Buy used? Can't complain.

[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.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

Hated Dragon Age 2? Did you buy it used?
Well then, Bioware has no incentive to listen to your complaints.

Except, they kind of do.

Yeah, sure, the used buyer has no right to complain, I'll go with that for now. You know who does have a right to complain, though? And did?

The new buyer. Or, put another way, the REASON the game was there for me to buy a used copy of three hours after it was released.

Sell me a deep, immersive game that has 40 or so hours of playability, and it'll last me a month or so... allowing the developer to sell more games while my used copy stays off the market. Sell me a deep game that I LIKE and I'll do you one better... I will keep that game, forever, in case I want to play it again. That game will not see the Gamestop shelves until I'm dead and buried and my heirs are selling off my old stuff, at which point the devs are unlikely to care.

On the other hand, if you sell me a short, drop in the bucket sort of game that doesn't appeal to me at all, that I finish that weekend and never want to see again (if I can even stand to play it all the way through), you're damn right I'm gonna complain. You know how I'm gonna do that? I'm going to cart your game back to Gamestop, get what I can back for it, and let someone else buy it used. Perhaps, at the lower price, that person will find it more worthwhile, and keep it off the market. Perhaps he'll still think it's junk, at which point... gasp! He gets to complain again, returning it and snatching yet another sale from the developers. Hmm. Seems to me that they should care, then.

The way I see it, every copy of a game that you find used at Gamestop already IS a complaint, from someone who, by your logic, matters. When was the last time you found a used copy of Chrono Trigger you didn't have to beg someone for, climbing mountains to find them and paying them well over sticker price? Never, that's when, because it's a great game, and people want to keep great games. Even long after they're easily emulatable.

Now, I'm not that hard to please. I have 83 games in my apartment at last count (that I could find), which I bought new, and which I plan on keeping as long as I can play them. The six that I have returned thus far (most of which, to be fair, were left behind by a roomate and were not my thing, not purchases I would have made. Still, if you can't find room in your duffel bag for a game then here's a hint... it's not very good) I returned because I never want to see them again. Maybe I'm weird, maybe they're perfectly good shooters that will get snatched off the market by people more into it than I... but if they're bad enough to end up back at the Gamestop time after time, losing the developer a sale each time?

Well, then. I think they should probably start caring about that.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

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.

By that extension, I don't have to listen to you either. Or my landlord. Or my ISP. Or my government. Or...

 

[cgaWolf]

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.

The problem with this argument is that it's only valid in a model where only a single sale happens over an extended amount of time, and where that money doesn't get reinvested into the same category of product; whereas the reality of game guying is that we all like to buy sequels in franchises (if we like the franchise), like to buy games of a dev we trust/like, and that people who sell used games probably use some part of the money they make to buy the next game - quite possibly from a different developer (which brings the original developer $0), however their game only got bought because that very same construction was behind the possibility of buying their game too.

As the two of us already found out, we have no data on this, and i can't make an educated guess as to the real numbers - but if we take all the game purchases over an extended amount of time (say 12-18 months), what part of the money used to buy them comes from income from employment, what part comes from gifting (money or games), what part comes from used game sales, and what part comes from used non-game sales.

The personal budget of people with limited disposable income doesn't work in a way that disregards prior or future expenditures!
If i have 60$ i can spend on one game, or on 2 used games, either of those two possibilities can come out ahead in value - and while the dev may not see direct revenue if i go with the 2*used game route, it's quite literally possible that i only have those $60 because of a combination of work+gift+used_sale (sorry for the awkward description). As such, if no one buys my used game, i am not in a position to buy a game at all in the future, thus again ensuring $0 to a dev.

As an argument a bit outside the scope of the discussion, i'd like to toss into the pot that sustaining a brick & mortar middleman business through used game buying may not be the worst decision for the economy - the more people that are employed, the more people consume, the more jobs get created. One not buying a game because he can't afford it helps no one.

You didn't give me money for my software. Why should I listen to you?

Because if you don't, i won't give you money for the next piece of software you produce. With this line of arguing, you are limiting your customer base for all future releases to the maximum of the number that bought your first release. Obviously reality disagrees with you.

t 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.

I agree on the point that the dev receives $0 from this transaction; however i disagree that prior or future considerations can be ignored. Future devs may see a percentage of that money, and the current dev only sees money due to the same construction having taken place before the construction.

When looking at the use of disposable income for multiple products over a certain timeframe, you're not a liberty to isolate each datapoint, and claim is stands by itself. The very idea is ludicrous.

 

[squid5580]

The vast majority of used games suffer no decrease in quality. This means that everyone is going to be getting the same experience. Unless people who buy used games are having vastly different experiences than those who buy new, I don't see how it makes any difference.

If the only thing you have going for you is "This guy paid the devs indirectly, and this one paid even more indirectly", then I don't really see why you even care.


Although, I probably completely misread your post, so whatever.

Actually the used buyer has better odds of getting the superior experience. If they wait for a month or 2 the devs get the bugs worked out and so used buyers don't have to suffer through crap like invincible dragon bossfights. And don't have to reload over and over til their attacks actually do damage and so they don't have to resist the urge to take their Skyrim disc out and gnaw on it for a few hours like those who bought it new on day 1

 

[ninjaRiv]

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.

By that extension, I don't have to listen to you either. Or my landlord. Or my ISP. Or my government. Or...

Well, you don't have to listen to your landlord... it's a dumb idea but you don't. Just like devs don't have to listen to those who buy used games. They should, though, simply because constructive criticism should never be ignored.

