Jimquisition: Used Games Have A Right To Exist

[Epona]

If you make a billion dollars profit in 3 months, don't whine that the used market is killing you.

If you respond to a post, don't forget to read the post to which you're responding.

But fine. Who said that? Who is the one making a billion dollars and saying the used market is killing them? Name them and link to your sources, I'll gladly investigate. Just give me the company's name, the link to the sales figures, and the name of the person quoted as saying the used market is killing them.

Shouldn't be too hard to do.

Sorry No, do your own legwork. The link for the 999 Million is right here in this thread and anyone who posts on this site is not ignorant of the purpose behind online passes.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Actually it is your problem if you want good games, and indeed if you want games at all, because if the games don't make a profit there will be no games.

If a company like EA can't stand up in the free market they don't deserve to be in business. It isn't my job to subsidize a company that asks more for their product than I think it's worth. I buy new every game that I view to be worth the full asking price.

If EA, to use one major example, go out of business they don't deserve to be in business. Let another company take their place. The demand for games won't go away just because one company goes under.

You obviously don't know anything, at all, about Gamestop, it's business model, or just how bad they are ripping you off. I mean, do you not read the news?

Please watch this series of videos (about an hour in total) They're made by a former Gamestop employee and they'll explain in great detail why you are a wrong.

I may get around to watching the videos, but I doubt I'll care. It's going to be an hour of a lot of nasty information about Gamestop, most of which will likely be true. My local Gamestop is run by good guys and they have games for reasonable prices. Are their corporate higher-ups jerks? Yeah, probably. That's true of just about anything anyone buys these days.

And if honestly think that $55 for a used game that looks like it's been trampled by buffalo and throw in the sever is a "great reduced price" then I really have to question your intellect.

Typically I wait until the game is cut to twenty-five dollars or less.

In the future, if you -must- attack someone's intelligence in argument, at least proofread your post and make sure it's coherent.

The fat cats at Gamestop don't provide you with ANYTHING, they're a glorified chain of pawn-shops based around buy games used from children and selling them back at more than twice what they give people for them and giving none of this revenue to the people who actually make the games.

They provide me with used games at significantly lower prices. So.. yes, they are a bit like a pawn shop for games. I fail to see the problem.

EA on the other hand actually provides you with many great games.

They might provide -you- with games you like. I find most of EA's recent releases to be garbage. Worse, they buy out -good- game studios and drive them into the ground. Bioware used to make solid products, and now they're steadily getting worse.

If used games kill EA.. good riddance.

I was comparing the relate damage that piracy/used games do to the industry to the harm that murder/assault does a person and the fact that Jim apparently considers a harmful act completely okay just because the is another act that does more harm. the legality of these acts are irrelevant to my analogy.

I suppose I differ from Jim in that I don't care whether or not used games harm the developers. At all.

Hahahahahaha,

Incredulity is not a proper substitution for an argument.

Yeah, because we all know that good games NEVER get bought used,

Great games don't have the same problem, no. Do you think Todd Howard (a lead director at Bethesda) is going to get on a soapbox and loudly weep about used games? No. Because his company makes games that are worth the price tag to a -lot- of people. Myself included. Go to your local Gamestop at 11:50pm on 11-10-11 and I assure you there will be a line. A really, really long line. Good games sell.

it's not like used games have literally murdered smaller studios before.

/sarcasm overload

I know, right! EA would -NEVER- buy a small studio, run it into the ground, and then toss it into a furnace.

 

[Ledan]

Used Games Have A Right To Exist

Publishers would have you believe that used games are the biggest threat to the games industry. Even gamers will sympathize with these huge companies and equate the used market with piracy. Unlike piracy, however, used games have plenty of right to exist and are not the demonic entity others make them out to be. Jim Sterling, naturally, has the band-aid of reality to plaster over your fantasy cuts.

Watch Video

I 100% agree that the publisher is batshit crazy for demanding more money.
BUT
What about the developer? Especially the small ones, that need every sale they can get to continue being a studio. Also, doesn't gamestop have enough money themselves?
How about this: when gamestop or a retailer sells a used game they get 50% and the developers of that game get 50%. The customer is happy, because they can sell their old games and they can buy cheaper games. The developer is happy because they get money to buy food and money to spend on their studio. So they can make more games, making the customer more happy.
The retailer is happy because they can make more money.
The publisher is unhappy, but fuck them.
They are the evil people here...... all we should care about is the developer and the customer.

