Buy used? Can't complain.

[xvbones]

I watched my first (and last) Jimquisition the other day, it was the one where he makes the argument for the existence of the preowned games market and consisted entirely of Jim stating, repeatedly, that since we are poor and since used games are cheaper, therefore it is a practice that must continue.

That was seriously the entire argument.

So, I'd just like to toss this out here, to those of you who find nothing wrong with buying preowned;

If you only purchase used games, you have no right to complain about those games.

None. Not even a little.

Here is how this works: the money from the sale of the used game, it does not go to the devs. It stays at the game shop. The devs, the company and people who created that game, do not see a single thin dime (or pence or whatever) from that sale, period.

Meaning, in effect, that you are only supporting the store itself, the retail industry and not the games industry.

Hated Dragon Age 2? Did you buy it used?
Well then, Bioware has no incentive to listen to your complaints.

They got no money from you, so you basically do not exist to them.
It is as simple as that: your money didn't feed them, so they don't see you.
You're not a customer of theirs, you are a customer of Gamestop.

In the eyes of the game industry, buying used is one step removed from outright theft because it involves the distribution of their hard work and does not involve getting paid for it.
(Moreover, the practices of stores like Gamestop are getting closer and closer to outright theft as it is.)

So, there you go.

The used games market severely damages the industry because it deprives the developers of any and all support.

The industry doesn't have to listen to you if you buy used.

Hate the games you've bought used?

Take it up with Gamestop.

 

[Erttheking]

Um, how about no? How about they still created the damn product? So unless I pay a couple more bucks for something I'm not allowed to complain? They made the game, someone payed for it, and if they're not criticized they won't learn. So if Yahtzee secretly bought used games and this fact was revealed, his opinion would lose all meaning? The game industry is a big boy, me buying a used copy of Halo 3 is not going to bankrupt Bungie, BTW that's exactly what I did, and I complain about the contents of the game. Deal with it.

BTW, ever hear of Capitalism? Look it up.

 

[xvbones]

Um, how about no? How about they still created the damn product?

Yup, they did. And you didn't pay them for the product, your money went to Gamestop and stayed at Gamestop.

The creators of that game saw no money from that sale.

Which means you didn't support them, you supported the used game store.

So, in essence, how about yes.

So unless I pay a couple more bucks for something I'm not allowed to complain? They made the game, someone payed for it, and if they're not criticized they won't learn.

Except that if you bought it used, they have no incentive to listen to your criticism because you aren't going to give them money anyway.

They won't 'learn' from you, because you didn't give them any money.

They have no reason to listen to you.

At all.

So if Yahtzee secretly bought used games and this fact was revealed, his opinion would lose all meaning?

You aren't Yahtzee.

And yes, actually, it would.

He would be just another person shouting loudly about an industry he doesn't support, if he bought used.

He'd have every right to ***** about the RETAIL industry, sure.

But not GAMES.

The game industry is a big boy, me buying a used copy of Halo 3 is not going to bankrupt Bungie,

Nope. But it does mean that your money didn't go to Bungie.

Meaning that to Bungie, you don't exist.

You aren't a customer of Bungie. You didn't give them aaaaaany money. They don't need to cater to you, because you don't support them with your consumer dollars.

BTW that's exactly what I did, and I complain about the contents of the game. Deal with it.

Your complaints have no value to the games industry, because you won't be giving them any money, you'll be giving all your money to the retail sector.
They see no profit in that and they see no profit in you.

To them, you are a freeloader.

BTW, ever hear of Capitalism? Look it up.

*ahem*

This is capitalism, son.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I watched my first (and last) Jimquisition the other day, it was the one where he makes the argument for the existence of the preowned games market and consisted entirely of Jim stating, repeatedly, that since we are poor and since used games are cheaper, therefore it is a practice that must continue.

That was seriously the entire argument.

So, I'd just like to toss this out here, to those of you who find nothing wrong with buying preowned;

If you only purchase used games, you have no right to complain about those games.

None. Not even a little.

Here is how this works: the money from the sale of the used game, it does not go to the devs. It stays at the game shop. The devs, the company and people who created that game, do not see a single thin dime (or pence or whatever) from that sale, period.

