buying used games is stupid

[MorphingDragon]

yeah 1x 60 dollars. This isnt about whether or not you paid for a thing.Its who the moneys going to and people buying used to save a tiny bit of money have it all go to a worthless middle man.

So i genuinely think anyone who primarily games via used games, doesnt really love gaming enough to reward the people making the damn things.

Well then why don't you buy games directly from the studio then if you support them so much?

Oh wait you can't.

Its like a problem of a misbehaving child, you want to reward them for good behaviour but they never behave so you never reward them.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

The vast majority of games aren't worth hanging on to.

At the point where they stop being fun and start being plastic clutter, why would you keep them knowing full well you could save money by trading them against your next purchase?

Used games are big-biz because it's a system that makes sense. It's also the sole reason I go to brick-and-mortar games shops at all.

 

[MorphingDragon]

my point is the fact that they could've had 1 million extra sales, but lost those to the used market. It was simply an example of how the used market is costing devs a lot of money.

By that kind of dodgy accounting they could also claim that it costs them money when people lend games for friends to play. Or have their friends around and let them play the game. A friend lent my brother Assassin's Creed II just recently; both my brother and I played it. Did we just cost Ubisoft two purchases?

no because you weren't paying money to do so, people buying used ARE. And yeah im behind content creators getting money for what they make.

So by your logic it's okay (moral issues aside) to pirate the game because I won't be be spending any money to play the game. Can you spot the fallacy here?

nope. Your not spending money either way. Sure piracy is illegal and you will get roshambo'd for that. But people who pirate EVERYTHING probably weren't going to be a consumer in the first place. I long ago gave up arguing against them because their thieves and theres no rationalizing with them.

Compared to a consumer trying to save a few bucks by giving money to people who have nothing to do with the game. Which is a shame because in doing the decent thing and paying they payed the wrong people, and if more people actually bought first hand the industry would be much healthier, and more risky titles would be being made.

Which is a shame in my eyes.

But by all means you go ahead and save your 5 bucks and watch developers fail. Hope that will be fun for you.

Oh, knock off the superiority act. Buying games new doesn't put you on a moral high ground. I've bought 8 new games this year and 1 used. I have a friend that is basically the opposite. Guess what? I'm not better than him. Having more money=/=better person.

its not about having more money
its about spending the money the right way. I often spend a bit more for local producers to survive by not having something luxury around the home. Its all about how you spend the money you have. What you chose to do with it defines how much you care.

Being vague is almost as much fun as this other thing...

 

[RagTagBand]

You know you're dealing with an unreasonable nerd when their opening argument is "Kids nowadays! They aren't interested in meticulously hoarding games into a useless egocentric collection!"

I've in inadvertently got a very small collection of PS1 games, games I never play, games no one will ever play again...unless I -sell- them, Otherwise they will simply end up in the trash when I need more space.

 

[The Funslinger]

I don't always buy used games, but when I do, I buy classics that I missed first time round, for like £10 / $15. Also works well as a christmas/birthday present gambit if I know someone who missed said game but always wanted to play it.

Was that a meme reference? It fit so naturally I couldn't tell...

OT: Shall we not feed the trolls? He claimed stores sell used games full price, gave one shitty example and then used a string of disjointed logic. The trademark warped grin here can be seen from space, me thinks.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

my point is the fact that they could've had 1 million extra sales, but lost those to the used market. It was simply an example of how the used market is costing devs a lot of money.

By that kind of dodgy accounting they could also claim that it costs them money when people lend games for friends to play. Or have their friends around and let them play the game. A friend lent my brother Assassin's Creed II just recently; both my brother and I played it. Did we just cost Ubisoft two purchases?

no because you weren't paying money to do so, people buying used ARE. And yeah im behind content creators getting money for what they make.

So by your logic it's okay (moral issues aside) to pirate the game because I won't be be spending any money to play the game. Can you spot the fallacy here?

nope. Your not spending money either way. Sure piracy is illegal and you will get roshambo'd for that. But people who pirate EVERYTHING probably weren't going to be a consumer in the first place. I long ago gave up arguing against them because their thieves and theres no rationalizing with them.

