Buy used? Can't complain.

[Suicida1 Midget]

Yeah, so like, since skyrim is fulla bugs and i have it used, i cant ***** about the flying mammoth over dawnstar? Of course i can, cause they will listen to me. Now if i pay full price of battlefeild 3 and ***** about the origin eula they wont give a rats ass cause they got my money. Bitching is what helps the the devs make their products better, so if somone bitches about how x game is bad, maybe it will motivate them to make the next GOTY so that person will buy it.

It should be known that if you buy from someone else, the company got the money anyway, you just bought the rights of who spent that money.

 

[Birdman1604]

Every time someone tells me I have no right to complain I get confused... do I need someone's permission to speak? To have an opinion? To voice that opinion? No I do not. More on topic, if you are really saying that developers will only pay attention to the feedback from people who play their games if those people bought new then that's just downright silly. They will either disregard feedback entirely or they will take into account everyone's opinion as a potential future customer.

Besides, the big game companies get enough cash with them releasing DLC for ridiculous prices, or as sequels in disguise. Unless it's a smaller company or an indie game I'm not going to sweat it.

 

[NoNameMcgee]

Do you feel the same about buying used movies, or renting them?

What about getting books from a library rather than buying them?

The games industry and gamers themselves and the only ones who ever complain about this. Doesn't really happen in other forms of media does it? Yet, whats the difference? Not much.

and your thing about opinions meaning nothing if you buy used? Sorry, that's not very rational. Opinions on something dont lose their value if the experience is exactly the same as everyone else has experienced. Which it is.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Take it up with Gamestop.

And if I buy my pre-owned games from an independent retailer? I hate gamestop and haven't supported them in a long while so they aren't getting any of my money. As for used games, what if I buy a game used then purchase the DLC for said game? Do I get a voice then? Or if I buy Ass Creed 2 used but Revolations new, can I then go on and ***** to the devs about AC2's lack of multiplayer?

It's not right how the used market doesn't give anything back to the devs but it is a far less expensive alternative for some players like me, who can't afford to buy all of their games brand new on day one.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

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.

Yeah I stopped listening to you on that part I bold out for you to see. Ok so if I was providing you a service and you didn't like it why should I listen to you if you giving me money to keep the service. For me that means you don't mind the service because you are still giving me money for it. Reminds me of what LordKat said about donations, where if you stop donating he would love to know what he did wrong so he could fix it or change it. If a company starts losing money on their IP they are going to want to know how to make it better, but if they still get the money why should they care?

Also selling used products is legal so this topic should just end here.

EDIT:Also most money from game sales goes to the publisher not the game devs. The devs more often then not are paid in advance to make the game, and MAYBE get royalty for the game if it sells well (But not most of the time). So this whole "Devs" losing money thing is crap, it's publishers who lose the money.

 

[darth.pixie]

Don't really agree. Playing the game determines if you would buy a fresh new copy of another game they make. Used games, thus cheaper, is a good way to hook a new customer. But then, game companies have awful publicity. The thing is, a good or even just a cheap game is rarely sold after purchase. And since good and cheap games are so rare these days...well...you see my point.

That said, I never bought a used game (If I'm bored, I want to play a game now not in a few weeks and I don't even have a Gamestop around) but ...developers still don't listen to my complaints and those that I know who agree with me. I might as well be pirating for all that they care.

 

[Liham]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but dont the stores like gamestop BUY the games from the companies that produce them?
so even if the game is not sold at all but rather sits in the storeroom unsold the devs make money?

 

[Phishfood]

-Liberal snipping for space-

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.

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.

On the one hand I agree with you, it is somewhat wrong that used game sales do not feed back to the devs. However, I know several people who can only afford new games by trading in old games. Thus some of the money from used game sales DOES end up back with the devs, when the seller goes and uses the funds to buy the next game. Win for 2 people - the seller gets a new game, the buyer gets a new game. The devs get one sale. Gamestop or whatever get 2 sales. 2 people get a new (to them) game.

Now lets take out used game trading. Now the seller can't sell their game, the buyer can't get their game cheap. Neither person buys a game. Gamestop gets 0 sales. The devs get 0 sales. No-one gets a new game. Lose lose.

I was about to draw an analogy to the car industry - I bought my car second hand, I can't afford a new one. However the mfr DID get some money, I bought it at a branded dealer. I then took it back to them to service. Computer games don't need a yearly service creating a demand for parts. The best you can hope for is DLC that the used market will have to buy. Dear god, I just partially justified project $10. I feel dirty all over.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but dont the stores like gamestop BUY the games from the companies that produce them?
so even if the game is not sold at all but rather sits in the storeroom unsold the devs make money?

Technically true, however if Gamestop know they can buy 10 copies and sell them over and over to 50 people, they will only buy 10 copies. If all those people have to buy new Gamestop will buy 50 copies. These places know their sales figures and go to great lengths to NOT have stock sitting in the storeroom.

