Buy used? Can't complain.

[Snotnarok]

Sorry OP you're wrong 6 different ways. The devs created a product and once they sell that product to a consumer they do not have the rights to that 1 copy anymore, and if said customer wants to sell it they are free to do so. They are transferring their ownership from one person to another they are doing nothing wrong.

If said developer wanted to make more profit maybe they should consider lowering their prices when their games aren't worth 60 dollars. Devs and publishers RARELY do not turn a profit so any complaints they make amount to "We didn't make tons of profit because people were selling our games (because people didn't like said game or the replay value ran out) and other people were buying those".

There's used DVD, book, CDs, cars and games, and it's all legal and okay because no one is cheating here.

 

[Spandexpanda]

Very much so, but you can't do it with a retail DVD. Thats why it cost us £100.

So your rationale as to why Blockbuster and libraries don't count, but Gamestop does, is that you (a person who doesn't own a blockbuster or a library I'm presuming), rented a DVD to put on a paid showing of, and it cost more than buying the DVD. Well played sir, well played.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Wait a second...I buy nothing but new games and no developers have EVER listened to any of my complaints. This logic is flawed!

 

[natster43]

I disagree. Developers should listen to all complaints about a game if it can help improve the next installment, regardless of if the person bought the game new. Now complaining about online pass or not having? Maybe. People should know by now what companies do that. But I also hate online pass with a passion, so I just wish they would go fuck off. In case it matters about my opinion, I buy pretty much everything new.

 

[Black Dahlia]

The notion that the weight of an individuals opinion is tied to how much money they gave the publisher (With people who bought new giving a portion, and second hand sales giving none) is absurd. Going on the fact that the price of a game depreciates, you're suggesting that someone who bought a game on the release day for £40 and ended up playing 20 minutes of it before getting bored and never touching it again somehow has more of a right to complain than another person who purchased it on sale for £20 several months later and sunk months into it.

 

[Galite]

Bullshit. That's why I don't buy games I'm not sure of for full price, I don't want to pay 60 bucks for a shit game. I have to pay 60-70 bucks for a shit game before I can say it sucks to the developer? Hell no. If they listen to my complaints I may just buy their next game whereas if they ignore me then they won't get a penny. In businesses you listen to potential new clients as much as old ones if they offer the same reward.

 

[hashtag]

So if I bought a used car, buying the car used wouldn't help the company, and the airbags didn't deploy I wouldn't be able to complain about that? Or if the seatbelt was broken, or the steering wheel? And if the original owner didn't cause these problems, I shouldn't be allowed to ***** to Ford or Toyota?
No. That is the dumbest statement I've heard. Saying "Well, if you buy used you can't ***** about the game herp-derp" No. I have every right to complain about a sub-par product even if I bought used or not. I still bought it.

EDIT: Just found a video that explains how OP makes me feel.
http://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0

 

[everythingbeeps]

1. I'm with TC on this one.
2. I'm sick to death of people comparing the used game market to the used car market. They're not the same. Not even remotely. So knock it off.

 

[Spandexpanda]

1. I'm with TC on this one.
2. I'm sick to death of people comparing the used game market to the used car market. They're not the same. Not even remotely. So knock it off.

How are they not the same? They're identical in every way!

1) Person buys car new, paying full price to BMW, Toyota, whatever.
2) Someone else buys that car off them, or from a dealership. Cash exchange takes place whereby the previous owner gets a portion of their original buying price.
3) The new owner drives the car, before either selling it off again or exchanging it in a dealer for credit against a new car.

At the end of this sequence, the manufacturer has got 100% of the money from that car.

1) Person buys game new, paying full price to Game, Gamestation or Gamestop.
2) Someone else buys that game off them, or from Gamestop's used section. Cash exchange takes place whereby the previous owner gets a portion of their original buying price.
3) The new owner plays the game, before either selling it off again or exchanging it at Gamestop for credit against a new game.

Similarly, at the end of this sequence, the publisher has got 100% of the money from that game.

Spot the difference (hint, there are none)

 

[MetaKnight19]

Before I start, I just want to say I buy games new whenever I can and only buy used if I can't find the game anywhere. Any good developer would listen to peoples opinions about their games, whether they bought pre-owned or not. Also, if we're meant to feel really bad about buying used, how are we meant to feel about buying out-of-print/previous generation games?

 

[xplay3r]

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.

First off, how do the developers know whether or not i bought a copy new or second hand? If they see it like that, the way you put it, then how do they know? In fact how could they know who bought it new or not... so they might as well just ignore all of us, right?

Secondly, they DO need to hear my complaint, because if they fix the criticism, that gives me an incentive to buy their game new. Just like making a game that is GOOD gives incentive to buy the next game new.

For instance:

I bought a used copy of Battlefield: Bad Company 2.

I enjoyed the product so much, that I decided to buy Battlefield 3 new

I rented saints row two.

I enjoyed it, so I bought Saints Row the Third new.