Meaning, in effect, that you are only supporting the store itself, the retail industry and not the games industry.

Hated Dragon Age 2? Did you buy it used?
Well then, Bioware has no incentive to listen to your complaints.

They got no money from you, so you basically do not exist to them.
It is as simple as that: your money didn't feed them, so they don't see you.
You're not a customer of theirs, you are a customer of Gamestop.

In the eyes of the game industry, buying used is one step removed from outright theft because it involves the distribution of their hard work and does not involve getting paid for it.
(Moreover, the practices of stores like Gamestop are getting closer and closer to outright theft as it is.)

So, there you go.

The used games market severely damages the industry because it deprives the developers of any and all support.

The industry doesn't have to listen to you if you buy used.

Hate the games you've bought used?

Take it up with Gamestop.

While the industry doesn't "have" to listen to anyone, it indeed SHOULD listen to the valid concerns of people who experienced their game, regardless of how they came to obtain it.



If giving money to a company is enough to get them to listen to you then all games would be made by the fans.

No, you'll be listened if you have something worthwhile to say, not only if you spend 60 bucks on a game regardless of what you're saying.

 

[Jauffre]

Well perhaps if they listened to the complaints, took them in, fixed the problems, then perhaps these people buying used would see the next fixed game they make as worthy of a full price purchase.

 

[TheDooD]

snip

When it comes to Corporate dick riding Capitalism only applies to a few.

OT

Hell If I don't like a game I got used I can return it within a week. That what make Gamestop great, also don't forget people buy NEW games and products from Gamestop as well.

 

[joe-h2o]

I take it you also think the used book market "severely damages" the publishing industry, and that the used car market and used housing markets also "severely damage" those industries?

The game companies (or I suppose, the publishers that own them) complain about used sales as "lost revenue", but that's simply disingenuous. The reason that the used market is as big as it is is because of the high cost of new games. Certainly the costs of development are high, but when a AAA title can have *millions* spent on it and then *still* turn out a mediocre to poor product, then yes - people are going to complain. Especially if they buy it at the full price.

I'm amused that you equate the practice with theft, since that's the sort of rhetoric that the music industry uses, and the movie industry did (especially around the time when the VCR was invented - they tried to lobby to prevent the sale of VCRs to consumers, arguing that it would destroy the movie industry, only to later discover that they made more money selling VHS copies of movies in stores).

The game industry has backed itself into this corner - games are very expensive, and are often poor showings for the price asked (even with the gigantic budgets). They need to address why so many people find second hand games so attractive - value for money. Brand new games simply do not provide that, with a few notable exceptions.

 

[Erttheking]

Um, how about no? How about they still created the damn product?

Yup, they did. And you didn't pay them for the product, your money went to Gamestop and stayed at Gamestop.

The creators of that game saw no money from that sale.

Which means you didn't support them, you supported the used game store.

So, in essence, how about yes.

So unless I pay a couple more bucks for something I'm not allowed to complain? They made the game, someone payed for it, and if they're not criticized they won't learn.

Except that if you bought it used, they have no incentive to listen to your criticism because you aren't going to give them money anyway.

They won't 'learn' from you, because you didn't give them any money.

They have no reason to listen to you.

At all.

So if Yahtzee secretly bought used games and this fact was revealed, his opinion would lose all meaning?

You aren't Yahtzee.

And yes, actually, it would.

He would be just another person shouting loudly about an industry he doesn't support, if he bought used.

He'd have every right to ***** about the RETAIL industry, sure.

But not GAMES.

The game industry is a big boy, me buying a used copy of Halo 3 is not going to bankrupt Bungie,

Nope. But it does mean that your money didn't go to Bungie.

Meaning that to Bungie, you don't exist.

You aren't a customer of Bungie. You didn't give them aaaaaany money. They don't need to cater to you, because you don't support them with your consumer dollars.

BTW that's exactly what I did, and I complain about the contents of the game. Deal with it.

Your complaints have no value to the games industry, because you won't be giving them any money, you'll be giving all your money to the retail sector.
They see no profit in that and they see no profit in you.

To them, you are a freeloader.

BTW, ever hear of Capitalism? Look it up.

*ahem*

This is capitalism, son.

