buying used games is stupid

[Guilherme Zoldan]

Okay Id go "this thread again?" but that would be redundant. Instead Im gona try and give a different perspective on the whole deal, one from a foreigner.
I live in Brazil, and here games are expensive, REALLY expensive. A newly released game costs 200 BRL which is about... 116.957 USD(Thank you Google). So it often ends up being more reasonable to import my games, even if I get taxed it doesn't cost as much as buying it here. But if I dont want to wait two months to receive my game, the only way to both be able to eat this month and have new games to play is buying used or trading in my old games for credit.
Im fairly sure Im not the only one in this situation here, considering that most of the population has a much lower income then I do. So yeah if it wasnt for second-hand retailers, this country would not even exist for the video games industry.

 

[Braedan]

I don't care who gets my money as long as it is legal and I am getting a good deal.

 

[Snotnarok]

I don't care if the publisher/developer doesn't get a sale on the game they already made a sale on. They made their money off that game already it's not my problem if someone sold it and it's cheaper.
Besides it's a VERY rare case a game doesn't make MILLIONS even when it doesn't sell very well, so I'm not very sympathetic when they've made back what they've spent 2 fold.

Not that I've bought a used game recently that was even available new, unless Sega is still making cartridges that is, which they're not.

 

[Lilani]

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.

And that is where your logic falls apart. $50 for a used game is still less than $60-$80 for a new one. The only time you can find copies of modern games for as low as $25 on Amazon is if it's six months to a year old, and even then the price has also significantly lowered in stores. After about a year, you can bet you can find that game for about half the retail price in the store used.

That means a $60 game would be down to $30 in the store. Even if it is $25 on Amazon, you still have to factor in shipping, which could be $5-$10 depending on what sort of shipping you get and where it's shipping to/from. Which means you can get it in the store for the same price if not cheaper, and a hell of a lot faster.

 

[Red Roark]

No, selling / buying them from retailers is stupid, an important distinction people seem to forget.

^Truth. My roommate wants to sell Cathrine back and I haven't finished it, I'm ok with that because it's his game. But it's funny how easily he forgets that game cost him just as much store credit and cash when it came out.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

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.

but if you prefer to spend 50 dollars on a used game, that's up to you.
whatever floats your boat...

All games are $59 retail here (not counting online because I buy most console games on impulse, pc wise.. if it's not on steam or it's not a blizzard product I don't buy it) I am not going to spend $60 on a game unless there is no other option. If publishers and game studios want to lower the prices of games, ill buy new. With that being said, the next console generation better keep the game prices the same or lower, if not, I won't be buying any of it.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

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.

but if you prefer to spend 50 dollars on a used game, that's up to you.
whatever floats your boat...

Yes, it is better to pay $53 rather than $60 for a game... every single time. Also in order for it to be a used copy someone had to buy it used, if I bought a game new and sold it to my friend for $50 am I stiffing the developer because I didn't think the game was good enough to keep?

Also do you know what capitalism is? Gamestop is a for-profit company, they are in the buisness of making money, deal with it. Besides Gamestop helps devs, they offer preorder bonuses for most AAA titles, which means more people are likely to buy the game new, which gets the devs money.

Does a dev get money from a used game sale? No, but when someone buys the game it becomes their property, to do with as they please, if they want to trade it in to Gamestop nobody has the right to tell them that is wrong.

Also buying online isn'e inheirently better than buying a hard copy from a retailer, when I pay for something I want it to be handed to me immediatley, not have to wait a week or two to get it, or to pay extra to have it overnighted. When I wanted to get Deus Ex: HR the first thing I did was go online, the cost of the game, taxes, and shipping (standard 1-2 weeks) was more than what I would have payed to get it at Gamestop, who offered trade in bonuses twoard the pre-order and my membership discount.

If buying used games was some kind of death blow to the industry we wouldn't have any new games at this point, as I have only payed full price for 6 games in my entire life and I am hardly an outlier, so buying used is better for the consumers, which means it's better for the industry.

 

[Xyliss]

Wow, one example, that's real conclusive.

-Used games are often cheaper than the alternative,
-Used games benefit the used retailer, so it's not piracy (because I like the used retailer),
-It's easier to find old games in trade-in stores.