 

[Epona]

Used Games Have A Right To Exist

Publishers would have you believe that used games are the biggest threat to the games industry. Even gamers will sympathize with these huge companies and equate the used market with piracy. Unlike piracy, however, used games have plenty of right to exist and are not the demonic entity others make them out to be. Jim Sterling, naturally, has the band-aid of reality to plaster over your fantasy cuts.

Watch Video

I 100% agree that the publisher is batshit crazy for demanding more money.
BUT
What about the developer? Especially the small ones, that need every sale they can get to continue being a studio. Also, doesn't gamestop have enough money themselves?
How about this: when gamestop or a retailer sells a used game they get 50% and the developers of that game get 50%. The customer is happy, because they can sell their old games and they can buy cheaper games. The developer is happy because they get money to buy food and money to spend on their studio. So they can make more games, making the customer more happy.
The retailer is happy because they can make more money.
The publisher is unhappy, but fuck them.
They are the evil people here...... all we should care about is the developer and the customer.

Your plan would set a terrible precedent. Next thing you know every manufacturer would want a cut of used sales. You can't sell that coffee maker at your garage sale without drawing up paperwork and sending half the money to Black & Decker. You can't sell your car without half going to Ford.

It's a bad idea. No!

Also, sending the money directly to the developers will benefit the publishers as they will simply pay the developers less and let the used sales pick up the slack. In other words, the publishers will end up richer than they are now. Sort of like how employers don't have to pay min wage to people who get tips, same thing would happen here.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

That is at the heart of this whole problem. Gamestop pissing in the pool sort of speak.

When you go into Gamestop right now you will see a list games on the wall going "Gamestop searches for: *Insert title*". They actively encourage people go buy the game new, play it through and then sell it so that they can sell it used while its attractive. Deus Ex is the most resent example.
You cannot convince me this doesn't have a negative effect on sales of a game, and I understand all the way that publishers want to get rid of this parasite.

To be honest I don't see how that makes Gamestop any different than any other business that sells used things. You wouldn't call a used TV shop evil just because they wanted to buy HD TVs when someone upgraded to 3D instead of advertising they wanting to buy analog TVs. A used car dealer isn't evil because he'd rather try to resell a 2009 Toyota Camry than a 1979 Toyota Camry. A used computer shop isn't evil because they advertise they are looking for used i-Pads rather than used Newtons. But somehow Gamestop is evil because they advertise they would like to buy back the newer hotter games.

I'm also not sure how big this impact of buying back a newer game is.

The big retailers are still likely moving more games than Gamestop so Gamestop is only one small part of the over all business of selling games. I'm sure Wal-Mart sells more games from their discount bin than Gamestop sells used games.

The people who are trading in newer games are likely going to put that credit toward another new game so that keeps them in the new market.

Just because you advertise you are looking for game "X" that doesn't mean people will trade the game in if they are really enjoying it.

I'm also not sure how many gamers are really buying newer titles used at Gamestop if they are only saving $5.

Maybe my local Gamestop is just a weird location but I don't see used games just flying off the shelves, but I do see the place being really busy on release dates with people picking up pre-orders because they know the Wal-Mart will sell out of the hot new game.

I'm not saying there is no cut in new game sells but I don't think publishers are going broke because Gamestop resold a copy of Gears of War 3. A weak economy cutting into the disposable income of gamers seems to be the biggest hurt on the new game market right now.

 

[Ariyura]

So in essence your argument is:

Waaaaah!!! Piracy is worse than trade-ins therefore trade-ins aren't hurting the industry at all!
Waaaaah!!! EA is a worse company than Gamestop (which they aren't, not by a long shot, at least EA actually funds games and many great games at that.), therefore all of Gamestop's bullshit nickle-and-dimeing and intentional working around the companies that actually makes the games are perfectly acceptable!
Waaaaah!!! I don't want the corporate fat cats at EA making money! I'd much rather give my money to the corporate fat cats at Gamestop!
Waaaaah!!! Murder is a worse crime than assault! Therefore punching random people on the street in the face isn't a problem at all!

Class act there Jim.

But alas, you're wrong.

You know who is really hurt by used games? All those smaller titles you talked about two weeks ago. They're the ones that can't afford great marketing, and thus can't push many unit at launch, but because of used sales, slow sales over time quickly regress to no new sales at all, because the games are being traded in is very high compared to the rate at which the game is being bought.

