Jimquisition: Used Games Have A Right To Exist

[GrimHeaper]

Answer: Im not. I am argueing that the producers can treat their product in any way shape or form they please, and when you buy used you are not paying them and therefore have no say in how thoes products are treated.

I guess this strikes at the heart of "Concept of ownership" and in terms of all other digital media games are being sold short. Take for example the argument that you are just buying a licence with i guess you could technically argue for; the same is true for a digital purchase for a DVD. Yet no-one in the industry cars about used DVD or bluray sales, its a non-issue. In an age when many games are mainly multiplayer focused and their single player sections don't really hold up on their own i don't see the argument that publishers are "investing more" in a product and so sould have more rights to it; they have slightly more control over acess and their actions are a thinly veild abuse of this control.

When you buy a game the terms of service do limit you but there is a kind of common expectation that when a physical product is bought then you should have a right to re-sell that product especially when the investment for a videogame i so very high. The publoshers can techically change the terms of service to what they like and the US courts seem depressingly OK with going along with the errosion of consumer rights but in somewhere like say, the EU encompassing such huge markets as the UK, Germany and france i don't think the publishers would win out in trying to enforce more and more restrictive licencing policies for physical products.

As a consumer you DO have certain rights and expectations of a product and as time goes by i think it looks more and more likely that if test cases are brought forward the rights of the consumer to hteir entertainment will win out.

Just one thing is I want to say on that.

The thing is you cannot compare products.

Just because it non-issue for other businesses doesn't mean it is a non-issue for this business. Gamestop made an business model encouraging people to trade in new games while people asked for them, that doesn't exists in music. Different factors affect different products. Even different products within the same genre. If not then every medium of entertainment should have the same amount of profits. To say that it doesn't affect affect another industry bears as much weight as saying "ticket sales make out a major part of games profit".

Now the reason I am so adamant on this subject is that I truly believe that it does alot more harm than what good it does you. When is the last time you have seen a bargain bucket with console games (that isn't used)? I see them ALL the time with PC titles.

If used games were removed today I belive the industry as a whole would be better of for it. I think we would see a lot more steam style sales (a part of the industry where used games are impossible), and a general better deal than what you get now. I would not be surprised if they started making "Preorder Skyrim today, Get oblivion for free" in order to push new titles while clearing out old merchandise. It worked for Red Faction on Steam.

I also think that if a person has 20 dollars he wants to spend on games, then he will spend them on games. Without the used market that got blasted with advertisement when they were new, more lowpriced indie titles might have a better shot of getting noticed.

Most importantly it will cut Gamestop out of the mix and get more profit to the publisher/developers and that means bigger, better games. Gamestop adds nothing to this mix. Only draws on the work.

When it comes to who has the most right over their product I am still going to side with the producer. You can vote with your valet. Its not that hard. Only buy stuff that you think treats you fairly. Otherwise leave it. Its entertainment, not insulin.

Gamestop can screw themselves with their pawnshop pricing.
Sell them a game for one dollar and they go out and sell it for 30-40$.
I would be far more supportive if they priced anything good.
That Frogger 3-D would probably sell for 25cents or something.

Another thing devs don't seem to realise is that used games can get them MORE sales. I bought ratchet & clank 1 pre-owned, and have bought all of the rest new since then. If a game is good then pre-owned sales will only lead to better sales of the sequels.

Or you can be like others and buy them all used.

 

[Doclector]

The trade in thing is a brilliant point. I don't know how many games I would not have bought on launch if it wasn't for the thought that I could get at least half my money back if it sucks. Without trade ins, players will take less risks. I'd even say it could harm cod. Think about it, how willing will people be to buy the latest yearly update (that has an online that will be left to essentially rot after around a year, if you've been on WaW or COD4 recently you'll know what I'm talking about) if they won't be able to get a decent price for it when the next yearly update comes around?

 

[GrimHeaper]

The trade in thing is a brilliant point. I don't know how many games I would not have bought on launch if it wasn't for the thought that I could get at least half my money back if it sucks. Without trade ins, players will take less risks. I'd even say it could harm cod. Think about it, how willing will people be to buy the latest yearly update (that has an online that will be left to essentially rot after around a year, if you've been on WaW or COD4 recently you'll know what I'm talking about) if they won't be able to get a decent price for it when the next yearly update comes around?