Compared to a consumer trying to save a few bucks by giving money to people who have nothing to do with the game. Which is a shame because in doing the decent thing and paying they payed the wrong people, and if more people actually bought first hand the industry would be much healthier, and more risky titles would be being made.

Which is a shame in my eyes.

But by all means you go ahead and save your 5 bucks and watch developers fail. Hope that will be fun for you.

Oh, knock off the superiority act. Buying games new doesn't put you on a moral high ground. I've bought 8 new games this year and 1 used. I have a friend that is basically the opposite. Guess what? I'm not better than him. Having more money=/=better person.

its not about having more money
its about spending the money the right way. I often spend a bit more for local producers to survive by not having something luxury around the home. Its all about how you spend the money you have. What you chose to do with it defines how much you care.

Which is why I make sure to buy new when purchasing games published/developed by smaller companies like NIS, Atlus, and Aksys. Still doesn't mean I care more about the industry than someone that mainly buys used.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

my point is the fact that they could've had 1 million extra sales, but lost those to the used market. It was simply an example of how the used market is costing devs a lot of money.

By that kind of dodgy accounting they could also claim that it costs them money when people lend games for friends to play. Or have their friends around and let them play the game. A friend lent my brother Assassin's Creed II just recently; both my brother and I played it. Did we just cost Ubisoft two purchases?

no because you weren't paying money to do so, people buying used ARE. And yeah im behind content creators getting money for what they make.

You mean like they do when the game sells the first time? Yeah. I don't think any of us damn them for that.

yeah 1x 60 dollars. This isnt about whether or not you paid for a thing.Its who the moneys going to and people buying used to save a tiny bit of money have it all go to a worthless middle man.

So i genuinely think anyone who primarily games via used games, doesnt really love gaming enough to reward the people making the damn things.

First off, might I recommend using the shift key for the word "I" and spelling it "Doesn't"? Remember, punctuation saves lives.

Second, yes. It is FULLY about who got paid for the thing. Why are video games so special that they need to be treated differently than any other form of media? You are ignoring this. Also, I love your line about not loving gaming. I'm sorry, but what? That reeks of ad hominem.

the fact you quoted punctuation and minor spelling as a point weakens your side dramatically (oh look i have a real life what a shame this is).

Their not "so special" but they are different, i direct you to the long ass post i just made on how you can't compare this used market to every other. THEY ARE DIFFERENT.

p.s i am often aware of my spelling and punctuation but feel that worrying about them in a casual setting such as this where people can fully understand what i am saying is a waste of effort, this isn't the new yorker.

Christ alive, man. I was only giving a recommendation to you.

Also, all other used markets are different from other used markets. So this used market is different from used markets in being different. If that makes any sense. Furthermore, if games getting traded in a week after the fact is such an issue, game developers should be looking at ways to encourage people to hold onto their disks, without punishing second hand sales. Such as giving people discounts on DLC if they buy new.

Oh, and we can understand you. It's just that it requires little effort, and poor punctuation makes you look unintelligible

 

[MorphingDragon]

my point is the fact that they could've had 1 million extra sales, but lost those to the used market. It was simply an example of how the used market is costing devs a lot of money.

By that kind of dodgy accounting they could also claim that it costs them money when people lend games for friends to play. Or have their friends around and let them play the game. A friend lent my brother Assassin's Creed II just recently; both my brother and I played it. Did we just cost Ubisoft two purchases?

no because you weren't paying money to do so, people buying used ARE. And yeah im behind content creators getting money for what they make.

So by your logic it's okay (moral issues aside) to pirate the game because I won't be be spending any money to play the game. Can you spot the fallacy here?

nope. Your not spending money either way. Sure piracy is illegal and you will get roshambo'd for that. But people who pirate EVERYTHING probably weren't going to be a consumer in the first place. I long ago gave up arguing against them because their thieves and theres no rationalizing with them.

Compared to a consumer trying to save a few bucks by giving money to people who have nothing to do with the game. Which is a shame because in doing the decent thing and paying they payed the wrong people, and if more people actually bought first hand the industry would be much healthier, and more risky titles would be being made.

Which is a shame in my eyes.

But by all means you go ahead and save your 5 bucks and watch developers fail. Hope that will be fun for you.