Oh boo hoo, Game companies are wosing money, I'm a bad bad boy. Last time I checked, Activision, Bungie and Epic Games weren't making public statements of all the money that they were losing. Also here's the thing, once Gamestop buys the game from Bungie, THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT WITH IT, including selling it to gamers, and once that gamer has it, THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT WITH IT, including selling it back, and once it has been sold back gamestop can do WHAT. EVER. THE. FUCK. THEY. WANT. WITH. IT! THAT is capitalism, it isn't copyright infringement, it isn't illegal distribution, it is 110% legal. Also, criticism is criticism, developers listen to their fans, they don't care how we got they game, they know that we like it and they listen to criticism so that they can improve their game the next time around. These people make hundreds of millions of dollars every time they release a game, me buying used is not going to bankrupt them, they already made money off of that game anyway. Also, HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU KNOW WHAT DEVELOPERS THINK OF ME?! You don't know what's going on in the mind of the head of Bungie, nor of Activision or Epic Games. Everyone has the right to not listen to someone...but they listen anyone but my criticism will help them in their next game, do you honestly think I would complain for other reasons? Also, unlike you, developers are not petty, and will not stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalala" when I complain about a game because it's used, even if it's a fair point. Also, does that mean I shouldn't give copies of my games away or lend them to friends? God you're delusional, people will continue to buy used and they will complain, a developers will listen. Get over it.

In summary to your point

http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/Neither+and+that+s+100+fact+xD+And+_cb1dc3cb7709397c08a5ca6410e443c9.jpg

 

[xvbones]

I take it you also think the used book market "severely damages" the publishing industry, and that the used car market and used housing markets also "severely damage" those industries?

The used book market does not damage the publishing industry, it damages the writers who do not get royalties from those sales.

Cars lose value with age because they gradually wear down, require replacement parts and increased work. New cars are also visible and thus a status symbol. The new car market will thrive so long as anyone wants to look better than anyone else, in essence, forever.
Apart from which, major used car dealerships will still have licenses to sell the larger brands, meaning those large brands still see value in the practice.

As for the 'used housing industry'.... really now.
'Used housing industry.'
Really.

The game companies (or I suppose, the publishers that own them) complain about used sales as "lost revenue", but that's simply disingenuous.

The problem is that it is not disingenuous here, it is literal.
Used games are literally lost revenue.
Precise and exact and accurate, lost revenue.
There is no other way to define the impact of a used game on the industry: lost revenue.

The reason that the used market is as big as it is is because of the high cost of new games. Certainly the costs of development are high, but when a AAA title can have *millions* spent on it and then *still* turn out a mediocre to poor product, then yes - people are going to complain. Especially if they buy it at the full price.

But that's something else entirely. That's the exploding cost of developing games mixed with developers not wanting to take any chances and to only deliver products they KNOW will make money - exactly like hollywood.

But the people who bought it used cannot complain about this, because your stake is not in their pot.

The only thing you have a right to complain about, if you buy used, is the practices of Gamestop or whatever store you bought the game at.
You have the right to go to THEM and say "this game fucking sucked" and argue with THEM over their return policy and basically nothing else.

Any complaint levied at the developers of that game will not reach them because you do not support them.

They don't make a dime off of you;
They don't need to listen to you.

I'm amused that you equate the practice with theft, since that's the sort of rhetoric that the music industry uses, and the movie industry did (especially around the time when the VCR was invented - they tried to lobby to prevent the sale of VCRs to consumers, arguing that it would destroy the movie industry, only to later discover that they made more money selling VHS copies of movies in stores).

The problem here is that demonstrably, and supported by the courts in numerous lawsuits, that piracy actually is theft.

Mock this as much as you want to, it doesn't change the fact that those songs and movies you like to download for free actually do have a cash value, and the courts, once again, have supported this.

Piracy is theft. That's why it's illegal. That's why all of those lawsuits were successful. Say whatever you want to about the RIAA and subsequent lobbying, they made the case that their property has monetary value and the courts agreed.

I'm amused at your amusement, frankly.
It's a pretty flippant attitude to take, but fairly predictable from a person whose only stake in this matter is a desire to get someone else's hard work for free.