Fantastic. Could not have said it better myself

I still cant believe he wants to whine for 3 full episodes with these flawed arguments.

I'm sorry, I just find it amusing that you find this mans "arguments" to be "Fantastic" (even though he just uses rethorics and call Jim a baby) yet to condone Jim for his "flawed arguments", Jim pretty much using nothing but rethorics himself.

My amusement put aside, I have to ask you; Do you believe it's right to lose your right to sell something you own? Because all the other "arguments" put aside, this is a rather solid one.

Yeah because this is all new. No1 has ever made a pay as you go system for entertainment before.... cept since the invention of entertainment.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer my question, you just referenced that there ARE places where you pay from time to time (such as movies), but they never sell you any property, so your argument (if it even was one?) is invalid.
Answer the question, please.

Cable TV

But putting that aside Movie tickets still count. A game in a box is just a movie ticket. It has a playtime and it has an end. Thoes that dont have an extra service, usually one that they pay for.

But putting that aside you are changing the question. There is no proberty involved in games. Do you pay for the disk or the entertainment on the disk? You ne to categorise it as entertainment rather than proberty. and all of a sudden its not a big issue that they try to change it as a pay as you go system.

Cable TV is a service. No property changes hands. A movie is a service, the ticket is just your proof of purchase which is ripped in half when you enter the screen room. It's not property that you keep because it has value.

A game is a product, ownership switched hands between the retailer and you. The publisher lost ownership when they sold it to the retailer. It's really simple and you have to go out of your way to pretend not to understand that.

When you misspelled "property" once I overlooked it but when you did it twice...well why?

First of all I am translating as a go here. And you are going to bat me with spelling?
I'm terribly sorry I wasn't born speaking English.

Second.
You dont own the product that you haven't bought. The producers choose to sell it to you in any way shape or form. As a combination of property and services (like cable TV. I used that as an example because of the hardware that comes with a service. I suppose cellphones would have been better).
Games are no different. Hardware and a service. Now that is really simple. Why do you think that your right of ownership trumps the producers?
You own the product you have bought correct, problem is you have bought an item with a connected service. And like I already said. If you dont pay the producers, you dont get the service.

1) That depends, did your browser put a red squiggly line under your misspelled words? If so then yes I am going to hassle you about spelling. If not then no I won't.

2) When you buy something ownership changes hands. Let me give you an example, what is the difference between renting a game from the local video store and BUYING a game from a big box retailer? The difference is that in the first scenario you don't own it and in the second scenario, you do. Where do you get this idea that if I buy a single player Mario game, Nintendo is providing me a service? Nintendo is selling me a product, not a service. If online multiplayer was attached then that is a service and sure, online passes are legal (we aren't talking about those though) but online passes are not necessary and they are a dick move that will drive customers away. So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online.... Back to the ownership thing. EA may have a service attached but the product itself belongs to the consumer, not EA. If I sell you my car, I no longer have any rights to that car, same thing here. Closer to home, if I sell you my single player Mario game, I no longer have any rights to that game.

So they are not allowed to change the method of how they sell their property is what you are saying?

Or are you saying they are changing the terms of a sale retrospectively? If so I would like a single example.

Here is a fact. They can chose to make games all lease. They can do that. Right of property as you are going on about. What makes you think that you have greater rights of property than them?

And btw My spelling might not be perfect, but 2 can play that game

So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online

What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read the post you quoted?

Yes, they could choose to lease games but right now they are selling them, you buy a game in the aisle right next to where you buy a TV and the procedure is the same.

If you go into Wal Mart and ask to rent or lease a game, will they pull out a contract? Will there be a return date?

YOU ARE BUYING, NOT RENTING AND NOT LEASING. The game industry has you so brainwashed that you can't understand that they game is your property just as much as the TV is. You can't break any laws with the game or the TV but that doesn't alter ownership.

Online passes are perfectly legal but they are a dick move and in the end, they will only hurt the greedy publishers when there are fewer people online. People are content and without them, online multiplayer doesn't exist.

That you dont understand that you are buying a service along with the physical isn't their fault. You are told when you make accounts and when you are given codes. That you dont understand the product you are sold doesn't make them the bad guyes.

That you are whining brain washed just shows how far out you are.

Here is the thing! they dont let you sell your DLC either! go protest!