Oh, knock off the superiority act. Buying games new doesn't put you on a moral high ground. I've bought 8 new games this year and 1 used. I have a friend that is basically the opposite. Guess what? I'm not better than him. Having more money=/=better person.

its not about having more money
its about spending the money the right way. I often spend a bit more for local producers to survive by not having something luxury around the home. Its all about how you spend the money you have. What you chose to do with it defines how much you care.

Being vague is almost as much fun as this other thing...

i apologise for choosing not to share my spending habits with escapist. You must be mortified.

You make an argument yet give nobody the means to actually argue back.

That isn't arguing, its trolling.

yeah 1x 60 dollars. This isnt about whether or not you paid for a thing.Its who the moneys going to and people buying used to save a tiny bit of money have it all go to a worthless middle man.

So i genuinely think anyone who primarily games via used games, doesnt really love gaming enough to reward the people making the damn things.

Well then why don't you buy games directly from the studio then if you support them so much?

Oh wait you can't.

Its like a problem of a misbehaving child, you want to reward them for good behaviour but they never behave so you never reward them.

i can

I have several times this year, whenever indie publishers allow me to download straight from the i jump on it. Sure i would hate to have to pay the middleman.

But in the real world if it wasn't EA or division funding them it would just be a bank behind the scenes, and for the record supporting publishers is actually positive.

Because strangely enough they do go on to fund other games. Shock that is :O

EA and Activision still exist in a free market, if the companies want to push we have more than a right push push back.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

my point is the fact that they could've had 1 million extra sales, but lost those to the used market. It was simply an example of how the used market is costing devs a lot of money.

By that kind of dodgy accounting they could also claim that it costs them money when people lend games for friends to play. Or have their friends around and let them play the game. A friend lent my brother Assassin's Creed II just recently; both my brother and I played it. Did we just cost Ubisoft two purchases?

no because you weren't paying money to do so, people buying used ARE. And yeah im behind content creators getting money for what they make.

So by your logic it's okay (moral issues aside) to pirate the game because I won't be be spending any money to play the game. Can you spot the fallacy here?

nope. Your not spending money either way. Sure piracy is illegal and you will get roshambo'd for that. But people who pirate EVERYTHING probably weren't going to be a consumer in the first place. I long ago gave up arguing against them because their thieves and theres no rationalizing with them.

Compared to a consumer trying to save a few bucks by giving money to people who have nothing to do with the game. Which is a shame because in doing the decent thing and paying they payed the wrong people, and if more people actually bought first hand the industry would be much healthier, and more risky titles would be being made.

Which is a shame in my eyes.

But by all means you go ahead and save your 5 bucks and watch developers fail. Hope that will be fun for you.

Oh, knock off the superiority act. Buying games new doesn't put you on a moral high ground. I've bought 8 new games this year and 1 used. I have a friend that is basically the opposite. Guess what? I'm not better than him. Having more money=/=better person.

its not about having more money
its about spending the money the right way. I often spend a bit more for local producers to survive by not having something luxury around the home. Its all about how you spend the money you have. What you chose to do with it defines how much you care.

Which is why I make sure to buy new when purchasing games published/developed by smaller companies like NIS, Atlus, and Aksys. Still doesn't mean I care more about the industry than someone that mainly buys used.

IMO it does, judging people on their actions is justified and i have a level of respect for you because you buy new. But thats a personal opinion of mine which i can understand that others may not share.

Then we are going to have to agree to disagree. Have a nice day.

 

[Tibike77]

Do car makers sell less cars because people buy used cars? No.

Actually, yes.

 

[TheEnglishman]

No. The used game shop I use (CEX) normally sells used games with generally a £5-10 saving. It'd be stupid to buy the game at a more expensive rate.

And can we please stop pretending that the games companies are being hurt, because they're not.

With Indie Games yes they do need the money and I wont buy used, however I wont be feeling bad when I get a used copy of Arkham City over the weekend.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

my point is the fact that they could've had 1 million extra sales, but lost those to the used market. It was simply an example of how the used market is costing devs a lot of money.

By that kind of dodgy accounting they could also claim that it costs them money when people lend games for friends to play. Or have their friends around and let them play the game. A friend lent my brother Assassin's Creed II just recently; both my brother and I played it. Did we just cost Ubisoft two purchases?

no because you weren't paying money to do so, people buying used ARE. And yeah im behind content creators getting money for what they make.

