Jimquisition: Used Games Have A Right To Exist

[Rawne1980]

I'll confess that I don't have any sources to back this statement up, so someone, please correct me if I'm wrong. But when you ask "aren't they making enough money already?" you make it sound like most publishers are greedy bastards sitting on piles of money, trying to suck you dry every chance they get. But the last thing I heard was that the only publisher who was turning a profit was Activision (and that was before they pulled the plug on Guitar Hero). I'm not saying their ways of making gamers pay more for their games aren't assy, I hate them too, but a company is a company, you can't expect them to sit and do nothing when they're losing money.

I don't mean to sound harsh but you may want to get sources if you do try and say things like that.

EA made nearly $221 million PROFIT, thats profit not revenue. The revenue was close to $1 billion. That was just the June 2011 quarter, NOT the whole year. So we'll quadruple that to $884 million which will probably work out more so nearly a $1 billion PROFIT for the whole year on a $4 billion revenue.

The company now expects full year revenue to reach $3.825b - $4.025b.

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/87355/ea-profits-221m-in-the-june-2011-quarter-on-999m-in-revenue/

Not to mention Activision also looking at numbers similar.

The only companies making a loss are those that publish shite that doesn't sell. If a company can find a corner of the market and latch onto it then they are in the money.

People that take pity on companies like Activision and EA and swallow the bollocks that used games are hurting their precious profits need a clout round the ear.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Snip

That's fine and dandy, but at the cost of having no patience, I'm fine with them being charged for online pass and the ilk.

They have multiple avenues as you said. They have the avenue to have patience. Or to save $5 immediately and have to shell out more for extras.

They have options, they can't *****. It's not like they're being forced to buy used. If they're that strapped for cash, but they can't wait for a sale, I think I know one reason why they're strapped for cash in the first place.

 

[alinos]

The downside to your argument is that it's also not uncommon for games to be traded in to purchase new games. Only selling them on your own won't guarantee you the money you need to buy a game and not in time for you to purchase it with your friends. I am glad Gamestop no longer has an outlet for just used games. The credit could be used for either store, but it was more of a hassle to trade them in at one store, the go to the other to buy a game. Also, having gamestop sell used games simply makes access to them easier for everyone. The more places games are available the easier it as a consumer to find them.

Of course it's a downside that's kinda the whole point.

And again. Your buying a used game, you have no need to get it on day 2, or with your friend's your buying it because logically you can't afford the new copy.

Which is again why i kinda suggested the alternative last week that their should be a grace period(which i mentioned in last weeks thread) of like a month. Where only new copies can be sold by retail outlets within a month of release.

This way you avoid the whole quick finish it in 24 hours for maximum moolah thing that Gamestop and the like promote. Sure you can still sell it 24 hours after your done(hell you could probably put an Ebay ad on the second you buy the game and finish it in time to mail it) But again the point is to give the developers a shot. And i'm not talking about EA here they make their money no matter what. But their are smaller developers that used games can hurt especially when the game can boomerang from the store as one used copy is traded back in over and over again.

I know people who buy exclusively in used games and not because they can't afford the real thing's. hell a mate put down a pre-order for skyrim's collectors edition and walked out with 2 used games 10 dollars cheaper than if both were bought new(-$5 each). now knowing him that statue will sit in a cupboard anyway. But he cannot justify buying a insanely overpriced collectors edition yet by solely used games elsewhere. And the fact is that if the used copies weren't there he would have bought the new copies anyways.

Used Games shouldn't be convenient, they should offer the ability for saving's but require a little more effort to get than a new game. Currently they don't. most of the time you'll find them on the shelf within 24-48 hours of release.

If you can't afford to pay full price at release you don't deserve the game at release it's as simple as that. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to get it because you don't have the money. But there should be drawbacks to buying used currently they don't exist. And i bet there are people today buying skyrim at used prices because it's 5 dollars cheaper. Even though it'll probably be 15 dollars cheaper in the lead up to Christmas.

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

Snip

That's fine and dandy, but at the cost of having no patience, I'm fine with them being charged for online pass and the ilk.

They have multiple avenues as you said. They have the avenue to have patience. Or to save $5 immediately and have to shell out more for extras.

They have options, they can't *****. It's not like they're being forced to buy used. If they're that strapped for cash, but they can't wait for a sale, I think I know one reason why they're strapped for cash in the first place.

So people who wait a year to play a game so they can buy it used for $20 have no patience?

Fact is, used games constantly drop in price the longer the game has been for sale. New games on the other hand, rarely ever drop below $50 these days no longer how long it's been out. The exception being "Greatest Hits" games or the ilk.

 

[Richard Allen]

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.

Maybe those smaller publishers are are just making bad games? No really, plenty of small games that I have never heard of get plenty of coverage if they are good. I see at least one indie game a month that I go out and buy, and I don't sit hunting on gamesites for this shit.

No but yea it in no way could be that the smaller games are just over priced or bad..... nooooo it's the used sales. It's a bunch of bs and while it doesn't surprise me anymore it blows my mind that you all will take it up the ass to defend these companies. It's called capitalism, as he so aptly pointed out. It doesn't matter if your game is big or small if it's good it will float. torchlight, castle crashers, the entire humble bundle.... i could go on so rather then sitting there and say all his arguments are flawed how about you provide a counter argument, kinda like what I did there to you.

