Buy used? Can't complain.

[D0WNT0WN]

I buy used games among other things and I stand by it, without used games I would have missed out on many games I want to play. There is nothing wrong with it.

 

[ninjaRiv]

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.

I think what he's trying to say here is that game devs don't always listen to those who bought the game new. And they don't, not always. But constructive criticism should never be ignored.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

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.

No, it might, but I'm not talking about what might happen, now am I? There is no ambiguity that when you stab someone, they are injured, right? You agree? Good. Then there is also no ambiguity that a developer during the time of the transaction (which is the only thing you can take for fact) gets no money.

 

[Call me Baz]

I stopped reading once I read OP say that Yatzhee's opinions would become invalid if he disclosed that he was playing a used game. Critisims DO NOT become invalid just because someone has not bought new, for example, dragons flying backwards in Skyrim were not dependant on new/used games. I understand the point you're trying to make - complaining about things in a game you haven't paid full price for makes you sound like an ass, but if there are genuine problems, bugs or inconsistencies in a game then they can be experienced by anyone.

For those buying used though, you shouldn't expect EVERYTHING that new games have. Perhaps something like the Batman game with Catwoman in it. I don't think that it's fair to lop off the entire market that could be the only access point into certain games for some classes. The used market generates so many sales that stockists are able to order more copies of the new games from developers. £25M more sales on used games is anywhere between £10-20M more profit for the company in game sales, which can subsequently be tens to hundreds of thousands of new units.

It's wrong to assume used markets only harm developers, the same as it's wrong to assume death is only a bad thing in this world.

-edit-
consistency error

 

[madster11]

but I'm not talking about what might happen, now am I?

Nope, and that's EXACTLY why you don't understand how a basic economy works.

 

[Baby Tea]

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

Of course you do. You still played the game.
If the game is a broken, buggy mess, used or not, then you have every right to complain.
That's how it works.

And the developers would be retarded not to listen to you, because your experiences dictate your purchase decisions. Which means that if you buy a game used that you're unsure of, and LOVE it, then you're more likely to buy the sequel brand new. That was ALSO a point made by Jim that you seemed to have missed.

Developers don't only listen to those who support them, they look at the industry as a whole. They want their games played and enjoyed (And purchased, of course) by the largest amount of people they can. IF they make a shitty game, and people who played (Whether bought brand new, used, or rented it at a store) levy some valid, great critiques about how the game could be improved, do you HONESTLY think the developer is going to throw out complaints, no matter how valid, from those who didn't buy the game new?

If you say 'yes', then I have a bridge to sell you.

Your argument is beyond invalid.

 

[Imper1um]

Guh, troll is trolling. I'm reporting all of your posts which you are just plain calling everyone stupid.

Go away troll.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

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.

Here's a point for you: why don't you read what the fuck I'm saying? I'll list it out for the last time, I'm getting tired of this thread.

For the sake of this argument, I don't care about the following:
~ What gamers do after buying the used game
~ Whether or not the gamer might buy a sequel based on a current used game
~ Whether or not it's beneficial for game devs to listen to used game developers
~ Whether or not game devs should listen to any feedback whatsoever
~ Whether or not game devs can tell how you purchased something.

Can you understand that? Good. Keeping the above in mind (no seriously, read the above over again ONE MORE TIME if you need to) Here's what I AM stating.
~ A used game transaction does not provide any sort of revenue to the game dev at the time of the transaction. This is irrefutable.
~ Based on that, a game developer does not have to feel obligated to take into account the feelings of someone who purchased a used game.

 

[ninjaRiv]

Guh, troll is trolling. I'm reporting all of your posts which you are just plain calling everyone stupid.

Go away troll.

... Who are you talking about?

 

[LiquidSolstice]

but I'm not talking about what might happen, now am I?

Nope, and that's EXACTLY why you don't understand how a basic economy works.

Knowing a fact and trying to predict what will happen after the fact are two very different things. Just saying.

 

[katsabas]

Wait a sec. How will the companies know you have bought a used copy ? HOLLOW!

