Buy used? Can't complain.

[blackdwarf]

if there wasn't a used game market, then i wouldn't had played many games and bought their sequels on launch day. and if you as a designer won't listen to your players because they bought it used, even though they give good points, then you are just being dumb. even though the didn't bought the game new, they still can give vaulable information about the game itself. ofcourse the lose certain right if the buy it second-handed, but those have nothing to do with the product itself.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

If a game company exclusively targets the audience it already has, won't it eventually stagnate and die off when said audience loses interest? The people who bought the game used obviously had enough of an interest to get the game at all, so listening to them and finding out what kept from from buy the game when it first came out is more than likely to make them consider buying new when the next game comes out.

That's not the point. This isn't about what gamers *might* do. It's about what literally and instantaneously happens during the used game transaction; developers get nothing.

Also, if I buy the game new, but buy it in sale, does that mean my opinion is worth less than a person who bought the game at full price? If that's the case, does that mean that I, as an Australian, have more of a right to complain about a game since I will have paid around 100 to 120 dollars for it compared to an American who will have only paid around 60?

A) I don't think you understand how sale prices go; someone down the line is eating the discount, just because you're not paying the full amount doesn't mean the manufacturer isn't getting the full amount.

B) Having to pay more for games is your problem, but 120 vs 60, the money is still going to the developer, not into the pants pocket of the guy who sold it to you.

 

[Dastardly]

Hate the games you've bought used?

Take it up with Gamestop.

It isn't that I disagree with what you're saying -- in principle, it's exactly right. But we should also be careful not to over-apply this principle.

It is true that used game purchasers need to consider that they are not customers of Ubisoft or Bethesda or whoever -- they're customers of the retail site. They should realize that this diminishes the power of their complaints or suggestions.

At the same time, a company does have incentive to listen to used buyers -- the idea is to convert them to new buyers. There will always be people that buy used for price reasons, but they can at least aim some attention at the ones who buy because of uncertainty about the quality of the product.

Now, here's the biggie for me: When it comes to single-use codes that are only provided for new purchases, that is where used gamers have no grounds upon which to complain. You hear people say, "I'm only paying $5 less, but I'm not getting the whole game?" Okay -- who set the used price at $5 less? The store. "Well if I buy the stupid code, now the price is basically the same as getting a new copy of the game!" Okay -- aren't you now getting the exact same game experience as a new buyer? Shouldn't the price be the same?

If the publisher takes steps to ensure that a new product actually has more value than its used counterpart, that's their right. They have a responsibility to please their customers -- those folks who support them financially for their work. If the used buyer feels the price of an "incomplete" game is unfair, they need to take that up with the people that set the prices for used games.

But I can understand used buyers still "being on the radar" of publishers. They're just on a different part of the radar, that's all.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

if there wasn't a used game market, then i wouldn't had played many games and bought their sequels on launch day. and if you as a designer won't listen to your players because they bought it used, even though they give good points, then you are just being dumb. even though the didn't bought the game new, they still can give vaulable information about the game itself. ofcourse the lose certain right if the buy it second-handed, but those have nothing to do with the product itself.

This is getting almost predictable. People still somehow seem to think that their anecdotal experiences of "i played this used and bought sequel new" are really concrete enough to cancel out the fact that a dev gets zero money for a used game transaction and therefore is not obligated to listen to your feedback.

Whether or not that's beneficial to the dev is an entirely different argument.

 

[Scrustle]

That's bull. Money from used games does go to the developer. For it to be used it at one point must have been new. It must have been bought by someone at some point. For every used copy of a game that exists money from that has made it to the developer, no matter how many times it gets resold. And that is all they are entitled to. And you do have a right to complain about a game if you bought it used. You experienced the game, and you have an opinion about it. Just because you bought it without a plastic film on it doesn't mean your opinion isn't valid. And developers should listen to that opinion. No matter how you bought a game, if you liked the game enough for there to be a chance you will buy a sequel then developers will be very interested in how they can improve the game to make you guy the next one. And if you already have experience with a series and hear about improvements to a sequel then you are far more likely to buy it new.

Money from used games does not go to a developer. It goes into the pocket of the person selling the game. To use the retarded car example again, Toyota does not get a penny when you sell your 99 Civic to some guy on Craigslist.

Your logic is so idealistic that I can literally feel the rainbows shooting out of your eyes. There is no guarantee that you will buy new after buying used, I don't understand why everyone keeps falling back on that. Maybe they should listen to you, but that's not the point of this thread, the point is that they are under no sort of obligation to at all when you couldn't respect their game enough to buy it new.

