Critical Miss: #32

[Eclectic Dreck]

And yet, I somehow still support the right of a company to make money off the sale of a property who's only value does not naturally deteriorate. When I buy a used car, the price is reduced because I am getting a worse product than a new car. When I buy a used game, unless the previous owner did something terrible, I have access to the same exact content.

That said, I also support the right of people to buy and sell used games. And, if people think that saving five bucks (which is 8 1/3% discount from the new version) is worth cutting those people who assumed all the risk and slaved over the content out of the loop that's all well and good. Just don't expect me to feel betrayed on your behalf when those people you refused to send your money to treat you poorly. What reason do they have to treat you otherwise?

 

[Serenegoose]

I only have one complaint - the text in the black boxes is too small to read comfortably. Please enbiggen!

Beyond that, I lol'd, as usual.

 

[superbatranger]

One thing that confuses me is why are they complaining about the second-hand market all of a sudden? They didn't do this shit a year ago, why now?

Well, if anything, I'd probably say it's because they're greedy.

 

[Duffy13]

Curious as to the specific intent of this strip as it appears to support whichever side of the argument the reader happens to favor. Was this done on purpose? Or are the authors picking a side? Or lucky coincidence? Reflection of the human psyche?

 

[ReaperzXIII]

Fair enough and that would be a choice to make, but I find the flaw in the brake argument as the difference between a core feature and access to service. The brake thing would work if a used game disabled the attack or jump function (both critical). Instead they make you pay for access to the online system, something that requires constant upkeep, much like a service contract for the car that includes oil changes as well as fixing broken problems.

Ok lets switch it up a bit, the roof isn't necessarily mandatory in a car so:

Owner: HELP! I BOUGHT THIS CONVERTIBLE AND THE ROOF WONT COME UP! THERES HEAVY RAIN MY CAR IS FLOODING AND I HAVE ELECTRONICS AND A BABY IN THE BACKSEAT!!!!
Company: Is the car new or used?
Owner: USED! YOU HAVE TO HELP MY BABY IS ABOUT TO DROWN!!!!
Company: Oh I'm sorry if you want a roof you're going to have to pay another $150 have a nice day
Owner: Wait-
Company: *hangs up*

Then the guy dies from electrocution, the end.

 

[Duffy13]

One thing that confuses me is why are they complaining about the second-hand market all of a sudden? They didn't do this shit a year ago, why now?

Well, if anything, I'd probably say it's because they're greedy.

I would say it's probably because the used game market has only exploded with the release and saturation of the current console generation, it has nothing to do with greed. And while as a consumer used game sales are "cool", when you look at it as two businesses that rely on each other, it's more like highway robbery.

Name one other industry where used items do not lose any actual value and can be resold for a few dollars less (can happen multiple times) then a new copy days/weeks after release where all "buyers" experience the exact same product with no differences due to being "used". The kick here is that while movies and music would in theory operate under the same precedent, they don't. Why? There is no incentive to "sell back", they are generally cheaper, and they are often gated releases. (Movies come out in theater, then on dvd, then on cable etc...)

There is definitely a monetary issue, all that money changing hands for a game is not making it back to the developers to make more games, yet the game itself can "sell" well. Consumers then expect more games of similar quality. How do they recoup such "losses"?

 

[BenzSmoke]

I disagree with Ashley, I thought that was a very good analogy.

 

[oktalist]

The point at which the analogy breaks down is when we realise that used car dealerships actually do give a proportion of their profits to the manufacturers.

But yeah, fuck publishers. Used games FTW.

 

[Kross]

Here's the main issue:

A new game comes out at $60 - Due to publisher and other agreements, the devs get maybe $5-10 of that. Which is a whole other issue, but doesn't help the rest of this.

A person buys that game, plays it in a few days, and then sells it to Usedstop for $20-$30.

This game is still new, so the store labels the now "used" game at $55. Barely undercutting the still newly released game.

A person comes into the store a week after the game has released and sees it available for $5 under everything else. Why wouldn't they buy it at the cheaper price, that's money they can spend on lunch!

Now, a few things happen:

- The developer has lost a legitimate sale from a person intending to buy the game new. This is the main concern in this whole debate. Nobody is arguing about old used games in the bulk bin for $15 each. Those are practically vaporware, and the traditional concept of "used" games. Cheap and plentiful.

- The customer gets what they think is a "new" game. It was practically full price, and had a nice little discount that offset sales tax a bit. They're going to possibly play online on dev funded/hosted (and by dev funded, I mean funded by game sales) servers. They may need to download patches. They may also be calling support numbers to ask for help from the dev funded support staff when something breaks. They are going to be wondering where the sequel is to the game in a year or so when the company doesn't make enough from sales to warrant making a sequel.