 

[9thRequiem]

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

You'd have no right to complain to the manufacturer. You should complain to the person/company who sold you the car - this pretty much goes without saying.
Then again, if the engine falls out is a technical fault; the game equivalent would be a disk so scratched it couldn't be read, so this isn't really a valid argument anyway.

Have to say I agree. I've got nothing against the second hand games market, but I also don't think it's worth the developer's time pandering to those that wouldn't have paid them anyway.

 

[Trivun]

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.

I think you only have one single point here, and I'm not going to bother deconstructing it (and thus your entire argument), because others have already done so much better than I could. So, I'm just going to leave one point with you instead.

What about game demos?

 

[Esotera]

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

None. Not even a little.

Here is how this works: the money from the sale of the used car, it does not go to the manufacturer. It stays at the car dealership. The manufacturer, the company and people who created that car, 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 automobile industry.

Hated the Prius? Did you buy it used?
Well then, Honda 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 a car dealership.

In the eyes of the car 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 <insert-car-dealership-here> are getting closer and closer to outright theft as it is.)

So, there you go.

The used car 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.

I hope you can see that your argument doesn't really make sense. If I buy a second-hand car that has defective disc-brakes, and the first owner didn't cause them, I have every right to complain to the manufacturer because their product is shoddy. Same goes for aspects of games you don't like.

And your argument entirely ignores companies like EA, who won't give two shits even if you do buy new.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

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

You'd have no right to complain to the manufacturer. You should complain to the person/company who sold you the car - this pretty much goes without saying.
Then again, if the engine falls out is a technical fault; the game equivalent would be a disk so scratched it couldn't be read, so this isn't really a valid argument anyway.

Have to say I agree. I've got nothing against the second hand games market, but I also don't think it's worth the developer's time pandering to those that wouldn't have paid them anyway.

It does if people who bought used want to see improvements to get them to buy new....remember used game sales could lead to new game sales.

 

[Woodsey]

People should be encouraged to buy the game new. If I played the first game in a series and bought it used, and it blew my tits off, I'm more likely to buy the second one new.

(Not that I buy used games of course, I'm not a peasant.) Much like piracy, publishers' and developers' time would be far better spent looking at how people can be encouraged to buy the game new, not whining about how many have pirated or bought used copies. Not that I don't think they have a right to whine about people stealing something they've made, but come on, you're not going to fucking stamp it out by including DRM on legitimate bloody copies.

 

[LetalisK]

Ignoring a criticism based upon the purchase status of the criticizer rather than the content of the criticism is one of the most ignorant and elitist things I've heard in this whole issue and is more likely to lead to the stagnation of the industry quicker than any used game industry will. You know, developers might actually be interested to know why someone decided that a game was not worth the full price and what would be seen as worth that cost. It could actually lead to developers taking a long hard look at their products or business model and fixing it where it's broken or *gasp!* innovating new ways to develop and distribute content that benefits everyone. But no, that could never happen....

Of all the anti-used games arguments I've seen, this is one of the worst. Actually, I take that back. This is one of the worst presentations of an anti-used games argument I've seen. I wonder if the movie rental industry had to deal with such insufferably arrogant arguments when it first started.

 

[Spandexpanda]

Also bear in mind that the developers have literally no idea which of the people complaining on their forums actually bought a copy and who didn't. Besides the fact, that I buy craploads of new games the entire time and the devs never listen to me. So screw 'em, I buy where I want, and get the same service anyhow, it's not as if the devs don't get paid in advance to make the game. EA doesn't need more money, and them thinking that they have the right to money from used sales is like Puffin Publishing or BMW phoning you up after you've bought a book from a second hand shop or a car from a car dealership and asking you for a percentage of the price.

And here's something nobody ever discusses: what about blockbuster? Why do no games companies care that blockbuster is renting out one copy of their game to possibly hundreds of people and not one of those people is paying EA or THQ for the privelage? Because this is a business model that no industry cares about: libraries, car rentals, dvd rental shops, costume rental - the manufacturers couldn't care less.

 

[Quellist]

To the OP

Seriously dude, stop whining, most every other product in the world that can be reused IS reused and the manufacturers dont whine about it. The games industry is one of the most bloated and greedy around, on a par with hollywood if not worse and apologists like you only make things worse.

 

[Frostbyte666]

OP your rant just screams of the copyright infringement messages you get on legally bought dvd's which annoy the heck out of me. I buy both new and used games and each has their place for me.

For new games, even though they are more expensive, I buy them because I have either been waiting for the particular game for a while, trust the developer to give a good experience or have heard genuinely good things about it from friends. (e.g. Skyrim, go Bethesda)

Now onto the used games, these are cheaper and the reason I buy them is that I see a game that looks interesting and decide to take a risk, if I like it then I may pay more attention to that developer when their next game comes out and would probably buy new. The other reason would be older games that I may have lost or can't find anymore for new and get them through the used sales. (White Knight Chronicles, and unfortunately a huge letdown and glad I didn't give money to the developer for it).