 

[xvbones]

Oh boo hoo, Game companies are wosing money, I'm a bad bad boy.

And right there was when i stopped paying attention to you.

 

[xvbones]

If giving money to a company is enough to get them to listen to you then all games would be made by the fans.

Listen to me very very carefully:

Giving money to a company is the only way to get them to listen to you.

No, you'll be listened if you have something worthwhile to say, not only if you spend 60 bucks on a game regardless of what you're saying.

No, you won't.

If you do not support the developers with your dollars, your opinions have literally no value to them.

That is how capitalism actually works.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Be sure to read OPs post before picking a bone with it. If you do buy used, then even if you do complain about it, the companies really don't have any incentive to listen to you. Just go return the game and buy another used game and so on. Why should a company listen to you if you didn't give them anything in return? Not that its promised they would listen to you anyways if you did buy new. In the end it won't matter as much, its just principle here.

 

[xvbones]

The vast majority of used games suffer no decrease in quality. This means that everyone is going to be getting the same experience. Unless people who buy used games are having vastly different experiences than those who buy new, I don't see how it makes any difference.

Do you... do you often post in threads that you just plain have not read? Like did not bother to read the OP at all but decided to weigh in anyway, regardless of the fact that you are in fact weighing in on something that isn't remotely a part of this topic, even a little?

Like at all?

What I'm saying is, seriously dude, what?

If the only thing you have going for you is "This guy paid the devs indirectly, and this one paid even more indirectly", then I don't really see why you even care.

"One guy paid the devs indirectly and the other guy didn't pay the devs at all."

Although, I probably completely misread your post, so whatever.

Well. It's a good thing you commented, then.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

The game companies (or I suppose, the publishers that own them) complain about used sales as "lost revenue", but that's simply disingenuous.

The problem is that it is not disingenuous here, it is literal.
Used games are literally lost revenue.
Precise and exact and accurate, lost revenue.
There is no other way to define the impact of a used game on the industry: lost revenue.

In that same sense, my refusal to forward my paycheck to them directly is "lost revenue". The problem is the assumption this is somehow wrongful. It's begging the question. That's why it's being called "disingenuous".

 

[joe-h2o]

I take it you also think the used book market "severely damages" the publishing industry, and that the used car market and used housing markets also "severely damage" those industries?

The used book market does not damage the publishing industry, it damages the writers who do not get royalties from those sales.

Cars lose value with age because they gradually wear down, require replacement parts and increased work. New cars are also visible and thus a status symbol. The new car market will thrive so long as anyone wants to look better than anyone else, in essence, forever.
Apart from which, major used car dealerships will still have licenses to sell the larger brands, meaning those large brands still see value in the practice.

As for the 'used housing industry'.... really now.
'Used housing industry.'
Really.

Yes, really. What else would you call it? How do you think the property ladder works? You think people only ever move into new houses? The second hand buyers are vital for the health of the industry because it allows people to move up the chain, or move sideways in a chain by selling the house they live in and either moving into a new build, another previously owned house or (infrequently) into a house they have custom built for them. This is all possible because people buy houses that have already been owned. Not everyone can afford to build new.

Put it this way, in a game context. Person A trades in game A, then uses the money to buy a new copy of game B. Person C buys this used copy and enjoys it. Person C might buy the sequel new, or maybe not. Second hand sales facilitated by retail stores allow for more liquidity (for want of a better term), which helps new sales as well as second hand sales.

The game companies (or I suppose, the publishers that own them) complain about used sales as "lost revenue", but that's simply disingenuous.

The problem is that it is not disingenuous here, it is literal.
Used games are literally lost revenue.
Precise and exact and accurate, lost revenue.
There is no other way to define the impact of a used game on the industry: lost revenue.

And here is where your disingenuous thinking comes in. It is in *no way* a literal loss of income. You have absolutely no grounds to state that someone who bought the game second hand would have bought it at the full retail price. They may not have bought it at all. Sure, there may be *some* who will suck it up and pay the full cost, but it a long way from all. This is the way the music industry determined the "lost revenue" from file sharing - x million downloads of an album at $15 per album = $15x million dollars! In lost sales!

It simply doesn't work that way.