"So let EA have their online passes but when they fewer people are online"

"but when they fewer people are" is the key btw.

Ok tell me, when I buy Skyward Sword, what service am I getting with it?

Well if they are making at account system. Then they changing it to entertainment, making it a full service.

Ok, let me simplify it. What service did I get when I bought Super Mario Galaxy?

Games are a product, if there is an online counterpart THAT and only that are a service. The game itself remains a product except in cases where the online portion IS the game (an MMO).

For Example, I still own Populous: The Beginning even if the official online counterpart has long been dead and I can play Populous: The Beginning right now without needing to ask permission from EA. I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Oh you were prevented from selling your used copy of Super Mario Galaxy? I wasn't aware.

Oh wow, I am done with you.

Because you have no argument. You are dont like that that the publisher are changing their sales method to leases. Fair enough. Dont buy them. But dont go around crying snot saying that they prevent you from selling your old games, because that is a lie.

Are you on drugs? I was talking about ownership and you are talking about everything else, move the goal post much? Now go away, I am not going to waste my time with someone who can't decided what they want to argue about.

I have been saying what I have always been saying. Publisher own their games before they sell them. They can chose the method of how they sell them. They can change it to a lease if they want. And you can only chose to do that with the games you own as well.

When you buy code a put it in you have made an account understanding full well what that means.

That you are resorting to ad hominum only show how little you have to stand on.

I'll take a stab at this. You're argument is stop whining because publishers are changing game models to a leasing policy? Or that they can if they want to because they own it? That's really beside the point because most of us can agree they can govern the online part of their games however they want. If you don't agree with it then you don't need to use it, but when talking about a physical entity that you own is something completely different.

The thing is Ariyra they can change games complete so you cant buy them to own at all. They are the producers, and can therefore control how the product is supplied to us. They have the right to do so. If you say that they cant make it leases then you say we cant make it leases when we own them.

The publisher do NOTHING with games already sold because they cant. For some reason Crono seems to be under the impression that they are doing that.

By leasing you mean online content? Or that you can only rent games for a certain amount of time if they decide you can only lease games and not own them.

 

[Ledan]

Used Games Have A Right To Exist

Publishers would have you believe that used games are the biggest threat to the games industry. Even gamers will sympathize with these huge companies and equate the used market with piracy. Unlike piracy, however, used games have plenty of right to exist and are not the demonic entity others make them out to be. Jim Sterling, naturally, has the band-aid of reality to plaster over your fantasy cuts.

Watch Video

I 100% agree that the publisher is batshit crazy for demanding more money.
BUT
What about the developer? Especially the small ones, that need every sale they can get to continue being a studio. Also, doesn't gamestop have enough money themselves?
How about this: when gamestop or a retailer sells a used game they get 50% and the developers of that game get 50%. The customer is happy, because they can sell their old games and they can buy cheaper games. The developer is happy because they get money to buy food and money to spend on their studio. So they can make more games, making the customer more happy.
The retailer is happy because they can make more money.
The publisher is unhappy, but fuck them.
They are the evil people here...... all we should care about is the developer and the customer.

Your plan would set a terrible precedent. Next thing you know every manufacturer would want a cut of used sales. You can't sell that coffee maker at your garage sale without drawing up paperwork and sending half the money to Black & Decker. You can't sell your car without half going to Ford.

It's a bad idea. No!

Also, sending the money directly to the developers will benefit the publishers as they will simply pay the developers less and let the used sales pick up the slack. In other words, the publishers will end up richer than they are now. Sort of like how employers don't have to pay min wage to people who get tips, same thing would happen here.

Gamestop is NOT a garage sale. What I'm objecting to here is that the retailer can resupply their stock, get money, and screw the developers over.
If you want to sell your copy of deus ex human revolution to your friend for 5 bucks, go ahead. But if you sell it to gamestop for 5 bucks, and they sell it to your friend for 60 $, hasn't something gone wrong somewhere?

My point is: Do whatever you want at garage sales, but make sure gamestop splits the money with the developer. As for the publishers....... i wish they could just die in the flames of Anur....... idk the solution to that problem

 

[Epona]

Used Games Have A Right To Exist

Publishers would have you believe that used games are the biggest threat to the games industry. Even gamers will sympathize with these huge companies and equate the used market with piracy. Unlike piracy, however, used games have plenty of right to exist and are not the demonic entity others make them out to be. Jim Sterling, naturally, has the band-aid of reality to plaster over your fantasy cuts.