This brings us onto a new way for getting games, digitally distributed, now this is excellent for older games or classics because though personally I prefer having the physical product the cost of it sometimes is absolutely shocking (Tales of Vesperia springs to mind). so I get it digitally and the developer still gets some coinage rather than people who have jacked up the price to obscene levels and reselling it.

In conclusion no I don't see used games as harming the industry if I didn't buy used I wouldn't have gotten certain games in the 1st place and thus wouldn't have gotten a few gems from certain developers, bought new. Also yes I do believe I have a right to complain about shoddy games even if I bought them used, because I think thank god I didn't waste even more money on a bad product and if you want me to consider anything from them they'd have to fix this, this, and that.

 

[ExileNZ]

God, not this again.

Look, dude, Jim's arguments may be flawed or repetitive, but here's the thing:

Libraries.

I could end the whole argument there, but let me remind you of something: Game stores make most of their profits on resale. Back in the day, they made maybe 20 bucks on the sale of an Xbox. The 360 is unlikely to yield much more, particularly now that it's getting on a bit and is therefore cheaper (but only for you - it still costs the same amount to make).
So, shut down used games sales and you basically shot down the outlets that sell games.
I may be a fan of Steam, but I like to be able to install a game without waiting for hours while it downloads. Also, if you shut down game stores, Origin will grow - at least Gamestop doesn't pre-install spyware.

Also, the buck does not stop at Gamestop. If I buy a game (used or not) and show it to my friends, they sometimes get interested. If I don't already have a cracked ISO on my hard disk, chances are much higher that they'll buy it too.

This is called word-of-mouth, and the entire book industry is held up by it (see again: libraries).

Ever heard of the Baen Free Library? Baen distributes a CD of a huge chunk of their works in every book they sell (they're also available online now). Why? Because chances are if you like their older stuff, you'll just go to the library (you get the point). But when the new one comes out, if you're hooked, you're much more likely to buy it off the shelf. It's not a guarantee, sure, but customers are selfish arseholes by nature and we have every right to be (just so long as we're not rude to the people behind the counter).

I'm not sure at what point lending games effectively became illegal, but you try that shit with books, DVDs, music or any other media and watch the fireworks.

 

[Hairetos]

I feel bad for you OP, I really do. It's like people didn't even bother to read the bolded parts of your post before posting. They do a gut-reaction of "Buying used is plenty moral!" when that's only a part of your post.

Essentially, you are right. Say there are 100 people in a room, 80 of which bought the game used and 20 of which bought the game used (obviously made-up ratio). Now say that the 80 pose a change to the developers that the other 20 disagree with. Why should the developers listen to those who gave them no money? If the other 20 agree with the change, then it doesn't really matter anyway.

Now obviously I'm overlooking a few things. For example, if 45 new-buyers want a change and 35 new-buyers plus the 20 used-buyers don't want it, the numbers get hairy. Furthermore, used game sales can become future new game sales, but the point is that those who don't directly support the developers can't complain when their voice isn't heard. Their opinion, by default, will be significantly less valuable than loyal customers, which is a well-known fact.

So that's your choice, I guess. You get to pay higher price when buying it new and have receptive developers or get it cheaper and have the developers never see your money (not that they can tell who buys used or new, but if they could...).

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

I feel bad for you OP, I really do. It's like people didn't even bother to read the bolded parts of your post before posting. They do a gut-reaction of "Buying used is plenty moral!" when that's only a part of your post.

Essentially, you are right. Say there are 100 people in a room, 80 of which bought the game used and 20 of which bought the game used (obviously made-up ratio). Now say that the 80 pose a change to the developers that the other 20 disagree with. Why should the developers listen to those who gave them no money? If the other 20 agree with the change, then it doesn't really matter anyway.

Now obviously I'm overlooking a few things. For example, if 45 new-buyers want a change and 35 new-buyers plus the 20 used-buyers don't want it, the numbers get hairy. Furthermore, used game sales can become future new game sales, but the point is that those who don't directly support the developers can't complain when their voice isn't heard. Their opinion, by default, will be significantly less valuable than loyal customers, which is a well-known fact.

So that's your choice, I guess. You get to pay higher price when buying it new and have receptive developers or get it cheaper and have the developers never see your money (not that they can tell who buys used or new, but if they could...).

I know he is saying in a nut shell, if you buy used you have no right to complain about a game. But the thing is if you buy a game used and didn't like what it was like, and your complaints weren't listened to and hopefully changed. That company still lost a customer, and low chance he will buy the game new anyway. I HATED Saints Row 1 when I bought it used but when I saw the changes made to Saints Row 2 I bought it twice(For Xbox 360 and PC). No one's opinion is less valuable, ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM IS USEFUL. That just sounds like a elitist thing to say "The use game market is less then new game market".

As I always say, used game sales can lead to new game sales (Hell I hated Atlus but one used purchase of a SMT game and I'm a Atlus fanboy).

EDIT:Also if used game sales are so bad, explain why Gamefly is legal? If you can't explain why it is legal then this argument about used game sales has no ground for you.