warm and fuzzy inside now :3

 

[Laxman9292]

Well, I've been looking at some of the comments on this thread and I have to say...

Gamers are some of the most retarded fucking consumers in the entire world...

Okay, so from what I'm seeing, the major argument about why it's bad to buy used is because the developers won't get their money. This is stupid, they get their money when they sell it to the retailer, just like every other product out there. Most developers of other products don't get extra money just because you bought it in a certain time frame. The money that game developers get from you for pre-purchases is a RIP-OFF, not necessary. And, honestly, do you really think it's hurting the game industry? Most developers are pushing out at least one game per year, some are even pushing out two. With how much money it takes to make these, they'd have to be making a proffit to be churning out so many in a short time frame.

And what's the bright idea with cutting out single-player if you buy used? If you bought the new Disturbed album a month later, do you expect them to cut out the cover song?

Also, forcing gamers to buy every game new (which is basically what developers are trying to do) isn't feasible. I'm a huge gamer, who likes a lot of genres. I have 5 games coming out real soon that I really want, but won't be able to buy new. Why, you ask? Because I have to eat! I can't spend 300 bucks in a matter of a couple months, or else I'll go broke. So I wait for the price to go down and buy used.

Because when retailers buy back games then they don't have to buy more games from the pubs/devs, they can just sell the used games back again. Therefore, the pubs/devs get less money. Didn't follow that train of logic all the way to the station did we?

And the Disturbed album example is just as retarded (protip: have better taste in music). No one is saying you have to buy it withing a month. An actual analogy that doesn't suck would be more like buying the album new, or finding a download on the internet for free but lacks a song or two. In exchange for lower (or nonexistent price) you receive a less than ideal product. It's just because lazy people these days are used to getting things easy and free so that when they hear things like this they don't think in a way that makes sense. They just hulk-out and rage about how unfair it is.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

-snip-

unless, you know, those people who bought it used couldn't afford to buy it new so they wouldn't have bought it either way.

EDIT: It seems I F'd up the quotations

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Well, I've been looking at some of the comments on this thread and I have to say...

Gamers are some of the most retarded fucking consumers in the entire world...

Okay, so from what I'm seeing, the major argument about why it's bad to buy used is because the developers won't get their money. This is stupid, they get their money when they sell it to the retailer, just like every other product out there. Most developers of other products don't get extra money just because you bought it in a certain time frame. The money that game developers get from you for pre-purchases is a RIP-OFF, not necessary. And, honestly, do you really think it's hurting the game industry? Most developers are pushing out at least one game per year, some are even pushing out two. With how much money it takes to make these, they'd have to be making a proffit to be churning out so many in a short time frame.

And what's the bright idea with cutting out single-player if you buy used? If you bought the new Disturbed album a month later, do you expect them to cut out the cover song?

Also, forcing gamers to buy every game new (which is basically what developers are trying to do) isn't feasible. I'm a huge gamer, who likes a lot of genres. I have 5 games coming out real soon that I really want, but won't be able to buy new. Why, you ask? Because I have to eat! I can't spend 300 bucks in a matter of a couple months, or else I'll go broke. So I wait for the price to go down and buy used.

Because when retailers buy back games then they don't have to buy more games from the pubs/devs, they can just sell the used games back again. Therefore, the pubs/devs get less money. Didn't follow that train of logic all the way to the station did we?

And the Disturbed album example is just as retarded (protip: have better taste in music). No one is saying you have to buy it withing a month. An actual analogy that doesn't suck would be more like buying the album new, or finding a download on the internet for free but lacks a song or two. In exchange for lower (or nonexistent price) you receive a less than ideal product. It's just because lazy people these days are used to getting things easy and free so that when they hear things like this they don't think in a way that makes sense. They just hulk-out and rage about how unfair it is.