Also, giving them money is the only way they will listen to you ? That's funny, I thought gamers were called to test an upcoming title. I thought betas were released to the public. Rocksteady called for help on spotting bugs in Arkham City! I can bet you that not all of them had a brand new copy.

Since when do companies need protection ? Huh ? Will Nintendo care if I call Miyamoto or Megaman by the filthiest name possible. Ummm, nope! Cause they will still make money! Activision actually came out and said support us on Metacritic. When companies need support, they say so. Plain and simple.

About 80% percent of a game-related income comes from day one sales. You can form an opinion on a game so quickly ? Are you this fast on everything you do ?

If developping a game has come to the point that it is soooo difficult that they will make you pay over 60 bucks for it (hyper luxury level achieved: HA), they better be prepared for second hand marketing.

 

[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.

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

You know that for sure? Man, where the hell were you when Cisco's stocks were a dollar per share

 

[LiquidSolstice]

~ A used game transaction does not provide any sort of revenue to the game dev at the time of the transaction. This is irrefutable.

Yeah, alrig-

~ Based on that, a game developer does not have to feel obligated to take into account the feelings of someone who purchased a used game.

Full retard.

You didn't give me money for my software. Why should I listen to you? I'm curious. Maybe I'm stupid for not listening to you, maybe it would help, but that's my decision, it's not influenced by the same feeling of obligation I'd have to listen to someone who did give me money for my software.

Try again, kid.

 

[Vegosiux]

Here's a point for you: why don't you read what the fuck I'm saying? I'll list it out for the last time, I'm getting tired of this thread.

For the sake of this argument, I don't care about the following:
~ What gamers do after buying the used game
~ Whether or not the gamer might buy a sequel based on a current used game
~ Whether or not it's beneficial for game devs to listen to used game developers
~ Whether or not game devs should listen to any feedback whatsoever
~ Whether or not game devs can tell how you purchased something.

Can you understand that? Good. Keeping the above in mind (no seriously, read the above over again ONE MORE TIME if you need to) Here's what I AM stating.
~ A used game transaction does not provide any sort of revenue to the game dev at the time of the transaction. This is irrefutable.
~ Based on that, a game developer does not have to feel obligated to take into account the feelings of someone who purchased a used game.

I read what the fuck you're saying. The problem is, what the fuck you're saying and reality are on two different tracks, and thus, what the fuck you're saying is rubbish.

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

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?

If you didn't buy the game brand new, you kind of have no say at all in its development or support.

Man, you're just full of contradictions aren't you?

The discussion is about whether or not game companies should listen to the opinions of people who buy their game used. Quite frankly, how a person came across a game has no bearings on whether or not a game developer is going to listen to them; it will be decided on whether or not the suggestion/criticism has any merit.

Also, a game company doesn't have any obligation to listen to any suggestions/criticisms regardless of whether the person giving them has bought the game new or used. It's an entirely optional thing for the company to partake in. Of course, since not giving the people what they want will result in them going away, it might be in their best interest to actually listen.

 

[Keltrick]

This argument sounds like it's very very firmly rooted to the ground and isn't going to budge.

No, you can still complain. No, the game-makers don't have to listen to you. You're perfectly right there, in that since you don't feed them for making the game, they don't care about your opinion. If you're not THEIR customer then you don't exist to them. You know who might listen to you though? Retailers. Other Gamers.

You still have a right to voice an opinion, regardless of if anyone is taking heed, but even if the game is used, some people are. You had the experience of the game just like a new copy, and therefor if you tell your friend -who lets say is interested in buying Dragon Age 2- that it's a bad game, he may very well still heed it and save his money that would have gone towards a new OR used copy, and spend it elsewhere. Your opinion still has an impact. If we all hated the latest Modern Warfare, and that was common knowledge, retailers would buy less copies of the game from the publishers. They would only need a minute few to circulate used or new between their customers.

You can argue that a used game buyer with an opinion has LESS of an impact on what games are made, but they still have some. Also its a FAR cry to say "You CAN'T complain. You don't deserve it" when you mean "Publisher's aren't going to listen to you." The industry doesn't have to listen, but that doesn't matter.