You mean like they do when the game sells the first time? Yeah. I don't think any of us damn them for that.

yeah 1x 60 dollars. This isnt about whether or not you paid for a thing.Its who the moneys going to and people buying used to save a tiny bit of money have it all go to a worthless middle man.

So i genuinely think anyone who primarily games via used games, doesnt really love gaming enough to reward the people making the damn things.

First off, might I recommend using the shift key for the word "I" and spelling it "Doesn't"? Remember, punctuation saves lives.

Second, yes. It is FULLY about who got paid for the thing. Why are video games so special that they need to be treated differently than any other form of media? You are ignoring this. Also, I love your line about not loving gaming. I'm sorry, but what? That reeks of ad hominem.

the fact you quoted punctuation and minor spelling as a point weakens your side dramatically (oh look i have a real life what a shame this is).

Their not "so special" but they are different, i direct you to the long ass post i just made on how you can't compare this used market to every other. THEY ARE DIFFERENT.

p.s i am often aware of my spelling and punctuation but feel that worrying about them in a casual setting such as this where people can fully understand what i am saying is a waste of effort, this isn't the new yorker.

Christ alive, man. I was only giving a recommendation to you.

Also, all other used markets are different from other used markets. So this used market is different from used markets in being different. If that makes any sense. Furthermore, if games getting traded in a week after the fact is such an issue, game developers should be looking at ways to encourage people to hold onto their disks, without punishing second hand sales. Such as giving people discounts on DLC if they buy new.

Oh, and we can understand you. It's just that it requires little effort, and poor punctuation makes you look unintelligible

really it requires effort to see the little i's . You sure are sensitive aren't you. And either it makes me unintelligible or makes me look stupid, if this is going to be a grammar swinging match after all.

Look, I was in truth, only trying to be helpful. Nothing more, nothing less. However, I feel as though I may have touched upon a nerve here.

Regardless, if you want to actually look at my points, please, feel free to do so. I wasn't trying to make any point about your grammar.

 

[Tharwen]

you're only making gamestop richer.

So?

They're offering a better deal than the publisher. Why should a consumer care where their money goes to as long as it's not being used immorally?

 

[-Samurai-]

Where do people get the notion that buying a game new supports developers/publishers?

Using GameStop as an example;

GameStop purchases several copies of a title, marks up the price, then puts it on their shelf. They then sell the game at the higher price and make a profit. No money from a game in new condition goes to publishers or developers.

People seem to think that the money from new game sales gets passed along from the retailer to the distributor. If that were the case, the retailer wouldn't turn a profit and wouldn't have a business. They'd simply be a delivery company that delivers for free and can't accept tips.

And how do you think it works when the retailer has several copies of a new game that it can't sell? Did the distributor just hand over the copies to the retailer and say "Just sell as many as you can, and we'll just eat the loss of the ones you can't."? No. Since the retailer purchased them, they eat the loss.

It doesn't matter if you buy new or used, you're supporting the retailer.

 

[zehydra]

I think you should change the title of this thread to "I think buying used games from Gamestop is stupid", because buying used games off of Amazon like you suggest is still buying and selling used games.

I agree wholeheartedly, Gamestop rips off their customers, buy off Amazon or Ebay if you want used.

 

[Atmos Duality]

It's stupid when the price is close to that of the original.
So...you get a 2$ discount because of arbitrage. SUCH AMAZING SAVINGS!!!
...and the retailer (usually Gamestop) just ripped off the publisher.

However, it isn't so stupid when the used game in question is much older and its value depreciates according to its decreased demand on the market. It's safe to assume that if I want to go scrounging for old PS2 titles, like say, Godhand, the publisher probably isn't seeing any revenue from new sales figures there. In this instance, the effects of arbitrage are minimal to negligible and the retailer can still turn a profit (albeit a much much smaller profit).

The biggest factor in arbitrage is time. MOST new games count on immediate sales figures (roughly within the first month) to *recoup* most of what the publisher spent making the game, and that's when Gamestop (and others) exploit arbitrage the most.

Honestly, if the arbitrage wasn't so overwhelmingly prevalent in that critical, early stage of the game's retail life cycle, this "controversy" would scarcely exist.