Uh, how about no. If a company tried to do this 50 years ago, they would have gone out of business really quickly, because the consumers would not have put up with it. Since money changes hands here, and it's the same physical copy going around twice, your free download minus a couple of tracks comment is just nonsensical. We're talking about the same physical disk changing hands, and a portion of it somehow being removed by the label. It's a truly ridiculous concept, and yet game companies act like we should expect this, that it should be the norm. We shouldn't, and it shouldn't, but gamers as a group lack the backbone necessary to stand up for anything. We're terrible consumers, and it's because we bow to industry pressure too easily, not because we don't pay them enough for their product.

 

[Laxman9292]

If their business model is so flawed that used games are endangering their business, yes, they deserve to go out of business. It sucks for the people who work there, but the games companies do have it coming. As for me putting words in your mouth, those sections were aimed at more than just you. I've been seeing people argue this stuff all day, and it's really getting on my nerves.

It's no their fault that gamestop is stealing sales and profits from them. Saying it is is a very childish way of looking at things. That's what it is, every time gamestop sells a game used, it's depriving a developer a sale and any profit they would have made on that sale.

For the record, I am a 21 year old, piss poor college student, and i buy ALL of my games new. If given the option of paying less for something or paying more to support the people who make it. I will ALWAYS choose to support the making of something I enjoy.

And do you buy everything new? clothes, cars, furniture, etc?

Haha! saying yes would explain being piss poor, and saying no creates a hypocritical statement!

I feel warm and fuzzy inside now :3

I assume not because he doesn't really value the making of quality couches as opposed to video games, just a hunch. Or that he's willing to buy a used couch and accept that since he didn't buy new that he would be prone to lapses in quality such as one leg being a tad short or a stain or general odor, but not buy a used game and accept the loss in quality there. I mean how often do you buy something off craigslist or something and find yourself hoping there isn't something wrong with it. Well games are just like that, but at least you know what lesser quality you're getting.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Gamestop is not stealing sales and profits from the industry; the industry is trying to steal sales and profits from Gamestop. If they can't compete with their own used market, they are running their business terribly, and, capitalism 101, they should go out of business. The fact that they aren't doing this in large numbers suggests it's all a bunch of BS that they're telling consumers to try to get them to shell out just a little bit more money. Also, if you can afford $60 on any kind of entertainment product, you aren't piss poor, just sayin'.

You have poor understanding of the industry and massive entitlement issues. Gamestop didn't make the game, it doesn't deserve 100% of the profits made from it's sale. Just because you don't see companies going out of business, does not mean that used game sales aren't hurting the industry. Developers are already trying to combat used game sales, have been for years, Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins are good examples, both came with free DLC (a character) if you bought the game new.

Also, on a personal note, My finances are my own business, if there's a game coming out that I want, I'll save up money for it for when it comes out. I don't buy every game coming out because I can't afford to. This kind of passive aggressive argument is not helping sway me to your line of thinking.

Gamestop didn't make the game, but it does own the copy it's trying to sell. It's the games industry that thinks its entitled to a cut of the sale of something they don't even own; why exactly am I being accused of entitlement issues, and not them?

 

[neonsword13-ops]

Is stealing a car the same as buying it used?

YES, because the buyer/theif gets screwed either way!

Used games are part of my daily deposit, but theivery and a cheap bargain are two totally different things.

 

[Laxman9292]

Well, I've been looking at some of the comments on this thread and I have to say...

Gamers are some of the most retarded fucking consumers in the entire world...

Okay, so from what I'm seeing, the major argument about why it's bad to buy used is because the developers won't get their money. This is stupid, they get their money when they sell it to the retailer, just like every other product out there. Most developers of other products don't get extra money just because you bought it in a certain time frame. The money that game developers get from you for pre-purchases is a RIP-OFF, not necessary. And, honestly, do you really think it's hurting the game industry? Most developers are pushing out at least one game per year, some are even pushing out two. With how much money it takes to make these, they'd have to be making a proffit to be churning out so many in a short time frame.