"because you didn't buy it new" doesn't make a game less crappy. If you make a product WORTH the brand new price, you will GET the full price.

Am I suppose to spend full price on a game I've never tried, from a developer I've never heard of, just so I can say whether I thought it was good or bad? Is buying a game just a gamble on quality now? Either its worth the price tag, or it wasn't either way you need to pay full price to be able to form that opinion?

So basically your saying either support a company by immediately voting for and approving every single game you play, quality or not, or you are not supporting it at all, and therefore, can fuck off?


Also, if all that the developers care about is money, and not quality, it will probably be a bad game anyways, and they don't care about making good games, just money, and I won't buy from them anyways.

Quality then Money. Not the other way around.

If you prove to me that you're worth my money, you will receive it, therefore my criticisms are just as valid as, whether I bought new or used.

 

[gamepopper101]

I understand why companies have problem with used games, but I don't see why people don't buy a new copy when it's...you know, new. I only buy a used game when I can't find a new copy of it so if the game is out of print then it isn't that much of a loss to the developer.

 

[ninjaRiv]

Game devs should listen to all criticisms because that's how they make better games. Did you play alone in the dark? It fucking sucked monkey tits, right? How are they supposed to make a better game in the future if they don't take on all comments, no matter who made the comments?

And yeah, some of us poorer folk have to buy used every so often because buying a game that sucked as bad as alone in the dark at full price is almost fucking criminal. So what do we get if we bought it new? The right to complain a little and get nothing in return?

Of course, we could buy a used game that we're not sure about,find out it's very good and then decide to buy new games in that franchise or from that dev. Right? Kind of makes sense when you think about it. I Bought Ratchet and Clank, Morrowind and several other games used and later bought the follow up titles brand new because it turns out,I really fucking like them. But I have bought a lot of shit games, too, both used and new. It's less of a waste to buy used and, at the same time, I can comment on htem and maybe, just maybe, the devs will take these comments on board and fix what's broke.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

Stranegly enough, even after seeing all the counter-arguments, I find myself completely agreeing with the OP.

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.

Look at it this way. Person A buys new for $60 (and that money goes to the publishers), plays it, gets support for it, possibly DLC, mod tools, etc. He sells it to you used for $30. He pockets that cash. Where exactly do you see the incentive for any publisher to provide YOU with any support/feedback option?

You don't.

Don't get me wrong, I think the whole "Online Pass" thing is complete bullshit if you think about it logically, but for non-online portions, the OP is pretty much on the nose.

Just, the rest of you are confusing his statement of "no right to complain" with the literal right to vocalize your complaints. He's actually talking about the expectancy that used game purchasers have about getting updates or their feedback heard and utilized.

 

[Dandark]

I read the Original post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0
That's how I felt about it.

I am usaully terrible at getting my point across in arguments but im going to try anyway since it's been a while since anyone completely misinterpreted what I said.
Buying games used does not ruin the developer forever, it usaully means you did not want to pay full price for the product. Here is an example.

There I am, in the store looking at the games on display. Suddenly I see a copy of "Alone in the dark", that looks interesting I say, the full copy is £40 and the preowned copy is £20. Im not sure about it though, I have never played a game like this before or heard much of this one.
I decide to buy it used. I go home, play the game and hate it. This was a load of crap I thought, I trade it back in the next day, thankfully I didn't buy the newer more expensive version.

Then I look around again and spot "Metro 2033". Oh this looks like it could be fun, I'll buy the used version again in case it is terrible. I go home and play the crap out of that game because I love it and think it's brilliant.
Now if they ever release a sequel or similar game to his I will probably buy it on release, and crazy as it sounds I plan to buy "Metro: Last light" the day it comes out.


Thanks to used games, I avoided buying what a product I didn't like and got one I did like. I also will likely be willing to buy DLC for Metro 2033 now and I have already decided to get the sequel new. That used copy of Metro 2033 didn't destroy the industry or lose the developer money, it gained them money because I would not of bought that game full price simply because I liked the look of it.

This is not a difficult concept, The used game market can damage BAD games and may not give profit to other games in the short term, however it allows players to try out a game series which they may then decide to contribute money to in the future.


Also we always have a right to complain, I could complain about Alone in the dark despite buying it used and then returning it.
However the developers do not have to listen to me you say? Actully I could of bought it new and paid for any DLC it may of had and they still do not have to listen to me. If they want to improve there game and widen their audience then they would want to listen to people who buy it used, if I buy it new and like it, okay they alread have me as a fan but what about the people who don't like their game? If they want their money then they need to convince them to buy it, to know what they want then they must listen to complaints.

 

[razer17]

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.

Lost revenue would assume that if I didn't buy a game second hand I wouldn't buy it at all. That's clearly not true. Revenue can only be lost if they would have gotten it in the first place, and not every used game sold is one that would have been sold brand new had used not been available. Therefore it is not a precise, accurate or literal loss of revenue.