Keep your receipt, for full store credit no cash back allowed.
Players taking less risks would be a good thing btw, not bad. Who cares about COD?
Also stop buying the same game every year, if they are treating you like trash with online services abandon them and stop returning like a beaten house wife.

 

[MorphingDragon]

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?

Except it ceases to be TRUE Capitalism when they try to turn a free market into a corporate monopoly.

Yeah because games are like insulin.... you cant choose not to buy them...

Yeah you can sell property whatever way they want and so can they. They want to sell it as property+service its their choice. They wont AND SHOULDN'T cater to a used market that costs them money.

Its still a free market. You have every right to make a product that follows whatever philosophy that you choose. Its in no way shape or form a cooperate monopoly.

Stop distracting from your own argument. If a company is to operate in a capitalist market it must compete IN A capitalist market, including all possible markets in the free market.

 

[GrimHeaper]

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?

Except it ceases to be TRUE Capitalism when they try to turn a free market into a corporate monopoly.

Yeah because games are like insulin.... you cant choose not to buy them...

Yeah you can sell property whatever way they want and so can they. They want to sell it as property+service its their choice. They wont AND SHOULDN'T cater to a used market that costs them money.

Its still a free market. You have every right to make a product that follows whatever philosophy that you choose. Its in no way shape or form a cooperate monopoly.

Stop distracting from your own argument. If a company is to operate in a capitalist market it must compete IN A capitalist market, including all possible markets in the free market.

Correct.
And they can choose to sell their product any way they choose. They could chose to make games all rental.

Its their product. They sell it as they please. If you start claiming that you can tell them how and how not they can sell their product. How is that a free market?

Personally they could go for the one use per copy and have to have it activated online approach for everything if they felt evil. That way it can't be resold,borrowed, or even pirated. I hate DLC that is already on the disc though... that's not cool.

 

[BigChiefDel]

Well said Jim

 

[MorphingDragon]

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?

Except it ceases to be TRUE Capitalism when they try to turn a free market into a corporate monopoly.

Yeah because games are like insulin.... you cant choose not to buy them...

Yeah you can sell property whatever way they want and so can they. They want to sell it as property+service its their choice. They wont AND SHOULDN'T cater to a used market that costs them money.

Its still a free market. You have every right to make a product that follows whatever philosophy that you choose. Its in no way shape or form a cooperate monopoly.

Stop distracting from your own argument. If a company is to operate in a capitalist market it must compete IN A capitalist market, including all possible markets in the free market.

Correct.
And they can choose to sell their product any way they choose. They could chose to make games all rental.

Yes, but they are ALSO trying to choose what YOU can DO with your copy of the game AFTER, again AFTER you BOUGHT it.

Its their product. They sell it as they please. If you start claiming that you can tell them how and how not they can sell their product. How is that a free market?

We are not telling them how to sell their game. Read the arguments, and listen.

 

[Doclector]

The trade in thing is a brilliant point. I don't know how many games I would not have bought on launch if it wasn't for the thought that I could get at least half my money back if it sucks. Without trade ins, players will take less risks. I'd even say it could harm cod. Think about it, how willing will people be to buy the latest yearly update (that has an online that will be left to essentially rot after around a year, if you've been on WaW or COD4 recently you'll know what I'm talking about) if they won't be able to get a decent price for it when the next yearly update comes around?

Keep your receipt, for full store credit no cash back allowed.

I thought that was only possible with faulty games.

Players taking less risks would be a good thing btw, not bad.

Why?

Who cares about COD?

Quite a few people, but that's beside the point. I'm saying it isn't truly in big company's interests to strangle used games.

Also stop buying the same game every year, if they are treating you like trash with online services abandon them and stop returning like a beaten house wife.