No... they do get money. Didn't you read my post? They sell the game once. They get the money from that sale. After that it is no longer in their possession so they have no right to get any of the money after that. If we are going with car analogy then it's like Honda getting the money from the sale of the car in 1999 when they sold it new. After that they get nothing. No-one has a problem with that. They shouldn't. And neither should publishers or developers with their game. And last time I checked there were no rainbows emerging from any part of my body.

 

[cgaWolf]

And your entire argument is based on an "if". You don't know that the gamer in question will spend said money back on games, you're just assuming that said gamer will do so.

Cars come with transferable warranties (many mandated by state and federal law). Games don't. End of discussion.

Which - considering we have no data on the subject - makes it probable my relative statement is more accurate than your absolute stance: It's more likely that some of the money gets used this way, rather than all or none of it.

Further on, the existence of transferable warranty laws is just one more proof that the car-argument - which for some reason likes to pop up in discussions about software - is moronic, which was exactly my point.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the OP is trying to say, I don't know why everyone is being anal and pedantic and suggesting that the OP is saying you literally cannot complain about anything.

Well, one, that's not what the OP is saying (meaning, it may have been what he was trying to say, but it was not what he said), two, the devs and publishers don't lead lists on who bought what how. If I complain about a game to them, they will listen, or they will not, true, but they will not decide on the basis on how I acquired the game - because they don't know that. For all they know I could have bought new on release day, bought new for half price half a year later, bought used, or received it as a gift.

It doesn't matter if they don't know how you got it. That's not the point being made here. The point is that you intrinsically know that you didn't give the developers any money for a game that you want them to have your feedback on.

 

[suitepee7]

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.

and they know you bought it used how?

besides, if they ever want to get you as potential first hand buyer in the future, they should and often will listen. you seem to give off the impression that video game companies know everything about you, and how you purchased the game, which is simply not true. they have no way of knowing that, and the only justification you can give is your own opinion that they won't listen. 90% of the time they won't listen regardless, and when they do, their first question won't be "well, did you buy it first hand?".

stop acting like video game companies are all knowing. the fact is, they aren't.

 

[Vegosiux]

Now, here's the biggie for me: When it comes to single-use codes that are only provided for new purchases, that is where used gamers have no grounds upon which to complain. You hear people say, "I'm only paying $5 less, but I'm not getting the whole game?" Okay -- who set the used price at $5 less? The store. "Well if I buy the stupid code, now the price is basically the same as getting a new copy of the game!" Okay -- aren't you now getting the exact same game experience as a new buyer? Shouldn't the price be the same?

And if I buy new for 50% less a few months later when the price is about as much as the game is actually worth?

The thing here is, if a new release is priced at 60 bucks, that says absolutely nothing about how much it's worth. If you buy used that means someone had to trade their game in.

Now WHY would they go and do something like that...I mean if it was worth the buying price, I'm pretty sure I'd want to hold on to it.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

And your entire argument is based on an "if". You don't know that the gamer in question will spend said money back on games, you're just assuming that said gamer will do so.

Cars come with transferable warranties (many mandated by state and federal law). Games don't. End of discussion.

Which - considering we have no data on the subject - makes it probable my relative statement is more accurate than your absolute stance: It's more likely that some of the money gets used this way, rather than all or none of it.

Further on, the existence of transferable warranty laws is just one more proof that the car-argument - which for some reason likes to pop up in discussions about software - is moronic, which was exactly my point.

It is a 100% set in stone fact that the publisher does not receive a single penny from a single contained used game transaction. I don't need proof for that. Unless you're telling me that the used game owner is forwarding so much of a penny of that payment. That's all I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the future or even 5 minutes after, I'm talking about the transaction. If you can acknowledge and agree with that much, I've made my point. Anything further is certainly up in the air, but again, is not guaranteed.

When you have no proof of a claim, you can't say say one thing is more probable than the other.

 

[Vegosiux]

It doesn't matter if they don't know how you got it. That's not the point being made here. The point is that you intrinsically know that you didn't give the developers any money for a game that you want them to have your feedback on.

Okay, so if I got a game as a gift, that also means I can't provide feedback?

Oh no wait, what was that argument...I got something that's not free for free, so I must be stealing, right?

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

If you didn't buy the game brand new, you kind of have no say at all in its development or support. Unless you paid the exact amount that the original owner did for the new copy.

This is getting almost predictable. People still somehow seem to think that their anecdotal experiences of "i played this used and bought sequel new" are really concrete enough to cancel out the fact that a dev gets zero money for a used game transaction and therefore is not obligated to listen to your feedback.

You quite clearly say, in the first quote, that the amount of money you put down for a game determines whether or not you can complain about it (regardless of whether or not the money goes to the developers) but then you start going on about how people don't have a right to complain if they bought the game used, because none of the money goes to the developers.

Please make up your mind.