This one is especially relevant to me as a shop nearby has games going all the way back to the NES, but including SNES, Gameboy (original!), MegaDrive, Dreamcast, and a rather large collection of some classic and much sought after PS1 titles.

So yeah, I'll support them. I have no qualms about money not going to the developer if I buy Used from them.

i also buying a shit ton of used games for my ps2 and dreamcast.

my thing is that I refuse to spend more than 20? on a used game(classics and rare gems notwithstanding) and a lot of shops near me sell ps3/xbox360 used games for well over 40?. I'd rather buy and new copy and contribute to the developers that made the game.

that's my point.

Thas a different point to what you made orignally. Also I agree with this point, it is pointless ppaying that much for a used game. For me if a game is above about £30 used I don't see the point and will buy it new...but that said I love the idea of used games, especially if they're cheap, I think they help a lot of gamers try a lot of games they wouldn't normally try.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

From the dev's standpoint, buying used games is only slightly better than piracy. No arguing about it.

Why slightly? Because chances are pretty good that the money gotten from selling a used game will be going towards buying a new game. However, it's not a guarantee, and it's even less of a chance that the money from selling the square game will go into another square game.

So if You're buying used, You're basically pirating it. The fact that one thing is legal and the other is not does not matter much; it's about whether it's legit or not. The fact that You "support Your retailer" doesn't matter much; You could just as easily argue someone who buys pirated games (as those used to be sold in the olden days...) supports his local pirates. After all, they have to eat, too. No merit in that one. Edit: Again, from the developer's standpoint.

If You buy used because You can't afford new, You really might as well download it. In the end, it's probably BETTER for the industry if You download 3 games and buy one new for $60 instead of buying 4 used for $15 each.

Live with it, or stop doing it.

~Sylv

Here's a thought, maybe the developers could stop acting so entitled and realise that used games are part of the natural cycle of the market determining a price for a good. If you charge people 60 dollars for something that they can finish in five hours, then odds are they're going to trade it in and try to recoup some of their investment, because they didn't feel it was worth that much. If the market gets flooded with people returning the product in this manner, then the price goes down on used copies, reflecting the disparity.

If the game has so much content in it that people are inclined to keep it for a lot longer, or the quality of the experience is so good that people want to replay the game every so often, then less used copies hit the market and the price stays more or less near what it was at launch.

This is the market operating as it should. Any developer claiming that they are not receiving money because of this is basically saying that they should be allowed to charge whatever they like for a product, irrespective of its actual value. And no, don't start complaining about the costs of development. If it costs you that much to develop something that people can only find a few hours of enjoyment in, then you're clearly working to an unsustainable business model.

 

[The Hero Killer]

Theres nothing stupid about it. I dont care about a collection and if I'm not going to play a game anymore or if it sucks I'm trading it in that way I dont have to pay as much for the next game. And if a game is old or I dont think its worth full price then why not buy it used? Especially when GameStop lets you return it if something is wrong with it. I swear I feel like I'm the only one who doesnt care where my money goes. I'm looking out for me and my enjoyment of my hobby for the lowest price possible.

 

[Madara XIII]

Remember that not a single penny goes to the developers and you're only making gamestop richer.

You're right. It doesn't.

...

Your point? I mean, that's kinda how used products work. Did they, or did they not get paid the first time the game sold?

Yes? That's it, then.

no the point is that when someone buys the game used, that person has just avoided paying for it new and they lose a potential future customer. not that i care but you seem to have misinterpreted the problem.

Not to be an ass, but the same can be said for a used car dealership. Just because I didn't buy a new Volvo from them, but instead bought a used one from a dealership that mostly speaks spanish doesn't necessarily make me a bad person because I don't have the moolah to pay for one fresh out the company's bumhole


Same goes with games. I JUST DON'T HAVE THE PRIVILEGE to buy every game I want in a new condition. It's not a crime, it's being fiscally responsible when I want a few hours of electronic entertainment.

Don't get me wrong I don't buy EVERY game used, because God forbid I actually make a sub-microscopic dent in the wallet of a developer. There are just some games that I don't see worth the full $60 or just some games I can't get any other way....especially GOOD PS2 games. Hell I'm proud of myself I didn't buy MW2 when it first came out, because disappointment hit harder than Yahtzee's words to a piece of paper.