I didn't say I did. I bought cod 4 in a sale, WaW pre-owned, MW2 in another sale (mostly for single player) and I only bought black ops anywhere near launch once I found a place that didn't add activision's extra £5 and I had recieved numerous reccomendations saying it was a big improvement over MW2, which it is. I do not intend to buy MW3, as the story has fallen to pieces and I believe the tattered remains of infinity ward aren't going to deliver the multiplayer goods, after all, although they brought us COD4's near perfection, more recently, presumably under activision pressure, they bought us the mess of MW2.

 

[Cali0602]

I had no idea this was even a topic. Don't get me wrong, Jim makes some good points in this episode, but are people really that passionate about a hate for used games? Is this really a big deal? Are the trolls of the interwebs sounding their war cry "flame on!" while targeting used game consumers? Maybe I'm just not in the loop anymore, but this topic seems needless.

 

[Dastardly]

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'm hearing mostly an exaggeration of the opposing viewpoint. Some folks simply recognize some of the unique difficulties used games pose for publishers, and they also recognize that publishers have a right to try to encourage folks to buy new -- they have no obligation to defend or uphold used sales.

There's nothing wrong with what they're trying to do, despite how we might disagree with the current methods. And not everyone who thinks used games "pose a problem" think they're "just as bad as piracy."

 

[Epona]

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 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.

 

[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'm hearing mostly an exaggeration of the opposing viewpoint. Some folks simply recognize some of the unique difficulties used games pose for publishers, and they also recognize that publishers have a right to try to encourage folks to buy new -- they have no obligation to defend or uphold used sales.

There's nothing wrong with what they're trying to do, despite how we might disagree with the current methods. And not everyone who thinks used games "pose a problem" think they're "just as bad as piracy."

I would love to have the difficulty of making 999 Million dollars in profit in 3 months. Oh woe is the big publishers. Even though I am not religious, I think I'll go pray for the big publishers because 999m is just not enough profit!

Difficulties?! HA HA The used game market is WHY there are so many gamers today and WHY they can make that much money. What's that, 4 BILLION in a year. They have nothing to whine about.

 

[Spongebobdickpants]

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.

Ok then we apply all the same rules that apply to other property . Since its the info on the disk you want and not the actual disk, then it should deteriorate. Now since it is absurd to change it so graphics decrease over time then you can make it so less content is available on the used copy?

Talking of moaning when the system isn't falling in your favor huh?

Games have every right to change their product from what you guyes keep going on as property and over to entertainment. Just like you have every right not to buy it then. That is capitalism.

Fact is is Jim and so many others are crying snot because their used games isn't as good as thoes they bought new. But here is the thing. The publishers dont care and shouldn't care about you because you dont pay them when you buy used. Why the heck should they make any decisions trying to service a bunch of players that want their game, but wont pay them for it?

1: That's a bad comparison. Just because other things deteriorate, doesn't mean we need apply those laws - those physical laws - on a videogame. A game deteriorates in a different fashion: We get sick of the game. We get bored. That's why we trade it in.
Just because "all other property rots" doesn't mean we can't count a videogame-disk, and the entertainment it provides, as property.


2: "games" (Guess you mean the game-producers) do not, because it's against the law. And Capitalism is guided by law.

"1: That's a bad comparison. Just because other things deteriorate, doesn't mean we need apply those laws - those physical laws - on a videogame. A game deteriorates in a different fashion: We get sick of the game. We get bored. That's why we trade it in.
Just because "all other property rots" doesn't mean we can't count a videogame-disk, and the entertainment it provides, as property."
How fucking ironic is that! we need to apply laws of ownership all across the board! But we dont other apply laws of products.

Condescending self-serving

Here is capitalism.

The producer can do whatever he wants to his product. And your options are to buy it or not to. That is capitalism. Ownership falls under the conundrums of philosophy.

We don't need to apply the laws of deterioration because we CAN'T, because information doesn't deteriorate in the same way as say a table would, or a car.
And "whether it deteriorates or not" is NOT the critera for "this is property, this is not". Really; This is deteriorates = This is property.
This does not deteriorate = This is not property.
How does this make sense?

And quit with the Ad Hominem. Behave yourself.

The producer (i.e the original owner) can do whatever he wants with his products, this be true. Too bad it's o longer his product when he sells it. It's MINE. And I can do whatever I want with MY product. And since you said products; You agree that videogames are products now, yes?