- The used game store makes a huge profit on the game sale, usually well over %100 of their ~$20 investment. It's a brilliant profit model. Nobody can blame a business for making money. That's why you are a business. It's certainly a better business then the suckers making $10 a pop on new games.

Now, the devs know this and have known this for a while. They gripe about it when people ask, because it's directly effecting their livelihood. It's REALLY HARD to get funding to make a high quality game. They live from project to project, and much too often the majority of developer teams get layed off after a project is done. Used games are completely legal though, and most rational people (including the devs) understand this. They don't have to like it, but they understand it.

People are working on other methods of dealing with this outside of outright condemning used sales. MMOs and other subscription based online games are becoming hugely popular in the eyes of investors because they get around many of these issues with used games. Things like project 10 dollar are the more obvious response. Consumer awareness would be another. DRM delivery systems like Steam seem to be the most well received. Like musicians, developers live off their fans, and they need to have people out there who want to support their dev of choice in order to get more of the good stuff.

Comparing this to other used markets is tough, most other forms of used products either have physical wear, or don't suffer from such a high percentage of immediate turnover within the first week or month of the product. Movies control the market for several months to get people to see them in theaters. Bands tour and make most of their money on concert tickets and merchandise sales like shirts/etc. Even the music CDs themselves don't suffer from the huge difference in price margins that games do. They don't have dozens-hundreds of people involved in the creative process, and they rely on high volume/low price.

Also, while this certainly effects every game developer to some extent, it hurts the smaller indie studios the most (combined with piracy). The larger studios like EA or Activision will defend their bottom line like any good company, and they are the ones who the clout to actually make changes. But the mid sized studios are the ones who can't afford the extra costs "bonus" customers bring in, and are the ones silently dying as they are double teamed by Usedstop and software pirates.

We could all play flash games that don't end up on Usedstop store shelves I guess. Pirates vs. Zombies is pretty damn fun.

Continued: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.229882.7997189

 

[tetron]

Haha these comics always bring a smile to my face.

You know I try to understand these comics, truly I try. I get the obscure references, I am up to date on video game news. And yet still I am bested. Where have I gone so wrong?

Because you're too busy looking at appalling pornography, just like the rest of the internet =D.

For every game you buy used, an orphan goes without a toy. Can you live with that?
Why is Penny wearing a gas mask?

Because she's too polite to tell Erin that she farted, and it smells dreadful.

 

[Moriarty70]

Fair enough and that would be a choice to make, but I find the flaw in the brake argument as the difference between a core feature and access to service. The brake thing would work if a used game disabled the attack or jump function (both critical). Instead they make you pay for access to the online system, something that requires constant upkeep, much like a service contract for the car that includes oil changes as well as fixing broken problems.

Ok lets switch it up a bit, the roof isn't necessarily mandatory in a car so:

Owner: HELP! I BOUGHT THIS CONVERTIBLE AND THE ROOF WONT COME UP! THERES HEAVY RAIN MY CAR IS FLOODING AND I HAVE ELECTRONICS AND A BABY IN THE BACKSEAT!!!!
Company: Is the car new or used?
Owner: USED! YOU HAVE TO HELP MY BABY IS ABOUT TO DROWN!!!!
Company: Oh I'm sorry if you want a roof you're going to have to pay another $150 have a nice day
Owner: Wait-
Company: *hangs up*

Then the guy dies from electrocution, the end.

Thank you for leading me into a great long weekend. That has to be the most over the top, flawed asinine example I've ever seen.

Thank you again.

 

[superbatranger]

One thing that confuses me is why are they complaining about the second-hand market all of a sudden? They didn't do this shit a year ago, why now?

Well, if anything, I'd probably say it's because they're greedy.

I would say it's probably because the used game market has only exploded with the release and saturation of the current console generation, it has nothing to do with greed. And while as a consumer used game sales are "cool", when you look at it as two businesses that rely on each other, it's more like highway robbery.

Name one other industry where used items do not lose any actual value and can be resold for a few dollars less (can happen multiple times) then a new copy days/weeks after release where all "buyers" experience the exact same product with no differences due to being "used". The kick here is that while movies and music would in theory operate under the same precedent, they don't. Why? There is no incentive to "sell back", they are generally cheaper, and they are often gated releases. (Movies come out in theater, then on dvd, then on cable etc...)

There is definitely a monetary issue, all that money changing hands for a game is not making it back to the developers to make more games, yet the game itself can "sell" well. Consumers then expect more games of similar quality. How do they recoup such "losses"?

