Poll: Boycott Rage

[Mechanix]

Oh boy here we go, another thread riding the used games are evil bandwagon. Newsflash folks, there's a lot of products out there that are bought from someone and then resold, and that original manufacturer doesn't see any of that money.

Developers are not desperate for money to the point of begging us to not buy used. The only ones that are, probably sell their games through digital download anyway. This tactic of blocking off some aspects of the game in order to stop used sales is nothing more than a money-grabbing strategy.

Ask yourself this. There are a lot of products out there, and a lot of them can be resold. Would it really be wise to make games not resell-able when they previously were? No, that would be backwards and stupid. You want developers to make money for game sales? If someone is buying a used game, it means the game was already sold.

 

[Epona]

As it stands the video game industry and the used game industry are two completely different things. However, the growth of the used game industry cuts the profits of the video game industry. The video game industry chose to retaliate.

The thing that really surprises me is the ethics the video game industry is employing so far. They could have made it so that you can't play shit if you bought used but they didn't. Be thankful and buy new.

The customer is always right. You are not a costumer, you aren't right, you aren't entitled to anything, be thankful for how much the industry is already putting up with you.

Oh wow, guess we should be on our knees thanking God that publishers show such mercy on us?

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

The question

The answer:

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

I would like to know how this is wrong too.

I buy games used. I would like to know how that is wrong.

 

[migo]

Or the factor of them being developers meens that they set the standards for what you must do. I know some buisness practices are wrong, thats very obvious. Not including stuff to prevent people from torrenting it or getting second hand sales a few days after seems pretty reasonable to me because it isnt effecting those that purchases the game. And thats just it, they are requireing you to merely, "BUY" the game. Explain to me what is wrong with this. I may be overlooking some huge factor but currently I don't see it with this complaint.

No, they're asking you to buy the game NEW. They're sabotaging their own product so used sales aren't possible, and furthermore, if you install it 10 years from now, you won't get it all either. It's generally bad anyway, because it creates waste. It's REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE - and these policies go completely against it.

 

[scott91575]

I think there are better ways to accomplish this, but it makes a lot of sense if you look at why they're doing it. Basically, as EVERYONE has said, this is because they make no profits off used games. And that's stupid, and needs to stop.

Imagine if you created something, and you expected to make so much money off it. Then some other dude is like, "Oh hey man, just drop them off at my place, I'll sell them." Then you come back and you realize he's been running a program to get used games back and sell them again to make a big profit for himself and not give any to you.

I'm only worried that places like GameStop might raise the prices of new games to make a profit off those. But not really, I don't buy anything from there anyways.
Side note, I haven't heard about this yet. How are they managing to keep things from people who play it used?

If they want to make money in the resale market, become a part of that market and sell used games.

In the end, this comes back to the consumer. When they try and sell a game on ebay they will get about 10 dollars less since the product requires a download to make it whole. This practice reduces the demand price, therefore lowers the price you can get for your used game. It also will not effect the margin Amazon or Gamestop or whatever 3rd party does. They will bake in that same number into the resale. In order to do that, they will lower what they pay for games because they are forced to lower the resale number. They sure as hell are not going to lower their profits.

So, from a purely supply and demand standpoint, if you are someone who likes to sell their games on the used market the value for this game drops. It essentially means it's now going to cost you more for this game compared to other games that do not use this tactic. You can talk all you want about Gamestop or the person buying a used game, but that is not how it works. It's simple supply and demand, and in that equation the person buying the game new is the one who is hurt by this practice.

So they are actually hurting the people they should be embracing, the ones you actually pay full retail. To me that is not a good business practice.

Of course I will probably buy it when it goes on sale at some point as a digital download, so I am not really outraged by this. Yet don't get confused, they are hurting their most important customers.

 

[TheDooD]

As it stands the video game industry and the used game industry are two completely different things. However, the growth of the used game industry cuts the profits of the video game industry. The video game industry chose to retaliate.

The thing that really surprises me is the ethics the video game industry is employing so far. They could have made it so that you can't play shit if you bought used but they didn't. Be thankful and buy new.

The customer is always right. You are not a costumer, you aren't right, you aren't entitled to anything, be thankful for how much the industry is already putting up with you.

