Buy used? Can't complain.

[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. And even if you don't buy it new a developer will want to know what people think so they can attract any new customers.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

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.

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.

 

[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.

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)

Here's the difference. One of them is a FUCKING CAR.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

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.

 

[cgaWolf]

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

OP, Your whole argument insinuates that the original seller of the used game doesn't use the money to buy more games, which quite simply lacks any base. People sell games they played to get money, which quite probably gets re-invested into other games. Sure, Gamestop makes revenue off being the middleman in this transaction, but to imply that US$ 0 of that money goes to game any devs, is an unproven statement. At most, you can argue that it doesn't necessarily go to the dev of the used game, however that dev may not have gotten any money of not for a prior sale of a used game from another dev - either way, the argument stands on weak legs.

High prices on first sales without quality guarantee as well as proven lack of support by many publishers make hedging my bets & steering my investment (towards used sales, thus minimizing my risk) a valid tactic.

Also, the tired car-industry games-industry comparision makes a comeback. It didn't get any more valid or smarter since the last time it was used, car manufacturers ARE liable for manufacturing errors on used vehicles, and (to complete the trifecta) people would probably download cars if they could ^_^

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

Untrue. They already have my money, why should they listen? The only way to get companies to listen to you is to give your money to some other company instead, that does what you want.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Your whole argument is stopped by DLC. I have really nothing else to add what so ever. Well that and various laws regarding the resale of goods and what happens to spare money and buying future releases.

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

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.

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.

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?

 

[LiquidSolstice]

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.

You gotta love how many "ifs" gamers tend to use whenever they talk about games.

Because "if" is something you can take for sure, something you can count on for profit. If you don't want to pay 60 bucks for a shitty game, rent it first to see if it's worth it, and then buy it if you think it is. What, with RedBox nowadays, it's just $2 to do that for a night anyway.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

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

OP, Your whole argument insinuates that the original seller of the used game doesn't use the money to buy more games, which quite simply lacks any base. People sell games they played to get money, which quite probably gets re-invested into other games. Sure, Gamestop makes revenue off being the middleman in this transaction, but to imply that US$ 0 of that money goes to game any devs, is an unproven statement. At most, you can argue that it doesn't necessarily go to the dev of the used game, however that dev may not have gotten any money of not for a prior sale of a used game from another dev - either way, the argument stands on weak legs.

High prices on first sales without quality guarantee as well as proven lack of support by many publishers make hedging my bets & steering my investment (towards used sales, thus minimizing my risk) a valid tactic.

Also, the tired car-industry games-industry comparision makes a comeback. It didn't get any more valid or smarter since the last time it was used, car manufacturers ARE liable for manufacturing errors on used vehicles, and (to complete the trifecta) people would probably download cars if they could ^_^

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

Untrue. They already have my money, why should they listen? The only way to get companies to listen to you is to give your money to some other company instead, that does what you want.

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.

 

[Vegosiux]

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.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

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.

 

[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.