If someone paid for a product, and did not enjoy the product, their complaints against it affect more than just the creators. If that was the only venue for complaint, we wouldn't have video game reviewers, because they would all ONLY write strongly worded letters to publishers, instead of trying to influence our opinions as consumers. Complaints can sway an industry on ANY level. Creator, Supplier, or Consumer.

 

[Something Amyss]

This is about whether or not developers need to listen to used gamers.

They don't. And they also don't have to listen to new gamers.

I think your own statement of "try to keep up?" might fit here.

 

[ninjaRiv]

What about special offers? If you get 10% off a new one, does the dev get to listen to you 10%less?

 

[Vegosiux]

This argument sounds like it's very very firmly rooted to the ground and isn't going to budge.

No, you can still complain. No, the game-makers don't have to listen to you. You're perfectly right there, in that since you don't feed them for making the game, they don't care about your opinion. If you're not THEIR customer then you don't exist to them. You know who might listen to you though? Retailers. Other Gamers.

You still have a right to voice an opinion, regardless of if anyone is taking heed, but even if the game is used, some people are. You had the experience of the game just like a new copy, and therefor if you tell your friend -who lets say is interested in buying Dragon Age 2- that it's a bad game, he may very well still heed it and save his money that would have gone towards a new OR used copy, and spend it elsewhere. Your opinion still has an impact. If we all hated the latest Modern Warfare, and that was common knowledge, retailers would buy less copies of the game from the publishers. They would only need a minute few to circulate used or new between their customers.

You can argue that a used game buyer with an opinion has LESS of an impact on what games are made, but they still have some. Also its a FAR cry to say "You CAN'T complain. You don't deserve it" when you mean "Publisher's aren't going to listen to you." The industry doesn't have to listen, but that doesn't matter.

If someone paid for a product, and did not enjoy the product, their complaints against it affect more than just the creators. If that was the only venue for complaint, we wouldn't have video game reviewers, because they would all ONLY write strongly worded letters to publishers, instead of trying to influence our opinions as consumers. Complaints can sway an industry on ANY level. Creator, Supplier, or Consumer.

This post definitely deserves a cookie.

*gives cookie*

 

[LiquidSolstice]

This argument sounds like it's very very firmly rooted to the ground and isn't going to budge.

No, you can still complain. No, the game-makers don't have to listen to you. You're perfectly right there, in that since you don't feed them for making the game, they don't care about your opinion. If you're not THEIR customer then you don't exist to them. You know who might listen to you though? Retailers. Other Gamers.

You still have a right to voice an opinion, regardless of if anyone is taking heed, but even if the game is used, some people are. You had the experience of the game just like a new copy, and therefor if you tell your friend -who lets say is interested in buying Dragon Age 2- that it's a bad game, he may very well still heed it and save his money that would have gone towards a new OR used copy, and spend it elsewhere. Your opinion still has an impact. If we all hated the latest Modern Warfare, and that was common knowledge, retailers would buy less copies of the game from the publishers. They would only need a minute few to circulate used or new between their customers.

You can argue that a used game buyer with an opinion has LESS of an impact on what games are made, but they still have some. Also its a FAR cry to say "You CAN'T complain. You don't deserve it" when you mean "Publisher's aren't going to listen to you." The industry doesn't have to listen, but that doesn't matter.

If someone paid for a product, and did not enjoy the product, their complaints against it affect more than just the creators. If that was the only venue for complaint, we wouldn't have video game reviewers, because they would all ONLY write strongly worded letters to publishers, instead of trying to influence our opinions as consumers. Complaints can sway an industry on ANY level. Creator, Supplier, or Consumer.

I think this is something I can more or less agree with. If we can understand that I'm simply stating that because of the fact a developer is not getting money directly from you, they don't necessarily have to listen to any feedback you give however much that may be shooting themselves in the feet. As I said before, I'm not talking about any point after that, nor am I saying that you should not complain.

Perhaps the point I'm trying to get across is that before you feel entitled to a game developer's attention, why not stop and think if you've given the developer any money for the game at all?

It's obvious I've annoyed a ton of people here, I'll let it go now.