 

[ninjaRiv]

if there wasn't a used game market, then i wouldn't had played many games and bought their sequels on launch day. and if you as a designer won't listen to your players because they bought it used, even though they give good points, then you are just being dumb. even though the didn't bought the game new, they still can give vaulable information about the game itself. ofcourse the lose certain right if the buy it second-handed, but those have nothing to do with the product itself.

Aaaaaaaaaand this guy has it exactly right. I mean, I posted the same thing but with more swears but yeah, used games is almost a way of advertising. Only this advertising also helps the retailers who who buy and stock these games.

Thinking about it, what's your opinion on gifts? Can a player not ***** about a game if it was given to them?

 

[LiquidSolstice]

No... they do get money. Didn't you read my post? They sell the game once. They get the money from that sale. After that it is no longer in their possession so they have no right to get any of the money after that.

Yes! Good! You understand this. They sell it once. They get the money from that sale. That owner gets a say in its creation. After that, it is no longer their responsibility to support the next gamer who owns the previous purchaser's copy, as the owner was the one that paid for that privilege, not the second-hand buyer.

If we are going with car analogy then it's like Honda getting the money from the sale of the car in 1999 when they sold it new. After that they get nothing. No-one has a problem with that. They shouldn't. And neither should publishers or developers with their game. And last time I checked there were no rainbows emerging from any part of my body.

You don't get it. I'm not talking about whether or not developers SHOULD be getting money for it. This is only about the transaction of the used game; in that transaction, the developer gets nothing, ergo, the developer does not need to listen to your feedback.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

If you didn't buy the game brand new, you kind of have no say at all in its development or support. Unless you paid the exact amount that the original owner did for the new copy.

This is getting almost predictable. People still somehow seem to think that their anecdotal experiences of "i played this used and bought sequel new" are really concrete enough to cancel out the fact that a dev gets zero money for a used game transaction and therefore is not obligated to listen to your feedback.

You quite clearly say, in the first quote, that the amount of money you put down for a game determines whether or not you can complain about it (regardless of whether or not the money goes to the developers) but then you start going on about how people don't have a right to complain if they bought the game used, because none of the money goes to the developers.

Please make up your mind.

I'll have to take back that "unless you paid" part. I'm guessing that was a thought that I didn't fully finish and accidentally left in there. At any rate, I did not elaborate or support that single statement in any of my posts, so call it an accidental inclusion. Perhaps I meant to say after it "and even then, it still doesn't matter because the original dev is not getting any money from it".

 

[Vegosiux]

You don't get it. I'm not talking about whether or not developers SHOULD be getting money for it. This is only about the transaction of the used game; in that transaction, the developer gets nothing, ergo, the developer does not need to listen to your feedback.

...you're making the assumption that a developer "needs" to listen to the feedback of those who bought new.

Guess what? They don't need to listen to THAT feedback either. The entire point is moot.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the OP is trying to say, I don't know why everyone is being anal and pedantic and suggesting that the OP is saying you literally cannot complain about anything.

It's not pedantry when the guy's saying NO RIGHT! NONE!

The guy writes it very anally, and what I said is literally no different from any other consumer. Accusing someone of pedantry for that is to undermine his statement in the first place, which is quite silly and counter-intuitive.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

It doesn't matter if they don't know how you got it. That's not the point being made here. The point is that you intrinsically know that you didn't give the developers any money for a game that you want them to have your feedback on.

Okay, so if I got a game as a gift, that also means I can't provide feedback?

Oh no wait, what was that argument...I got something that's not free for free, so I must be stealing, right?

...someone else paid for it in full, yes? And you didn't pay that person for the game, it was gifted to you, yes? And you are new-game owner of the game now, right? That means you, as the first owner of the game are entitled to the full privileges of feedback. They're only supporting the opinion of the main owner of the

Unless you're talking about friends who buy you games, open them up, play them, and then give the discs to you, in which that case, your friends are dicks.

For the last goddamn time, I'm talking about the exchange of money between two private parties for a game does not result in a monetary profit for the game developer. I'm not talking about the "what ifs" that come after, I'm not even talking about 5 minutes after the transaction, because there is no way to tell what happens. If you cannot see that, I don't know how to help you.

I don't know what you mean by that last incredibly retarded jive about stealing; it was paid for in full and can only have one owner at a time, and that owner is you. You're trying pretty hard to get at something, maybe you need to dig deeper and pull it out...

 

[GundamSentinel]

As someone else said: so what if, say, you got a game for your birthday? Does this make your opinion on that game invalid? After all, you didn't pay the developer anything for it, somebody else did. So you would have no right to give feedback, the one who bought the game would. Sure, you'd be the first owner, and money went to the developer for that purchase, but you didn't support the developer yourself. I don't see how this is dissimilar from used game purchases.

I smell a flaw in an argument somewhere... (and I'm not saying it's not mine )