Watch Video

I 100% agree that the publisher is batshit crazy for demanding more money.
BUT
What about the developer? Especially the small ones, that need every sale they can get to continue being a studio. Also, doesn't gamestop have enough money themselves?
How about this: when gamestop or a retailer sells a used game they get 50% and the developers of that game get 50%. The customer is happy, because they can sell their old games and they can buy cheaper games. The developer is happy because they get money to buy food and money to spend on their studio. So they can make more games, making the customer more happy.
The retailer is happy because they can make more money.
The publisher is unhappy, but fuck them.
They are the evil people here...... all we should care about is the developer and the customer.

Your plan would set a terrible precedent. Next thing you know every manufacturer would want a cut of used sales. You can't sell that coffee maker at your garage sale without drawing up paperwork and sending half the money to Black & Decker. You can't sell your car without half going to Ford.

It's a bad idea. No!

Also, sending the money directly to the developers will benefit the publishers as they will simply pay the developers less and let the used sales pick up the slack. In other words, the publishers will end up richer than they are now. Sort of like how employers don't have to pay min wage to people who get tips, same thing would happen here.

Gamestop is NOT a garage sale. What I'm objecting to here is that the retailer can resupply their stock, get money, and screw the developers over.
If you want to sell your copy of deus ex human revolution to your friend for 5 bucks, go ahead. But if you sell it to gamestop for 5 bucks, and they sell it to your friend for 60 $, hasn't something gone wrong somewhere?

My point is: Do whatever you want at garage sales, but make sure gamestop splits the money with the developer. As for the publishers....... i wish they could just die in the flames of Anur....... idk the solution to that problem

So you want to set a dangerous precedent so you can hurt Gamestop and it never occurs to you that the dangerous precedent has a much wider reach than just Gamestop.

It will start with Gamestop then move to eBay and Amazon and from there to thrift stores, pawn shops and eventually garage sales. Sort of like how Sony, EA and soon everyone else is adding a "no class action lawsuits" clause to their EULA's because there was a precedent set.

BTW, Gamestop selling used games doesn't screw developers over anymore than me buying a used car screws Ford over.

 

[Ariyura]

That is at the heart of this whole problem. Gamestop pissing in the pool sort of speak.

When you go into Gamestop right now you will see a list games on the wall going "Gamestop searches for: *Insert title*". They actively encourage people go buy the game new, play it through and then sell it so that they can sell it used while its attractive. Deus Ex is the most resent example.
You cannot convince me this doesn't have a negative effect on sales of a game, and I understand all the way that publishers want to get rid of this parasite.

To be honest I don't see how that makes Gamestop any different than any other business that sells used things. You wouldn't call a used TV shop evil just because they wanted to buy HD TVs when someone upgraded to 3D instead of advertising they wanting to buy analog TVs. A used car dealer isn't evil because he'd rather try to resell a 2009 Toyota Camry than a 1979 Toyota Camry. A used computer shop isn't evil because they advertise they are looking for used i-Pads rather than used Newtons. But somehow Gamestop is evil because they advertise they would like to buy back the newer hotter games.

I'm also not sure how big this impact of buying back a newer game is.

The big retailers are still likely moving more games than Gamestop so Gamestop is only one small part of the over all business of selling games. I'm sure Wal-Mart sells more games from their discount bin than Gamestop sells used games.

The people who are trading in newer games are likely going to put that credit toward another new game so that keeps them in the new market.

Just because you advertise you are looking for game "X" that doesn't mean people will trade the game in if they are really enjoying it.

I'm also not sure how many gamers are really buying newer titles used at Gamestop if they are only saving $5.

Maybe my local Gamestop is just a weird location but I don't see used games just flying off the shelves, but I do see the place being really busy on release dates with people picking up pre-orders because they know the Wal-Mart will sell out of the hot new game.

I'm not saying there is no cut in new game sells but I don't think publishers are going broke because Gamestop resold a copy of Gears of War 3. A weak economy cutting into the disposable income of gamers seems to be the biggest hurt on the new game market right now.

The main thing is that you cant compare it to TV/cars/whatever because it would be pointless for the consumer to buy the TV and then sell them after a week once they are finished with them. Games dont follow the markets or trends of other products, for the obvious reasons of them being other products. To compare the goods is ridicules. If you are allowed to say "Movies arn't affect by used so it shouldn't affect games" then you are allowed to say "Games arn't affected by ticket sales so it shouldn't affect Movies". The premise is ridicules.