What I'm trying to say is that not everyone has to buy the game New and shouldn't be chastised because they're not supporting the developers EVERYTIME, ALL THE TIME.

Like i said, i don't really care. I buy both new and used so i get the best of both worlds. I just don't get how people get so up in arms over this when we do it to practically every other product. Hell, Kijiji and Ebay are basically made to sell used items.

Oh now I see where you're coming from. To be honest I see no point in getting angry about such a trivial matter. I guess I stand with you in the fact that I find it preposterous

 

[EasySt17]

I think the real issue that fires up many (including myself) is that large gaming companies are coming out and attacking their customer base for trading used games. Customers who pay $60 for a new game shouldn't be talked down to by CEOs because the game turned out crappy and they want to get some of that money back by reselling it, and it most definitely isn't hurting the industry. I've never heard movie companies complain about used DVD sales or music distributors complain about used CD sales. These companies seem to be under the mistaken impression that if it weren't for used games sales these customers would be paying the full price for the new copy, which for many games isn't true. Fact of the matter is that many new games aren't worth the $60 and with the poor quality of game reviewing to downright corruption, it is hard to tell which games are good and which aren't. Better to wait for a used copy, price reduction, or steam sale.

 

[TheDooD]

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.

ok keep deluding yourself to it being a quick tip
it was a snide comment for the superiority you feel over people who choose not to type in your exact fashion.

As for the industry going well?
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2011/10/06/l-a-noire-developer-studio-to-close/
Whats that a AAA title that sold ok getting shut down, NAHH that can't be because the industries not hunky dory.
How about GRIN last year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRIN_(company)
Or bizzarre creations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeClyggNouo&feature=autoplay&list=ULNeBw_NB2EsE&lf=mfu_in_order&playnext=1
pandemic perhaps
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-9rxBqRaiI&feature=BFa&list=ULdiGj47Z36UE&lf=mfu_in_order
black rock studio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJZat56QwI&feature=BFa&list=ULMFy9mnc8nOk&lf=mfu_in_order
bizzare creations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarre_Creations

Just because you don't pay attention does not mean these losses aren't happening.

With all those places that closed down you can pretty much blame the publishers NOT doing their job then backstabbing the developers after they get their money.

 

[tahrey]

I don't always buy used games, but when I do, I buy...

...The Most Interesting Man in the World: The Game of Dos Equis?

(& 3 other requotes...)

Bahaha... yes. I wasn't expecting funny responses to that I must say
And I make no claims at all to be an interesting gamer, just one that's shit-poor in terms of both money and time. If I'm going to blow some precious pounds and hours on something, I want to make sure it's worthwhile. There's a wealth of cool stuff in the previously-owned bin, including things that - because of being short, pricey imports, or whatever - may otherwise not be worth the full asking price.
Various of the xmas/birthday ones are things specifically put on the subject's wishlist, because they've seen it in the store's bargain bin, languishing untouched by the hordes of Gears fans who won't take a chance on a weird game because the last one they bought was £60.

Not that there isn't a place for brand new games, they're not entirely off the menu - and, like with brand new cars, there wouldn't BE a used marketplace without them. This is just my way of using an equally extreme counterargument to show how absurd the original one was.

 

[segataDC]

i once bought a used game at gamestop and it had cum on the instruction manual.
i'm never buying there again.

 

[OpiateChicken]

i once bought a used game at gamestop and it had cum on the instruction manual.
i'm never buying there again.

How do you know it wasn't water?

Did you go to a lab and have it examined?

It was probably just water, man.


*fapping
"OH SHIT OH IM GONNA CUM OHHHH NOOOO"
*grabs instruction manual*
"Awww yeah.

Heh, some poor fucker is gonna buy this at GameStop. Aww righhht."

 

[Sylvine]

This just in: Libraries just as bad as piracy for the book industry.

Well, yes, they are. What were You trying to achieve with that comment, exactly? Bait me into saying "Libraries are baaaaaad!"? Well, yes, they might be, for the writers, as they are selling less of their product. Mind You, it's the same as car-sharing is bad for the automobile industry, and healthy lifestyles for the fitness studios and diet product industries. I'm not saying I'm in favour of doing anything about it.