And what's the bright idea with cutting out single-player if you buy used? If you bought the new Disturbed album a month later, do you expect them to cut out the cover song?

Also, forcing gamers to buy every game new (which is basically what developers are trying to do) isn't feasible. I'm a huge gamer, who likes a lot of genres. I have 5 games coming out real soon that I really want, but won't be able to buy new. Why, you ask? Because I have to eat! I can't spend 300 bucks in a matter of a couple months, or else I'll go broke. So I wait for the price to go down and buy used.

Because when retailers buy back games then they don't have to buy more games from the pubs/devs, they can just sell the used games back again. Therefore, the pubs/devs get less money. Didn't follow that train of logic all the way to the station did we?

And the Disturbed album example is just as retarded (protip: have better taste in music). No one is saying you have to buy it withing a month. An actual analogy that doesn't suck would be more like buying the album new, or finding a download on the internet for free but lacks a song or two. In exchange for lower (or nonexistent price) you receive a less than ideal product. It's just because lazy people these days are used to getting things easy and free so that when they hear things like this they don't think in a way that makes sense. They just hulk-out and rage about how unfair it is.

Uh, how about no. If a company tried to do this 50 years ago, they would have gone out of business really quickly, because the consumers would not have put up with it. Since money changes hands here, and it's the same physical copy going around twice, your free download minus a couple of tracks comment is just nonsensical. We're talking about the same physical disk changing hands, and a portion of it somehow being removed by the label. It's a truly ridiculous concept, and yet game companies act like we should expect this, that it should be the norm. We shouldn't, and it shouldn't, but gamers as a group lack the backbone necessary to stand up for anything. We're terrible consumers, and it's because we bow to industry pressure too easily, not because we don't pay them enough for their product.

Ok well how about a used CD that has a scratch rendering a track or two unplayable. It's the same thing, you just had to be a douche and nitpick my argument for including non-physical media, my bad. You buy a used car and have to pay for repairs, you buy a used CD and find a few songs scratched, you buy a table used and find one leg slightly shorter, you order a cheap used hooker and find out that there is a loss in quality compared to those fancy new hi-quality hookers (or maybe that last one's just me). These are risks one assumes for buying used. Gamers aren't pussies, (well maybe we are, but not in this instance necessarily) some of us are just entitled pricks looking to save a few bucks, which isn't bad but don't act dumbfounded when the companies lash back for their cut in profits.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

If their business model is so flawed that used games are endangering their business, yes, they deserve to go out of business. It sucks for the people who work there, but the games companies do have it coming. As for me putting words in your mouth, those sections were aimed at more than just you. I've been seeing people argue this stuff all day, and it's really getting on my nerves.

It's no their fault that gamestop is stealing sales and profits from them. Saying it is is a very childish way of looking at things. That's what it is, every time gamestop sells a game used, it's depriving a developer a sale and any profit they would have made on that sale.

For the record, I am a 21 year old, piss poor college student, and i buy ALL of my games new. If given the option of paying less for something or paying more to support the people who make it. I will ALWAYS choose to support the making of something I enjoy.

And do you buy everything new? clothes, cars, furniture, etc?

Haha! saying yes would explain being piss poor, and saying no creates a hypocritical statement!

I feel warm and fuzzy inside now :3

I assume not because he doesn't really value the making of quality couches as opposed to video games, just a hunch. Or that he's willing to buy a used couch and accept that since he didn't buy new that he would be prone to lapses in quality such as one leg being a tad short or a stain or general odor, but not buy a used game and accept the loss in quality there. I mean how often do you buy something off craigslist or something and find yourself hoping there isn't something wrong with it. Well games are just like that, but at least you know what lesser quality you're getting.

This has been stated 1000 times already, but used games do degrade without the help of the industry. The case gets scratched up, the manual gets lost or water stained. The disc gets scuffed up, and whatever pack ins (remember those?) that it might have come with can get lost. Cutting parts of a game out after they've been used once is a completely different issue to this, and I think you know it.