Oh wow, guess we should be on our knees thanking God that publishers show such mercy on us?

I wanted to say something more serious yet what you said works much better then anything that I could come up with.

 

[FoolKiller]

I just laugh at this every time I read the arguments for a developer doing this. Personally this is a deal-breaker for me. I have multiple consoles and I hate anything that ties my game to a particular machine. (I like to play offline or at a friend's house on their big screen where I can't login to my account)

Arguments of paying for a license and not the physical disc aside. Here are my problems with it.

1.
No other industry does this. Honda didn't see a cent from me buying a used car. Warner Brothers didn't get my money when I bought the Matrix used. They weren't whining that I was as bad as a criminal. In fact, the music industry is arguing for the other end of the spectrum. The latest goals are for the purchasers of the music to be able to have as many copies of the music as the purchaser has things to play it on. The idea is that you paid for the license, therefore they should enjoy in any form they like: iPod, computer, CD, car stereo etc. For some reason the gaming industry thinks its special and wants to make more money off of 1 product.

2.
The video game store takes all the risk when dealing with the used game. There is no price protection, there is no guarantee on it if it doesn't work perfectly. So why should a company that doesn't take the risk get any of the reward?

3.
The developers already made the profit from selling that particular game. So once and for all, it is not the equivalent of piracy. It's the equivalent of sharing games with friends... which isn't a bad thing. In fact, that is one of the many ways that games become popular and entice people to buy their own or purchase new stuff later.

4.
This is for those that are bringing up used games 2 days after the games release. This is a stupid argument to make. If the game is good enough or long enough the owner shouldn't want to sell it after a day.

5.
Finally, for all those that still wish to use the license vs. physical disc argument. The purchaser of the game is entitled to the use of it. There is nothing stating that he/she cannot transfer the license.

I do however have a couple of nifty ideas if the devs were really interested in the used game demographic.

1. Set up a license transfer utility.

2. Have the game company buy the used game and sell it used to other customers. They could control the pricing and make the money.

 

[scott91575]

BTW...I think publishers should rethink their practices. I suppose I could go into a whole economics lecture here, but what they are doing is a poor practice in my estimation. They need more aggressive pricing after launch. The perfect example of this is the PC digital download market. Many people think this killed the used game market (although there wasn't much of one anyway). Yet you have to realize the demand curve does not change. There are still going to be people who will only pay $20 or $30 for a game (sometimes less). Without a second hand market for digital downloads, you will notice a much more aggressive pricing structure after launch compared to the console market in order to meet that part of the demand. It's not uncommon for a game even a month or two after launch to show up in 33% or 50% or even 66% off sales. You don't see that in console game sales. They stay at launch values for a much longer time, and the price drops are no where near as aggressive (Dead Space 2 is a perfect example of this....it can be had for $12 on PC but is still $25+ dollars on console). This is due to the second hand market. Yet they could easily go after that market if they priced more aggressively.

Another tactic companies use is DLC's. A somewhat similar tactic but done in a different manner. I actually think that one is more successful since people that bought the game new will hold onto it which the knowledge of upcoming DLC. Sure, they are still milking the consumer in some instances, but at least in most the consumer feels they are getting added value for their money.

I simply feel that they are going about this in a wrong manner. Instead of bastardizing the used game market they could attack it head on with as much if not better success.

 

[SovietSecrets]

I buy games used. I would like to know how that is wrong.

I have a feeling I am going to be insanely wrong here, but developers don't get the full money to them if a game is bought used do they? I remember reading that a bunch of times on here once, I could have simply misread that though.

OT: No I won't boycott RAGE because of what they're doing. Games looks pretty sweet and I have no problems paying full price for it rather than used.

 

[strangemoose]

dont put oll in the title if there is no poll

 

[Epona]

I buy games used. I would like to know how that is wrong.

I have a feeling I am going to be insanely wrong here, but developers don't get the full money to them if a game is bought used do they? I remember reading that a bunch of times on here once, I could have simply misread that though.

OT: No I won't boycott RAGE because of what they're doing. Games looks pretty sweet and I have no problems paying full price for it rather than used.

Yes they do, if the game is for sale used, it was already bought new and the publishers already got their money.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Yes they do, if the game is for sale used, it was already bought new and the publishers already got their money.