You're also ignoring exposure to the franchise and the developer. Making a good impression can get you a repeat customer whose first purchase from you new might be your next title.

The reason that the used market is as big as it is is because of the high cost of new games. Certainly the costs of development are high, but when a AAA title can have *millions* spent on it and then *still* turn out a mediocre to poor product, then yes - people are going to complain. Especially if they buy it at the full price.

But that's something else entirely. That's the exploding cost of developing games mixed with developers not wanting to take any chances and to only deliver products they KNOW will make money - exactly like hollywood.

But the people who bought it used cannot complain about this, because your stake is not in their pot.

Well, as a gamer with income to spend on games, I'd say your stake really was in their pot. They should be asking why you are not willing to buy from them - you touched on a few good points there, but it ultimately boils down to what I said before: value for money.

Any complaint levied at the developers of that game will not reach them because you do not support them.

They don't make a dime off of you;
They don't need to listen to you.

Now, this is known as "cutting your nose off to spite your face" and it makes for a *terrible* business practice, especially when related to feedback on your product. The aim of the company is to make money, and improve on their product. Ignoring criticism from sources that didn't directly give them money is just childish and short sighted.

I'm amused that you equate the practice with theft, since that's the sort of rhetoric that the music industry uses, and the movie industry did (especially around the time when the VCR was invented - they tried to lobby to prevent the sale of VCRs to consumers, arguing that it would destroy the movie industry, only to later discover that they made more money selling VHS copies of movies in stores).

The problem here is that demonstrably, and supported by the courts in numerous lawsuits, that piracy actually is theft.

Mock this as much as you want to, it doesn't change the fact that those songs and movies you like to download for free actually do have a cash value, and the courts, once again, have supported this.

Piracy is theft. That's why it's illegal. That's why all of those lawsuits were successful. Say whatever you want to about the RIAA and subsequent lobbying, they made the case that their property has monetary value and the courts agreed.

I'm amused at your amusement, frankly.
It's a pretty flippant attitude to take, but fairly predictable from a person whose only stake in this matter is a desire to get someone else's hard work for free.

Whoa! Who said anything about piracy?! You're confusing the issue. I'm talking about second hand game sales and second hand video sales, or taping stuff off the TV (the thing the movie industry were really concerned would kill them when the consumer VCR was invented). I'm not talking about piracy *at all*.

Buying a used game *is categorically not theft or piracy*, and it weakens your overall argument by trying to equate them.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

So if I buy a car used, then I have no right to complain about it when the engine falls out?

 

[jthwilliams]

SNIP

There is so much questionable logic in this comment, it is hard to figure out where to start.

First and foremost it is simply wrong. Anyone who bought the game or not can complain at least in the majority of the Western World. The developer is only required to be concerned about the complaints where they address illegal behavior such as fraud and liability.

Second, second hand purchases do not invalidate original manufacturer liability. What the liability is in the case of a computer game? I don't know, I don't think it has been properly defined. However, a lawyer around here could probably answer that.

Third, When I buy a second hand product, I am subsudising the original purchase. The orginator is granting me all rights that s/he is entitled to in favor of the money I provide him/her. The fact that that gamespot acts as a middle agent and pulls a considerable profit doesn't invalidate this transfer. Included is the right to not only play the game, but complain about the game. So in fact $15 of my dolors have gone into the original purchase in exchange for the origanal owner relenquishing all rights.

Fourth, Game manufactures would be foolish to ignore the secondary market. Every secondary market purchaser is a potential first market purchaser.

 

[Lilani]

-snip-

Buying a game used doesn't alter the content in any way. If the content of the game is shitty, then yes I do have the right to take it up with the developer. It's their fault the content is shitty. It's just the same as if I were to buy a used car and the fuel line was made of substandard material. That's not a problem the used dealership caused, that's a problem with how the car was made by the manufacturer, and it should be brought to their attention.

Also, ever notice how buying other things used isn't a big deal, yet for video games it's some sort of cardinal sin? Really, this is just a rude awakening for developers that's only hit them recently because only recently have their prices gone way above reasonable. They've lost money, but so has pretty much every other industry that has used sales. And they will continue to lose money if their products prove to be unworthy of their prices (and if they continue to overcharge in places, like Australia).