No it is self serving and condecening. its not an ad hominum. When you chose your biases for what serves you best it falls in that. That is objective.

Also the product can be a service. I dont own the plumber I got to fix my sink. What you wanted me to admit was that it was property. The producer can choose method of payment and what the product consists off. In other words. He can make it so your product stays with you forever. All you can do is yay or nay.

A lease is product as well. Get used to it.

Imagine i bought some land. That land is now mine.

Imagine i try to sell it then the company that cleared the land said.
"Hey, we sold you that land so we demand X amount for that land, because land doesnt deteriorate like car or computer spo we are immune to consumer rights laws. GEIF MONEY NAO"

Then some douchebag says
"Well they arent making enough money,that land is being resold is money the company COULD be making. So that means "i" should have to give the company X amount. We live in capitalist word baby!!1! "i" should just deal with it"

Jim's arguments aren't great but yours is just stupid.

 

[Pandabearparade]

The problem with your argument is that quality is subjective.

Yes and no.

-Enjoyment- of a game is subjective, but there are ways to measure the quality of a game outside of personal preference.

 

[phreakdb]

I could probably sit here and read through the entirety of the thread, and most likely what I am about to say is a regurgitation, but someone needs to speak the actual truth.

Yes. Used Games have the right to exist. You have the right to sell or give away anything you bought. That is not a point of contention.

The point of contention is the fact that while you say you have a right to do this, and do that, you very much decry a publisher/developer's rights. They have a right to refuse you access to their central matchmaking network, that most likely gets anywhere between 10-25k hits a minute as people try to get the handshaking and connections going to enjoy the online game.

You also seem to skirt the fact that every used game sold by gamestop, is another used one that isn't bought, thus gamestop can easily turn a 100% profit by bilking some hardworking jim out of thier money by thinking they are getting a deal. I don't know if Gamestop is sponsoring you or something, but you seem to completely blow past the true culprit here.

I agree, it's hard to talk down on someone who does you a favor by giving you credit on your crap games toward a new one. It's just a reality though Jim. You are rather ill informed about the entirety of the whole deal, and I would suggest you look into taking a few classes on true economics, starting with supply and demand, and moving into how the software industry really works.

I mean, you have a chance here to actually educate people but... oh. wait. seems that you are about nothing more than a ram stirring up sheep and the like. sorry for mistaking you for an individual who would actually like to educate themselves, and thus, educate others. Most likely, the fact that you were at one point dependent upon Gamestop to get your game fix has incredibly skewed your perspective.

Also, to the rest of you following and agreeing with Jim. Yes, vote with your wallet. Please. It might actually make the game companies come out with better games for their price points, and then, the used market can die off.

 

[Pandabearparade]

So in essence your argument is:

Waaaaah!!! Piracy is worse than trade-ins therefore trade-ins aren't hurting the industry at all!

If a company is losing money to trade-ins, that's their problem. Not mine, and not Gamestop's. Perhaps if they lowered the prices of their games to something the customer was willing to pay this problem would go away? Or, better yet, make games good enough that people would rather buy new the day of release rather than waiting to get a few dollars off. Just an idea. Works for Bethesda.

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!

Gamestop doesn't nickle-and-dime me, they sell me a product at greatly reduced price. I've heard bad things about them before, but they've done right by me in all of my experiences with them.

Regardless, EA is a company that treats customers badly at every opportunity. If that's how they want to play it, fine. I'll buy their games used or not at all. Not my problem. If that bothers you, you're entirely free to spend your money on EA. Gamestop working around publishers is irrelevant. They don't have an obligation to keep publishers in business.

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!

Yes, frankly. The corporate fat cats at Gamestop provide me with a product I want at a price I deem acceptable. Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way, considering EA and other publishers are going out of their way to punish people who buy from 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!

Fail argument is fail. Piracy is a crime. Buying used is not a crime. Get over it.

Class act there Jim.

But alas, you're wrong.

Not really.

You know who is really hurt by used games?

Companies that publish games that aren't worth buying new.