Fact is almost all of Gamestops profits comes from used games. It has a much bigger effect on this particular business than any other business before it.

When they say TV I think they mean in terms of DVDs and Blu ray movies. As well as Cd's. It's relatively the same thing, the turn around rate is just as high.

 

[Epona]

That is at the heart of this whole problem. Gamestop pissing in the pool sort of speak.

When you go into Gamestop right now you will see a list games on the wall going "Gamestop searches for: *Insert title*". They actively encourage people go buy the game new, play it through and then sell it so that they can sell it used while its attractive. Deus Ex is the most resent example.
You cannot convince me this doesn't have a negative effect on sales of a game, and I understand all the way that publishers want to get rid of this parasite.

To be honest I don't see how that makes Gamestop any different than any other business that sells used things. You wouldn't call a used TV shop evil just because they wanted to buy HD TVs when someone upgraded to 3D instead of advertising they wanting to buy analog TVs. A used car dealer isn't evil because he'd rather try to resell a 2009 Toyota Camry than a 1979 Toyota Camry. A used computer shop isn't evil because they advertise they are looking for used i-Pads rather than used Newtons. But somehow Gamestop is evil because they advertise they would like to buy back the newer hotter games.

I'm also not sure how big this impact of buying back a newer game is.

The big retailers are still likely moving more games than Gamestop so Gamestop is only one small part of the over all business of selling games. I'm sure Wal-Mart sells more games from their discount bin than Gamestop sells used games.

The people who are trading in newer games are likely going to put that credit toward another new game so that keeps them in the new market.

Just because you advertise you are looking for game "X" that doesn't mean people will trade the game in if they are really enjoying it.

I'm also not sure how many gamers are really buying newer titles used at Gamestop if they are only saving $5.

Maybe my local Gamestop is just a weird location but I don't see used games just flying off the shelves, but I do see the place being really busy on release dates with people picking up pre-orders because they know the Wal-Mart will sell out of the hot new game.

I'm not saying there is no cut in new game sells but I don't think publishers are going broke because Gamestop resold a copy of Gears of War 3. A weak economy cutting into the disposable income of gamers seems to be the biggest hurt on the new game market right now.

The main thing is that you cant compare it to TV/cars/whatever because it would be pointless for the consumer to buy the TV and then sell them after a week once they are finished with them. Games dont follow the markets or trends of other products, for the obvious reasons of them being other products. To compare the goods is ridicules. If you are allowed to say "Movies arn't affect by used so it shouldn't affect games" then you are allowed to say "Games arn't affected by ticket sales so it shouldn't affect Movies". The premise is ridicules.

Fact is almost all of Gamestops profits comes from used games. It has a much bigger effect on this particular business than any other business before it.

Where used sales are concerned, there is no difference.

You may as well be saying "You can't compare cars to games because cars have a steering wheel", it irrelevant because what matters is that you OWN the car and therefore have the right to resell it and the same is true for games, cd's, dvd's, coffee makers, foot massagers, TV's, etc...

I have the right to sell Super Mario Galaxy because I own it. I also have the right to sell Portal 2 because I own it but the DRM prevents that. The right is still there and the DRM is the problem. I think DRM crosses the line when it interferes with the First Sale Doctrine.

 

[Ledan]

Used Games Have A Right To Exist

Publishers would have you believe that used games are the biggest threat to the games industry. Even gamers will sympathize with these huge companies and equate the used market with piracy. Unlike piracy, however, used games have plenty of right to exist and are not the demonic entity others make them out to be. Jim Sterling, naturally, has the band-aid of reality to plaster over your fantasy cuts.

Watch Video

I 100% agree that the publisher is batshit crazy for demanding more money.
BUT
What about the developer? Especially the small ones, that need every sale they can get to continue being a studio. Also, doesn't gamestop have enough money themselves?
How about this: when gamestop or a retailer sells a used game they get 50% and the developers of that game get 50%. The customer is happy, because they can sell their old games and they can buy cheaper games. The developer is happy because they get money to buy food and money to spend on their studio. So they can make more games, making the customer more happy.
The retailer is happy because they can make more money.
The publisher is unhappy, but fuck them.
They are the evil people here...... all we should care about is the developer and the customer.

