I think there's a bit of fallacy in the argument, though. This presupposes that all sales of a used version would have been sales of a new version. It's quite possible that a number of customers - especially for a game like Heavy Rain - would not have bought the game new at any price.Phisi said:That does raise a very interesting point.It is the retailers that make all the profits from used game ales but they are digging the own grave. If what it speculated there becomes true then the only way retailers can survive without becoming download services is to halt the sale of used games. The more used games sold, the more losses the publisher makes, the more likely they are to stop making boxed copies. As a gamer who hates Gamestop (Don't we all) I find this kinda funny.
Gotta hand it to you, I hadn't even considered that before you pointed it out.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:Alright, a little bit of mathematics here:
3 million people played the game.
Only 2 million played it new.
Therefore, 1 million played it used.
Therefore around 1 million people would likely have traded it in.
Therefore, half the people who bought the game new decided to trade it in for another game.
Your're right there's a problem there. Make a fucking game good enough that half the people who buy it don't want to sell it fucking on. Don't go bitching about what certain people 'owe' you when you quite clearly couldn't make a game that kept people's attention!
Except your equally splitting profits while the amount put into the product is totally uneven, Quantic made the game and spent time and money on it, Sony is allowing the use of their console in addition to supporting updtes and dlc, game stop has literally done nothing so neither Quantic or Sony want them cutting into their profits, on the flip side Gamestop ponied up the cash and bought the game and thus are entitled to any profits from a sale why would they hand over money when their getting nothing out of it, saying they all deserve an equal share makes no sense.OniYouji said:Sigh...simple split of the profits. Say Heavy Rain is selling for $20 used and it's being sold in, like, Gamestop. Now, $6.33 goes to Gamestop, $6.33 goes to Quantic Dream and $6.34 goes to Sony Computer Entertainment. An even three-way split seems fine to me. And seeing as this is just using $20 as a price point, and it was just one copy, then imagine that magnified over the "millions" of used game sales for that one game, and the more standard price of used games for a while after release, $54.99...well, there you go. Everybody makes money, everybody wins! Unless Quantic Dream or Gamestop REALLY want that extra penny...
Fair point, I'll give you that.Princess Rose said:None of those represent intellectual property.fenrizz said:Then what about those that manufacture steel, paper, ink or plastic?
Do they get a cut of it too?
When I buy a book, I'm not interested in the paper it's printed on - I'm interested in the ideas printed on the pages. I'd pay more to send some of my money back to the author of those words, because that's who SHOULD be getting paid.
Same for games, movies, etc.
Cars... well, the design is sort of intellectual property. Since cars aren't "art" I'm less inclined, but YOU, sir, were the one who brought cars into it.
There is no intellectual property involved in steel, paper, ink, or plastic. Those are merely materials. So no, they are absolutely not the same thing.
A game (or a movie, or music) is NOT just a piece of metal and plastic. It's the code contained on that disk. Like the words on a page.