There is no reason we cannot have both New and Used game markets coexisting. Except: Short-term greed will (and has) create(d) long-term consequences for everyone involved.

The problem is that the "ideal solution" for the publishers involves measures that will ultimately drive up costs for the customer, despite cutting out the retail middleman.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

my point is the fact that they could've had 1 million extra sales, but lost those to the used market. It was simply an example of how the used market is costing devs a lot of money.

By that kind of dodgy accounting they could also claim that it costs them money when people lend games for friends to play. Or have their friends around and let them play the game. A friend lent my brother Assassin's Creed II just recently; both my brother and I played it. Did we just cost Ubisoft two purchases?

no because you weren't paying money to do so, people buying used ARE. And yeah im behind content creators getting money for what they make.

You mean like they do when the game sells the first time? Yeah. I don't think any of us damn them for that.

yeah 1x 60 dollars. This isnt about whether or not you paid for a thing.Its who the moneys going to and people buying used to save a tiny bit of money have it all go to a worthless middle man.

So i genuinely think anyone who primarily games via used games, doesnt really love gaming enough to reward the people making the damn things.

First off, might I recommend using the shift key for the word "I" and spelling it "Doesn't"? Remember, punctuation saves lives.

Second, yes. It is FULLY about who got paid for the thing. Why are video games so special that they need to be treated differently than any other form of media? You are ignoring this. Also, I love your line about not loving gaming. I'm sorry, but what? That reeks of ad hominem.

the fact you quoted punctuation and minor spelling as a point weakens your side dramatically (oh look i have a real life what a shame this is).

Their not "so special" but they are different, i direct you to the long ass post i just made on how you can't compare this used market to every other. THEY ARE DIFFERENT.

p.s i am often aware of my spelling and punctuation but feel that worrying about them in a casual setting such as this where people can fully understand what i am saying is a waste of effort, this isn't the new yorker.

Christ alive, man. I was only giving a recommendation to you.

Also, all other used markets are different from other used markets. So this used market is different from used markets in being different. If that makes any sense. Furthermore, if games getting traded in a week after the fact is such an issue, game developers should be looking at ways to encourage people to hold onto their disks, without punishing second hand sales. Such as giving people discounts on DLC if they buy new.

Oh, and we can understand you. It's just that it requires little effort, and poor punctuation makes you look unintelligible

really it requires effort to see the little i's . You sure are sensitive aren't you. And either it makes me unintelligible or makes me look stupid, if this is going to be a grammar swinging match after all.

Look, I was in truth, only trying to be helpful. Nothing more, nothing less. However, I feel as though I may have touched upon a nerve here.

Regardless, if you want to actually look at my points, please, feel free to do so. I wasn't trying to make any point about your grammar.

you did what a lot of this forum does, which is incredibly immature i might add. And that is this part time grammar nazi behaviour. Posted along a selection of other arguments when people have run out of logical rebuttals. And it really only serves to derail threads.

Language is a tool that serves man, not the other way around. We do not exist to enforce its rules.

So yes i snapped at you with the rage meant for 100 comments like the one you made yourself. So far as my emotions i apologise but the point behind the rage still stands.

Immature? I'm sorry, but giving people a quick tip on how to bring their point across better is "Immature" now? And furthermore, for someone who admits to snapping in rage, you have the audacity to call me immature? Sorry, but that's too funny. And secondly, we were still having a debate. I posted other points. Which you continue to ignore.



Again, back on topic. The industry is still going strong. Publishers still turned a nice profit the last few years, even during a recession and these Evil used sales.

 

[bobiroka]

I'd rather rent games than buy them used. If I'm not sure about a game I don't want to make the commitment to owning it. I'm quite selective and if I make the decision to buy a game I usually pre-order months in advance so I don't have to queue at the store.

I used to trade in games I thought I'd be unlikely to replay to get a discount on new ones, but now that game devs have really started to figure out DLC and because I've gotten so used to buying everything online I tend to hang on to games forever.

If I have the option of buying games digitally I'll take it, because I'm gonna run out of space at this rate...

 

[Zeriah]

Wahtever.

Annnnnnd that's how the First Sale Doctrine works. Look it up. No other form of media needs money when it comes to second hand sales in order to survive. In fact, how has gaming got this far, considering we've had second hand sales from the word-go, if they are such a problem?