 

[XT inc]

Next we're going to here from the people with their heads up publishers asses, telling us how much we aren't entitled to content, and you don't HAVE to buy the content. Even if it is locked away on your disc. Im talking to you RE5 and Bioshock 2 Fucking criminal.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Snip

Fact is...you ignored everything I actually said. For one, by the time used games are $20, new games are usually pretty comparable.

I'm not going to rehash my point on retail sales and Steam sales. Find my other posts in this thread.

 

[Realitycrash]

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.

 

[MB202]

I admit, I prefer to by games new so that the companies can get the profits, because with used games, the profits go only to the store selling the used game... I think... Jim brings up a good point, as always, and now I feel angry, which is probably the point. But then again, that's where it all begins and ends... With money. What a capitalistic world we live in.

 

[Realitycrash]

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.

 

[FallenMessiah88]

I wholeheartedly agree. I admit I don't really care that much for the used games market, but I still acknowledge its right to exist, especially since it is a great market for people who don't have the money to buy every game brand new. I know that games aren't really a necessity, but rather a luxury, but still. My biggest gripe is with day one DLC. It's like "Hey we have this content, which is all done and ready to be put on the disc, but we're not going to do that. Instead we're going to charge you extra on top of the money you already payed for the game. U mad?".

 

[Knusper]

Presented very well this week, Jim!

What's that game shown from 4:30 onward. I don't recognise it.

 

[Xanthious]

Ok
Its its capitalism right? So why do you have a problem with companies changing their payment method that ensures them greater revenue?

Pay as you go has been a valid way of paying for entertainment since well... the oldest profession ever. You got a problem with publishers doing that now?

Oh yeah and by the way you missed the point completely of what he said. Rather than spending money on a cheaper indie title money was spend on a cheaper version of a triple A title, leaving no profit for anyone who develop games.

What you fail to grasp is that, as was pointed out in the video, for a game to be sold as used it first has to be sold as new. Meaning, the publisher/developer has already been paid for it. They don't deserve to be paid multiple times over for the same product. They give up all of their say as to what happens to any given copy of a game as soon as it is sold as a new copy.

Selling used goods has been around since the first goods were made and sold. No other industry in the long history of goods being produced and sold has ever been immune to a secondhand market so why should video games get special treatment all of a sudden. Game makers have no argument other than "because we say so" to explain why they deserve a single red cent from used sales. They love to fall back on capitalism as long as it benefits them but want to ***** and moan like entitled children when the system they've used to get rich off of works in the favor of consumers.

 

[Realitycrash]

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.

edit

Yeah, Cable TV is the same as with movie-theaters, they never actually sell you a product, more of a license to use it (though not exactly that either), but fine, I'll give you time to get your edited response in order.

 

[Richard Allen]

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.

Maybe those smaller publishers are are just making bad games? No really, plenty of small games that I have never heard of get plenty of coverage if they are good. I see at least one indie game a month that I go out and buy, and I don't sit hunting on gamesites for this shit.

No but yea it in no way could be that the smaller games are just over priced or bad..... nooooo it's the used sales. It's a bunch of bs and while it doesn't surprise me anymore it blows my mind that you all will take it up the ass to defend these companies. It's called capitalism, as he so aptly pointed out. It doesn't matter if your game is big or small if it's good it will float. torchlight, castle crashers, the entire humble bundle.... i could go on so rather then sitting there and say all his arguments are flawed how about you provide a counter argument, kinda like what I did there to you.

Ok
Its its capitalism right? So why do you have a problem with companies changing their payment method that ensures them greater revenue?

Pay as you go has been a valid way of paying for entertainment since well... the oldest profession ever. You got a problem with publishers doing that now?

Oh yeah and by the way you missed the point completely of what he said. Rather than spending money on a cheaper indie title money was spend on a cheaper version of a triple A title, leaving no profit for anyone who develop games.

The issue is the publishers are clearly finding ways to circumvent the first sale doctrine which has been around to prevent this kind of thing for many years. As you can see here it's not cut and dry http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/the-end-of-used-major-ruling-upholds-tough-software-licenses.ars and the fact is the law needs to change.

This isn't pay as you go.... in what world is this pay as you go? And how has it been used for ages in the entertainment industry. No really explain that one. You buy records, and can sell them, you buy dvd's and can sell them. Are you equating a performance as pay as you go?

And no I'm not missing his point. If a indie game is loosing sales to a AAA then it needs to be better enough that it's name gets out there and that it's worth paying a few extra dollars to get the new copy. I don't think I should have to pay for an indies marketing department.

Finally on that last point, the indie devs aren't even doing this, it's only the AAA publishers so I fail to see your point.

Fact is while it's legality is really unknown as not a lot of precident has been set it's leaning towards teh publishers, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that it's a dick move, and that we shouldn't be making it ok for them to do this. If you make a good product you will make money simple as that. I don't know what bizzaro world you live in that makes you think EA or acitvision needs us to give up our rights in order to make money but I won't have anything to do with it. So as the man said, take your position cause that insertion is only going to get worse once they know they can get away with it.