Your plan would set a terrible precedent. Next thing you know every manufacturer would want a cut of used sales. You can't sell that coffee maker at your garage sale without drawing up paperwork and sending half the money to Black & Decker. You can't sell your car without half going to Ford.

It's a bad idea. No!

Also, sending the money directly to the developers will benefit the publishers as they will simply pay the developers less and let the used sales pick up the slack. In other words, the publishers will end up richer than they are now. Sort of like how employers don't have to pay min wage to people who get tips, same thing would happen here.

Gamestop is NOT a garage sale. What I'm objecting to here is that the retailer can resupply their stock, get money, and screw the developers over.
If you want to sell your copy of deus ex human revolution to your friend for 5 bucks, go ahead. But if you sell it to gamestop for 5 bucks, and they sell it to your friend for 60 $, hasn't something gone wrong somewhere?

My point is: Do whatever you want at garage sales, but make sure gamestop splits the money with the developer. As for the publishers....... i wish they could just die in the flames of Anur....... idk the solution to that problem

So you want to set a dangerous precedent so you can hurt Gamestop and it never occurs to you that the dangerous precedent has a much wider reach than just Gamestop.

It will start with Gamestop then move to eBay and Amazon and from there to thrift stores, pawn shops and eventually garage sales. Sort of like how Sony, EA and soon everyone else is adding a "no class action lawsuits" clause to their EULA's because there was a precedent set.

BTW, Gamestop selling used games doesn't screw developers over anymore than me buying a used car screws Ford over.

Hurt gamestop? No, HELP THE DEVELOPER. Like Taleworlds, or Mojang (if they hadn't had the success of minecraft ) or xenonauts developer, or the developers of other independent games. They NEED every cent they can get. Otherwise they go bankrupt.

Ford? They have money, and don't need publishers (as far as I know). Taleworlds does.

Precedents..... to me it isn't the same situation. Besides.... all the game discs say "not for resale". Sure, you selling your game to your friend, nobody should care. But when a huge multinational corporation does it? There is something wrong there.
Idk the exact solution for your precedent worry, but i really dont think it is something to worry. BTW, i don't think this whole "you cant sue us" is going to fly. It isn't legal here in Europe.
Bottom line is:the developers need the money. So they can eat, sleep, and make more games for the customer. Especially the indie developers. Idk for the publishers or retailers.

 

[Epona]

Hurt gamestop? No, HELP THE DEVELOPER.

There's no difference here, you have specifically said that you want ONLY Gamestop to give half their money to the developers. Not individual sellers on eBay, Amazon or locally, just Gamestop. Would you also rob a bank to help the developer? No, but it's ok to rob Gamestop. Gamestop is conducting legal business and has no obligation to give their money away. The developers already got paid when the game was sold new.

Like Taleworlds, or Mojang (if they hadn't had the success of minecraft ) or xenonauts developer, or the developers of other independent games. They NEED every cent they can get. Otherwise they go bankrupt.

That's business for you but if Gamestop goes bankrupt from giving half of it's money away, that's ok?

Gamestop has to front the money to buy the used game and they have to pay for their store expenses like utilities and labor so when all is said and done, they are not even making the same amount they would be giving away (unless the developers are going to start paying for Gamestops costs).

Precedents..... to me it isn't the same situation.

How so?

Besides.... all the game discs say "not for resale".

No they don't. The only game discs that I have that say that are free discs like the Zelda Collectors Edition discs that came with a Wind Waker pre-order. Guess what, I bought them used because putting "not for resale" on a disc doesn't have any power over ownership rights.

Sure, you selling your game to your friend, nobody should care. But when a huge multinational corporation does it? There is something wrong there.

No there isn't.

Idk the exact solution for your precedent worry, but i really dont think it is something to worry. BTW, i don't think this whole "you cant sue us" is going to fly. It isn't legal here in Europe.

I think it is something to worry about because the POINT of a precedent is to set a standard for all to follow.

It's funny, you say the "you can't sue us" thing isn't legal in Europe so why can't you understand that here in the US the First Sale Doctrine is more important than the wishes of the publisher/developer?

Bottom line is:the developers need the money. So they can eat, sleep, and make more games for the customer. Especially the indie developers. Idk for the publishers or retailers.