I've heard of the First Sale Doctrine. You are missing the point, as the discussion is not about what is legal, but what should or shouldn't be legal.

Can you see us from that pedestal? You seem to be pretty high. The used game industry is a basic consumer right, piracy is theft.

I can see You just fine, but I might consider not bothering to look down if You don't bother to read my posts properly.

And both are the respective thing not by natural order, but by legal definition. The nice thing about legal matters is that they can be changed.

Besides, what high horse, what pedestal? Everything I said is true. I didn't make any moral judgement when I compared second-hand market to piracy from the developer's point of view. I'm not saying they're rightfully condemning either. But they ARE right about losing money on the second-hand market, and the point does remain that if You're buing used, You might as well download instead. All I'm saying is that being against piracy, but for the second-hand market when considering entertainment media, is foolish at best.

~Sylv

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

This just in: Libraries just as bad as piracy for the book industry.

Well, yes, they are. What were You trying to achieve with that comment, exactly? Bait me into saying "Libraries are baaaaaad!"? Well, yes, they might be, for the writers, as they are selling less of their product. Mind You, it's the same as car-sharing is bad for the automobile industry, and healthy lifestyles for the fitness studios and diet product industries. I'm not saying I'm in favour of doing anything about it.

I've heard of the First Sale Doctrine. You are missing the point, as the discussion is not about what is legal, but what should or shouldn't be legal.

Can you see us from that pedestal? You seem to be pretty high. The used game industry is a basic consumer right, piracy is theft.

I can see You just fine, but I might consider not bothering to look down if You don't bother to read my posts properly.

And both are the respective thing not by natural order, but by legal definition. The nice thing about legal matters is that they can be changed.

Besides, what high horse, what pedestal? Everything I said is true. I didn't make any moral judgement when I compared second-hand market to piracy from the developer's point of view. I'm not saying they're rightfully condemning either. But they ARE right about losing money on the second-hand market, and the point does remain that if You're buing used, You might as well download instead. All I'm saying is that being against piracy, but for the second-hand market when considering entertainment media, is foolish at best.

~Sylv

Annnnnd the First Sale Doctrine should be law. It's basic consumer rights. Are you saying it shouldn't be?

The second-hand market is a consumer right. Piracy is not. Sorry.

EDIT: But I suppose I can see that from "Their view" it might be just as bad. That doesn't mean anything legally though.

 

[Sylvine]

Annnnnd the First Sale Doctrine should be law. It's basic consumer rights. Are you saying it shouldn't be?

The second-hand market is a consumer right. Piracy is not. Sorry.

EDIT: But I suppose I can see that from "Their view" it might be just as bad. That doesn't mean anything legally though.

I don't know. We're getting some new stuff around, and maybe it shouldn't apply to everything. Many companies already try to design their games to dodge that, like, oh, pretty much every subscription game. If You pay for using the software only instead of owning a copy, You can't resell.

Well, duh. One is a right, the other is not, because we defined it that way. I do believe You all know THE LAW! is not set in stone. It's open to discussion, and it well should be. Same with what You call basic rights. Otherwise, we'd still have slavery and state-sanctioned racial discrimination.

If Your argument is: "Well, the effect is the same, but one is legal and the other is not, so I'll refrain from doing the latter", then that's sort of okay, I guess. I'm arguing the second-hand market makes piracy a victimless crime in most circumstances - people who can afford new games buy new, because even though pirating it is easy, it's still a bit of a hassle, You're risking viruses and trojans, slow or incomplete downloads, cracks not working properly, You're probably skipping online content, may have problems with patches, etc etc. And people who can't afford to buy new don't - they either buy used or download, to (pretty much) the same result for the supposed victims of piracy. Now, one poster above me did make a pretty interesting point about how the second hand market serves to regulate the first-hand price; I'm not sure if I agree, but it's possible. In any case, though, the whole affair makes me think we should re-think both our piracy and second-hand market laws. If both appear to "hurt" the developers by robbing them of money (a bullshit claim, perhaps, but, again, applicable to both second-hand and piracy), and if that is, on the whole, undesirable, then we should reconsider both, not just say one is a right (purely by custom!) and the other a crime (also purely by custom!).

Sorry if I'm going in long-winded circles there. If it helps, I won't mind if You just think "eh, whatever" and don't reply

~Sylv