Also, I think it's pretty safe to say that second hand trading keeps brick and mortar stores open at this point with the money it generates them. If these stores closed down because they could no longer sell second hand games then the games industry would lose a lot more.

Not only that, but the second hand games market helps to stop game companies inflating the prices on their games. If there were only new games, then they could stay at £40 indefinitely, because hey, if you ever want to play them you have to pony up.

The second hand market is good for consumers. The car analogy, even though you bluntly dismissed it, is actually a good one. We have car lots that sell first and second hand cars of a particular brand. Now imagine if they suddenly could only sell brand new cars. A lot of people can't afford new cars, hence they buy used. Therefore you take that option away and they keep their old car. How long do you think car showrooms stay open without second hand car revenues? They'll close, and lead to worse trouble than the second hand did to the industry in the first place. (Also, yes, some people buy second hand furniture and other house items, it's called living on the poverty line)

Also, if a car costs a lot more to design and produce than a game, why do second hand car owners have rights, but second hand game owners do not?

In the end of the day, a company has a duty of care for the "end user", hell, the EULA is the "End User" licence agreement, not the "first purchaser". If a company thinks "Well, what a legitimate and interesting complaint!" "Actually, sir, he bought used" "HIS OPINIONS ARE INVALID!" they are clearly pants on head retarded, because you listen to legitimate product complaints no matter who they are from.

 

[Rottweiler]

"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."

I hope you can see your rebuttal doesn't add up. If I buy a second-hand Game with Defective Game Mechanics...and the first owner didn't cause them...

Don't use an Argument and then think you can decide it doesn't apply all around.

So far as I can see, this entire debate hinges around one item: they claim they 'get no money' from used games.

False.

Every 'used game' is FREE ADVERTISING. Every 'used game' is someone playing their game- and whether they bought it used, got it as a gift, found it in the trash...SOMEONE PAID FOR IT ORIGINALLY. The only tenuous thread of argument for their 'losing money' is the

COMPLETELY THEORETICAL

argument that somehow, if not everyone is buying a brand new copy for every single player, this equals a crippling loss. No. That is a joke and frankly, a lot of us see it as a joke.



Seriously, how can you consciously justify saying that once an Object is purchased, the original creator has *any* control or input afterwards? I simply cannot grasp this. I don't believe even the RIAA has tried to claim that they have control over physical CD's being sold used, or at garage sales. Copying for profit? I can see that. Pirating? Also good justifications for it being bad.

However, once I purchase an Item, it no longer has any relation to the creator and if I want to burn it, sell it, put it out on my coffee table as a coaster...it's none of their business and they will play hell getting me to agree to be their monkey.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

So if I bought a used car, buying the car used wouldn't help the company, and the airbags didn't deploy I wouldn't be able to complain about that? Or if the seatbelt was broken, or the steering wheel? And if the original owner didn't cause these problems, I shouldn't be allowed to ***** to Ford or Toyota?
No. That is the dumbest statement I've heard. Saying "Well, if you buy used you can't ***** about the game herp-derp" No. I have every right to complain about a sub-par product even if I bought used or not. I still bought it.

It's not about having the right to complain. It's about how Ford or Toyota really don't need to listen to you unless specifically stated that they must do so in their warranty, and pretty much all car warranties are transferable upon change of ownership, which makes this whole "car" example pretty retarded. I don't know who brought it up.

If the original owner of a game did not vocalize his/her concerns about said game to its developer, you damn well don't have any place doing so when you didn't pay the developer for it at all. Again, going back to my previous example; original owner pays $60, developer gets a portion of it. You pay original owner $30, developer gets nothing, and you expect the developer to listen to TWO gamers for the price of one?

Give me a break.

 

[Something Amyss]

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

None. Not even a little.

You actually have the right to complain in any circumstances, really.

In short: Bullshit.

You have the right to complain, they have the right to not listen.

Are we clear? Good. Are we done? Probably not.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

So far as I can see, this entire debate hinges around one item: they claim they 'get no money' from used games.

False.

True. There is no money given to them during a used game transaction. What you're talking about is "implied" receipt of money from all these apperently noble white knights who claim "oh, I bought this used and because of that I bought the sequel new, SO HAW HAW USED GAMES DO PROFIT". There is no guarantee you'll buy the sequel new because you bought its predecessor used. You want to think there is, because otherwise that whole point falls completely apart.

Every 'used game' is FREE ADVERTISING. Every 'used game' is someone playing their game- and whether they bought it used, got it as a gift, found it in the trash...SOMEONE PAID FOR IT ORIGINALLY. The only tenuous thread of argument for their 'losing money' is the COMPLETELY THEORETICAL

It doesn't matter if it's free advertising or if someone paid for it originally. That someone had it for however long that they did, and if they (as the original owners who paid for it) didn't vocalize any concerns about the quality of the game to the publishers, the publishers damn well don't have to listen to YOU ***** about it when YOU didn't give the publishers anything.