Well, it may just be me but I have a feeling the second hand game sales has definitely grown in the past couple of years. I don't know what it's like in the US, but where I live (Europe) the used sales market has grown substantially in the past 5 years. I honestly can't remember there being a substantial used sales market more than 5 years ago. Especially not as big as it has now become.

Either way, I stick to my point that if I have to choose who to give my money to, I'd rather choose the developer than some gamestore.

Well maybe used game sales would decrease if the fuckers stopped hiking up the price of new games. I refuse to pay $120+ for a video game. They were only $80-$100 a couple of years ago.

By those numbers I'm assuming you are Australian, like myself (or Kiwi, in which case add $15~). It is not the developers that are at fault for those prices, it is the retail stores. The stores order new games for around $50 (or whatever the price that gamestop would pay for games in the US) and sell them for $120 (double what the US stores sell them for) when our dollar is the same. If anything you should be wanting to smite the absurd prices of the aussie retail stores and support the developers instead.

Here are your options as an Australian consumer:
Buy game new for $120 (when it should be going for $60).
Buy game used for $110 (greedy store takes that entire $110 when they should be selling it for $53 like in the US)
Buy game online for $55, all of which goes to the developer and laugh about paying half what you would pay for it used (plus you have supported the industry).

Seriously check this store out http://www.ozgameshop.com/ or http://www.nzgameshop.com/ if you are a New Zealander.

 

[Red-Link]

Kids nowadays don't like to keep their games and build a collection, they game, sell and trade games on a regular basis. Shops like gamestop are taking advantage of this circular cycle to rip off the costumer. Charging 50$ multiple times on a single copy.

Is it really worth buying a used copy of la noire, deus ex or resistance 3 for 53$? Remember that not a single penny goes to the developers and you're only making gamestop richer.

You guys have several options that are better, imo, like Amazon or other on-line shops. For example European consumers can go to Amazon.co.uk a buy deus ex for 15,99 pounds, that's 25 dollars!
The limited edition of dark souls costs 43?, any physical shop near me wont sell it for less than 60/70?(new or used).

And I'm sure that, regardless of what country you live in, you can find better and more economic solutions on-line.

I think that used games can be a good thing, for example I just bought msg2 and msg3 for 15?, but when it comes to recent ip's I think you should search for options that not only benefit your wallet but also contribute to the industry.

I fail to use your rant how used movie stores are evil. I suppose Satan runs used car dealerships? Used CDs must by destroying the economy?

Why is it that video games are the only used market that's "evil"?

several reasons

1) cars don't get traded in the same week
2) traded in cars inherently have less value than traded in games, whereas a traded in game can go 10-5% lower than the new price.
3) Books are a low risk investment and make their money back stupidly quickly due to the low development costs. And oddly enough there isnt a big trade in second hand books (other than first editions,)
4) You can't use music as an example, because itunes don't allow second sales. And many cd's are now coming with RIP limis.
5)films? ok they have 3 different income streams 1) box office , 2) physical media (dvds) 3) tv and flight reshowings. Not to mention merchandise (cars THE WORST pixar movie made 10bn in merchandising not to be sniffed at)

We our own industry and we need to find our own solutions that have to do with our product. Day one dlc , DRM. and regular dlc are all steps towards this. Once we get into the download only future (which we are heading toward) used games will be a non-issue and as such the industry will be much healthier.

And can you people PLEASE stop referencing used cars, completely different market place that doesn't acknowledge the fact that used cars still need parts from the same place. Its a stupid example.

On point 4) May I introduce you to the used-music store? Walk right in and find CD's, cassettes, vinyls, and what have you all for the low-low price of less than new. Just as you have a point that cars don't fit the model, so you have to acknowledge that music does. The music industry survived until it became primarily download based. Games will survive until they do, as you mentioned is rather likely (I agree with that). Used sales have always been a pain in the pocketbooks of the media, and it's never really killed anything. Also, with movies, there are a lot that don't get all three streams, hell, they'll be lucky to come into contact with two of them. The point is, when you don't want to spend more money, you're going to save that money. If people want to spend less, that's their choice. If you want to spend more, all power to you, just don't complain when the good ol' college student has to be a bit more discriminating in his purchases.