 

[Tiamattt]

Here's a funny question that's been mentioned but not given enough focus: How are the developers suppose to know which complaints are from ppl that bought it new and ppl that bought it used?

Lets take Skyrim for example, and for fun say Bethesda Game Studios got 1000 angry emails full of "insert random complaint here." and pretend that 20% of those emails came from people that bought it used. How would they know which of the 200 emails to totally ignore?

Simple answer they can't. They have no way of knowing since they can't possibly check, not to mention a large % of complaints are usually from anonymous forum posters like us. So if they wanted to fix whatever people are complaining about they have to listen to them all. Sure they can ignore them but then they risk pissing off people and jeopardizing future sales.

Just to drive this home lets take a recent thing that happened to me. I brought a game while not used but at a significant discount thanks to black friday, big enough that I'm sure to the developer I might as well bought it used. The game had a lot of dlcs along with a recently released expansion pack, all that I probably would've happily paid for if it wasn't for the fact that the original game had major problems with it. Now the company will be releasing a similar game in 2012, one that sounds great to me on paper and that I would normally buy brand new BUT if it has the same problems as it's predecessor then they won't see a cent from me.

Yes I made my complaints about it vocal in other places(not going to do it here though) and the company totally has the right to ignore me. But if they do then they lose a loyal follower of their products along with any chance of ever seeing my money.

TL-DR: Customer feedback is important, ignoring people willing to pay for your product one way or another would be foolish and in the end only cost them $$$. Besides any criticism they get from used buyers can be used to improve their next product and make their future customers happier, which in turn will = more $$$.

 

[ScRaT_the_destroyer]

my opinion to used games is this: when a consumer buys a game from Game or Gamestop or whatever they purchase a disc and a license to operate that disk on whatever system they choose. if that person chooses to sell said game, the license they purchased transfers to the next person along with the physical disc itself, note that by selling their game the first purchaser has no access to the game (therefore it is not piracy).

in my opinion a used game sale is roughly equivalent to a new sale, ie. the person who has bought said game new has decided to sell their game on. the money the next purchaser spends goes to the person/entity selling (in someway recouping their cost of purchasing it in the first place).

buying and selling goods either used or new is the very essence of the free market, albeit most have attached caveat emptor. if you disagree with the free market; fair enough but it's what operates at the moment.

 

[winter2]

Haha... I love the condescending tone of the OP.

Oh wait... I didn't ask his permission to speak. My bad!

 

[Tim Chambers]

I rarely feel the need to add much to these conversations, but this whole used game market thing is getting a little out of hand. The reality that game developers, game distributors and even the gamer needs to face is that the industry is going to continue to look for ways to get the most money.

I hear some people on here talk about how the game developers are losing tons of money....

Really? You think that the people that actually are making games are suddenly going to get a raise out of this? Let me pose the question in this manner. Do you think that the fat cats at Activison and EA are going to put all of their newly found cash into the hands of their workers or will the upper administration of the EA buy their 12th mansion?

I am not sure how this industry gets away with complaining so much about used sales. People by furniture used, appliances used, homes used, cars used, and these markets are not trying this crap. I would expect that GM loses literally millions upon millions of dollars each year to the used car market. This is a market that has existed for decades. GM (while struggling at times) has continued to exist.

Shame on all of you who defend the idea that we must buy all of our games new or it is akin to robbery. You have been lied to.

DRM, early purchase codes, day one downloads, all of this is just gimmicky garbage that is not acceptable in their peer markets (the entertainment industry). Imagine purchasing a movie used and finding out that the third act was only available via download. There would be a public outcry. How about a book that does not include the final 4 chapters unless you purchase it new? Again, this sounds like a stupid idea. How is this acceptable for games?

I expect that at some point, digital distribution will become the primary way for people to purchase games. Now this does not mean that it will happen today or even next year, but it will happen eventually. The availability for games to be played by the lower economic classes of the world will diminish. The desire of game developers to be able to create something for the world to appreciate will diminish as well. The real kicker will be that the people that bust their butts to make the games will see very little of this new revenue....

 

[TheDooD]

Don't really agree. Playing the game determines if you would buy a fresh new copy of another game they make. Used games, thus cheaper, is a good way to hook a new customer. But then, game companies have awful publicity. The thing is, a good or even just a cheap game is rarely sold after purchase. And since good and cheap games are so rare these days...well...you see my point.

That said, I never bought a used game (If I'm bored, I want to play a game now not in a few weeks and I don't even have a Gamestop around) but ...developers still don't listen to my complaints and those that I know who agree with me. I might as well be pirating for all that they care.

You read my mind, this is how I been thinking for a few years now. Game Companies are basically lapdogs now to publishers and yes men of investors. There's few that's crazy enough to think $60 is the price we really should be paying for our games. When during the last gen games gone from $15-50 new. Which allowed many people to get something in a budget. Gamestop is pretty much keeping that tradition alive yet some Corporate dickriders think other wise.

The only way there's gonna be an abundance of used games at Gamestop if there's a LARGE dissatisfaction with the product from the first buyers. Then Gamestop WILL throw away any surplus that they can't move. So that's why you see them buy a returned game for 1/5 of it's original price point then reselling it for %50-95 of the original price. Gamestop doesn't want to keep used games so they give people rewards for doing such. Selling a new game you get store credit, buying it used you can return the shit within a week and ALL your money back.

I just wonder WHY are people bitching about this system.