I see your point. It is wrong that developers don't see that money. But, what the publishers have to understand is that people want to save money, and get their product at the same time. Take for example, one's first car. For most people, their first car either belonged to their parents or was bought at a used car lot. They saved money, and got their car at the same time. In a way, that could apply to games. They want the game, but they want to save money. So, they buy it used. No matter how you look at it, spending 50-110 dollars(depending where you live)isn't saving money.

I honestly believe the used game market is great. It lets people get what they want without necessarily breaking their wallet. But, instead of trying to attack the consumer and used game market for "stealing", why don't the publishers and developers discuss with the used game market a way to distribute profits? For example, the used game market(places like GameStop)could give a percentage of their yearly profits to the publishers and developers. That way, they get their money and the used game market can stay.

 

[ReaperzXIII]

Fair enough and that would be a choice to make, but I find the flaw in the brake argument as the difference between a core feature and access to service. The brake thing would work if a used game disabled the attack or jump function (both critical). Instead they make you pay for access to the online system, something that requires constant upkeep, much like a service contract for the car that includes oil changes as well as fixing broken problems.

Ok lets switch it up a bit, the roof isn't necessarily mandatory in a car so:

Owner: HELP! I BOUGHT THIS CONVERTIBLE AND THE ROOF WONT COME UP! THERES HEAVY RAIN MY CAR IS FLOODING AND I HAVE ELECTRONICS AND A BABY IN THE BACKSEAT!!!!
Company: Is the car new or used?
Owner: USED! YOU HAVE TO HELP MY BABY IS ABOUT TO DROWN!!!!
Company: Oh I'm sorry if you want a roof you're going to have to pay another $150 have a nice day
Owner: Wait-
Company: *hangs up*

Then the guy dies from electrocution, the end.

Thank you for leading me into a great long weekend. That has to be the most over the top, flawed asinine example I've ever seen.

Thank you again.

No problem I live to please, it wasn't supposed to be serious I thought you would be able to tell that from the retarded extremes I pushed the example to, chances of something like that ever happening is absurdly low.

 

[nothri]

Here's my issue. If a game is indeed USED, doesn't that imply that someone has USED it? As in, gone to a store, given the money necessary to purchase the game, then later given that game to someone else? So the game we are talking about has already been purchased, the publisher has already made money on that copy of the game. So now....what, they want to be paid twice? Don't really get it.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Well I nearly always buy second hand, but then I consider anything over 30 quid an absolute rip off. I could list the games I'd buy for full price this last decade on one hand. If I was going to spend 50-60 on a game I'd go for the new one, but when I see a used copy of bioshock 2 for ?16 vs ?50 new there's really no question here.

 

[fanklok]

Here's my issue. If a game is indeed USED, doesn't that imply that someone has USED it? As in, gone to a store, given the money necessary to purchase the game, then later given that game to someone else? So the game we are talking about has already been purchased, the publisher has already made money on that copy of the game. So now....what, they want to be paid twice? Don't really get it.

The Pubs have only gotten money from one person though, they want their cut for every person who plays the game ever. So they equate used sales to outright piracy since it has the same effect on them (I doubt that 10 people may own a single used game millions can get a single pirated copy) all they're trying to do is guilt trip everyone into buying everything new so they can fill their solid gold pools with liquid platinum instead of just liquid silver.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Here's my issue. If a game is indeed USED, doesn't that imply that someone has USED it? As in, gone to a store, given the money necessary to purchase the game, then later given that game to someone else? So the game we are talking about has already been purchased, the publisher has already made money on that copy of the game. So now....what, they want to be paid twice? Don't really get it.

True, but if you didn't buy a used game, then you would have bought it new

NEW + NEW = 2 X Profits
New + Used = 1 X Profits

 

[Furbyz]

<3 Scary Penny

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Here's my issue. If a game is indeed USED, doesn't that imply that someone has USED it? As in, gone to a store, given the money necessary to purchase the game, then later given that game to someone else? So the game we are talking about has already been purchased, the publisher has already made money on that copy of the game. So now....what, they want to be paid twice? Don't really get it.

The Pubs have only gotten money from one person though, they want their cut for every person who plays the game ever. So they equate used sales to outright piracy since it has the same effect on them (I doubt that 10 people may own a single used game millions can get a single pirated copy) all they're trying to do is guilt trip everyone into buying everything new so they can fill their solid gold pools with liquid platinum instead of just liquid silver.

I wouldn't say Gold, silver, and platinum. THe pubs and devs don't get as much as we think once everything goes through the sellers, distributers, and each of those companies takes out their share of the costs associated... We see a $60 game and think the pubs and devs are getting rich as fuck, but they each make maybe $6 - $10 per game. COnsidering the $60 price tag, it ain't much