It's not the indie developers fighting used sales, it's the billion-dollar publishers. This "do it for the indie devs" makes no sense to me since indie devs don't usually ***** about used sales or even piracy. I think Notch even said he didn't mind people pirating Minecraft because it gets the game out there and many people will eventually buy it if they like it.

 

[Ariyura]

That is at the heart of this whole problem. Gamestop pissing in the pool sort of speak.

When you go into Gamestop right now you will see a list games on the wall going "Gamestop searches for: *Insert title*". They actively encourage people go buy the game new, play it through and then sell it so that they can sell it used while its attractive. Deus Ex is the most resent example.
You cannot convince me this doesn't have a negative effect on sales of a game, and I understand all the way that publishers want to get rid of this parasite.

To be honest I don't see how that makes Gamestop any different than any other business that sells used things. You wouldn't call a used TV shop evil just because they wanted to buy HD TVs when someone upgraded to 3D instead of advertising they wanting to buy analog TVs. A used car dealer isn't evil because he'd rather try to resell a 2009 Toyota Camry than a 1979 Toyota Camry. A used computer shop isn't evil because they advertise they are looking for used i-Pads rather than used Newtons. But somehow Gamestop is evil because they advertise they would like to buy back the newer hotter games.

I'm also not sure how big this impact of buying back a newer game is.

The big retailers are still likely moving more games than Gamestop so Gamestop is only one small part of the over all business of selling games. I'm sure Wal-Mart sells more games from their discount bin than Gamestop sells used games.

The people who are trading in newer games are likely going to put that credit toward another new game so that keeps them in the new market.

Just because you advertise you are looking for game "X" that doesn't mean people will trade the game in if they are really enjoying it.

I'm also not sure how many gamers are really buying newer titles used at Gamestop if they are only saving $5.

Maybe my local Gamestop is just a weird location but I don't see used games just flying off the shelves, but I do see the place being really busy on release dates with people picking up pre-orders because they know the Wal-Mart will sell out of the hot new game.

I'm not saying there is no cut in new game sells but I don't think publishers are going broke because Gamestop resold a copy of Gears of War 3. A weak economy cutting into the disposable income of gamers seems to be the biggest hurt on the new game market right now.

The main thing is that you cant compare it to TV/cars/whatever because it would be pointless for the consumer to buy the TV and then sell them after a week once they are finished with them. Games dont follow the markets or trends of other products, for the obvious reasons of them being other products. To compare the goods is ridicules. If you are allowed to say "Movies arn't affect by used so it shouldn't affect games" then you are allowed to say "Games arn't affected by ticket sales so it shouldn't affect Movies". The premise is ridicules.

Fact is almost all of Gamestops profits comes from used games. It has a much bigger effect on this particular business than any other business before it.

When they say TV I think they mean in terms of DVDs and Blu ray movies. As well as Cd's. It's relatively the same thing, the turn around rate is just as high.

The production cost of movies isn't covered by DVD/Blue-ray sales alone. Same with CD's.

If you took ticket sales from the movie industry you wont be seeing any DVD million dollar productions any time soon.

Lets change the medium to get the point across. "Maintenance cost doesn't affect games therefore it shouldn't affect cars". Again its ridicules. Different factors will affect each medium differently. Even within the same genre each product will have different factors affecting it. To cut everything from the same cloth is oversimplifying it.

Used games have a much bigger effect on the games industry that any other used retailers before it. Its a fact. Im not saying we should make special laws for specific industries. I am saying that as a part of the industry the publishers HAS TO take this into account when deciding how to sell their game. A business model for movies doesn't work for games so they have to change it. And we have to deal with that.

You're telling me that movie making isn't million dollar production worth? I'd have to disagree with you there. How much do you think it costs to make those movies? You are exactly saying there should be special laws for specific industries.

 

[phreakdb]

i find it hilarious that everyone is so willing to wave around first sale doctrine, and yet..... they don't take into account that it doesn't guarantee services attached to the product. It's called a matchmaking service for that reason.

What a bunch of ill informed cretins. Noone is telling you to 'subsidize' EA games. Funny thing is, you are saying 'subsidize my want for games, by dropping the whole legal grey area question'. First Sale Doctrine in relation to video game has yet to be ruled on. Hell, on any form of computer software.

As for GameStop's practices? they are crappy, and I will be glad for the day that they go belly up. That way I no longer have to subsidize their practice of selling used to morons who can't tell that they are gladly ripping themselves off by dealing with GameStop.