Buy used? Can't complain.

[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 )

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

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.

No, it's about why a company should listen to someone who didn't give them any money but played their game anyway. The whole argument of "since a person didn't buy the game in a way that gives the developers money for it, they have no right to offer feedback" kind of breaks down when you consider the fact a game company tends to put out more than one game. The incentive to listen to someone who bought the game used is, by doing so, they are likely to buy the next game new.

Is everyone who bought the game used going to by the game new if they are listened to? Of course not. But if even a handfull of people buy the next game new, isn't that an improvement? Hasn't the game company gotten something out of doing something that basically costed them nothing?

But you seem content with sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALALALALALA i anyone who dares step outside your narrow view of the discussion so I'll be going now.

 

[Dastardly]

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?

If you buy it new for 50% less, you're just fine. Here's why:

1. Publisher sells the game to Gamestop (for example) for, say, $35.
2. The publisher receives money for that copy of the game.
3. Then Gamestop marks the price up to $60 and sells it.
4. One buyer purchases and plays the game.
5. Everyone is happy, because the publisher has been paid for each copy out there being played.

Introduce a discount, which happens around step 3. By then, the publisher has received the money for that copy of the game.

Now, introduce used sales:

1. Publisher sells the game to Gamestop for $35.
2. Publisher receives money for that copy of the game.
3. Gamestop marks the price up to $60 and sells it.
4. One buyer purchases and plays the game.
5. Buyer trades it in for $25.
6. Gamestop marks it up to $55 and sells it again.
7. Another buyer purchases and plays the game.
8. Gamestop has now profited twice on the sale of one copy of the game, while the publisher only got paid once.

Is this immoral or illegal? Of course not! But surely you can understand how it might make the publisher a little unhappy, and why they might choose to try to discourage used sales, right? Better to get paid for two copies than to let someone else get paid twice, while you (the guy that made it) only get paid once.

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.

I agree. That's why the publisher doesn't sell the game for $60. Gamestop (and so on) mark it up to $60.

But I strongly disagree that the only reason someone would trade in a game is that it's "not worth the money," or that they are somehow dissatisfied with the game. I've traded in many games I loved, but felt I'd gone as far as I could with them -- collected every little widget, seen every corner of the map, experienced every twist and turn... The game was great, but I probably wasn't going to play through it again. Plus, hey, I needed the money for Skyrim (which I bought new).

Eventually, no matter how much is in there, folks finish games. That's a good enough reason to trade it in toward something new.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

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.

No, the entire point is not moot. You've oversimplified the argument because you cannot combat fact.

This is about whether or not developers need to listen to used gamers. Try and keep up?

Unless there really exists some sort of tooth fairy that takes a portion of the money from a used game sale and magically delivers it to the game dev, nothing I've said so far is false.

 

[madster11]

You support the retail store who BUYS THE COMPANIES GAMES WHEN THEY'RE RELEASED.

You stupid dickhead, where do you think the companies get their money from?
You directly? What, does your $60-100 pass from the retailers hands straight to the devs?
No, twattycake, your money goes to the store, which in turn uses that money to buy more stock in the future.

Used games are only sold at retailers? Whoa, I did not know this. Thanks for this revelation.

So you buy a used game from someone.
That someone then buys a new game.

 

[surg3n]

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.

Obligation? - what obligation is there when I do buy new? - none!
Is there a form to fill in, that I've missed the last few hundred times I bought a game?

Developers aren't really all that interested in your feedback, marketting and sales departments are - but your feedback means very little at the end of the day, no matter how many games you buy new. People seem to be regarding an opinion as something you have to earn, well in that case most of the posts in this thread shouldn't be here. If you can't see things from both sides, then your opinion is worthless or even detremental to the discussion. Paying full price for a game is not a mark of respect, it's EXACTLY what publishers want you to do... ohh pre-owned is dirty, pre-owned is the same as piracy, pre-owned should be banned... I'll tell you, I've been buying pre-owned games for over 20 years, how come it's such a big problem now!. Can I hazard a guess, that times are hard, and publishers are only interested in the opinions of people they haven't gotten money from yet.

I mean, what do publishers think we pay £40 for? - the box?, the disc? - or the right to play the damn game?. Surely as soon as you pass on the ability to play that game, you pass on the ownership - they can't expect more money because the original buyer has no access to the game they already paid for. If it was a PC game that didn't rely on the disc, so could be installed multiple times, then they might have a point - we are talking mostly about console games though.

Has any publisher or developer ever asked someone selling their game to someone else, why they are selling it? - why aren't they interested in the opinions of people who just plain didn't like the game.

Once again, I call bullshit on this shitty industry. People who are prepared to try their games a less risk (cost) are seen as a lower class - game fans tend to buy games new when they know they will like the game. How many people would stump up £40 on a whim, or just on the off chance that they will actually like the game... seriously, look at it from all sides, don't just focus on one aspect, just because the OP is pointing at it screaming infidel!.

 

[ninjaRiv]

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.

I smell a flaw in an argument somewhere...

No way! Because someone bought that game new! So the devs got the money at some point so it's the original owners right to give it- Hey, wait a minute... I do believe you're right. There is a flaw!

 

[Tom Artingstall]

Fair point on the OT. It's like the Beer Rule, which states "You may not, under any circumstances, complain about the brand/temperature of free beer". I'll make a point not to send any complaints in to the devs after I buy a used game, but I do reserve the right to ***** about it loudly on the internet, because damnit, isn't that what democracy is all about?

 

[Vegosiux]

No, the entire point is not moot. You've oversimplified the argument because you cannot combat fact.

This is about whether or not developers need to listen to used gamers. Try and keep up?

Here's a fact for you: The developers don't know how any particular person acquired their game, so their best bet is to listen to all the feedback about it.

Combat that.

 

[madster11]

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.

It is a 100% set in stone fact that i won't go into a jail cell exactly at the same moment after i stab someone, either.

Guess that means it'll never happen.

 

[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.

No, it's about why a company should listen to someone who didn't give them any money but played their game anyway. The whole argument of "since a person didn't buy the game in a way that gives the developers money for it, they have no right to offer feedback" kind of breaks down when you consider the fact a game company tends to put out more than one game. The incentive to listen to someone who bought the game used is, by doing so, they are likely to buy the next game new.

Is everyone who bought the game used going to by the game new if they are listened to? Of course not. But if even a handfull of people buy the next game new, isn't that an improvement? Hasn't the game company gotten something out of doing something that basically costed them nothing?

And yet fuckign again, every single counter argument always has the words "what if", "if", "likely", or "probably".

I wish I had a forum sig, then I could make this clear; I don't give two shits whether or not it's in a game dev's best interests to listen to used gamer feedback. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm stating a simple fact; in a used game transaction, a game developer gets nothing. That is the only GIVEN fact concerning used games. Everything else that may or may not occur after is purely theoretical and uncertain. Why is that so hard to understand?