Fair enough, but its still their work being sold and resold. I don't see the problem of getting a cut of that profit if they don't already.

 

[Epona]

Yes they do, if the game is for sale used, it was already bought new and the publishers already got their money.

Fair enough, but its still their work being sold and resold. I don't see the problem of getting a cut of that profit if they don't already.

The problem is that they aren't entitled to be paid more than once per copy of the game.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Yes they do, if the game is for sale used, it was already bought new and the publishers already got their money.

Fair enough, but its still their work being sold and resold. I don't see the problem of getting a cut of that profit if they don't already.

The problem is that they aren't entitled to be paid more than once per copy of the game.

Would you mind explaining to me why? I understand that they shouldn't if its just a friend selling the game to another friend, but if they game is being sold to Gamestop and then resold from Gamestop back to a customer, then the developer should get some of that profit. Be it in the form of it being sold back or it being sold to another person.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Yes they do, if the game is for sale used, it was already bought new and the publishers already got their money.

Fair enough, but its still their work being sold and resold. I don't see the problem of getting a cut of that profit if they don't already.

The problem is that they aren't entitled to be paid more than once per copy of the game.

Would you mind explaining to me why? I understand that they shouldn't if its just a friend selling the game to another friend, but if they game is being sold to Gamestop and then resold from Gamestop back to a customer, then the developer should get some of that profit. Be it in the form of it being sold back or it being sold to another person.

First Sale Doctrine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine]
That's why. They cannot controll what happens to a copyrighted item once they sell it once. They already made their money off of the "First Sale" and thus, get none when it changes hands. Even if the changing of hands is done for profit.

 

[Epona]

Yes they do, if the game is for sale used, it was already bought new and the publishers already got their money.

Fair enough, but its still their work being sold and resold. I don't see the problem of getting a cut of that profit if they don't already.

The problem is that they aren't entitled to be paid more than once per copy of the game.

Would you mind explaining to me why? I understand that they shouldn't if its just a friend selling the game to another friend, but if they game is being sold to Gamestop and then resold from Gamestop back to a customer, then the developer should get some of that profit. Be it in the form of it being sold back or it being sold to another person.

Sure, what CM156 said and I'll add a little to it.

They sell the game to you. You now own it and when you sell it, you (the owner) are entitled to all of the money. The person who bought it becomes the new owner and so on and so forth.

To push it further, should you sell the game to Gamestop. Should Gamestop pay you when they sell it because you once owned it? No and the same applies to the publishers. They sell it once and it is no longer theirs to sell.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Yes they do, if the game is for sale used, it was already bought new and the publishers already got their money.

Fair enough, but its still their work being sold and resold. I don't see the problem of getting a cut of that profit if they don't already.

The problem is that they aren't entitled to be paid more than once per copy of the game.

Would you mind explaining to me why? I understand that they shouldn't if its just a friend selling the game to another friend, but if they game is being sold to Gamestop and then resold from Gamestop back to a customer, then the developer should get some of that profit. Be it in the form of it being sold back or it being sold to another person.

First Sale Doctrine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine]
That's why. They cannot controll what happens to a copyrighted item once they sell it once. They already made their money off of the "First Sale" and thus, get none when it changes hands. Even if the changing of hands is done for profit.

I agree up to the point where after its sold, the person who bought it can do whatever as long as they don't infringe on the copyright. This part however "The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained" is pretty dumb to me. It just seems that retailers have found a loophole where they don't have to inform the developer/publisher of how many copies of the used game they have sold and don't have to pay anything.

 

[Adzma]

Pay the extra $5 and stop whining. These people prattling on about used games getting cut down need a serious reality check.

It's like complaining that a used car has too many kilometres/miles on the clock, but you don't want to spend the extra to buy a brand new one. The difference there is that it's usally several thousand dollars more. Not five. Stop being cheap.

 

[TheDooD]

Yes they do, if the game is for sale used, it was already bought new and the publishers already got their money.

Fair enough, but its still their work being sold and resold. I don't see the problem of getting a cut of that profit if they don't already.

The problem is that they aren't entitled to be paid more than once per copy of the game.

Would you mind explaining to me why? I understand that they shouldn't if its just a friend selling the game to another friend, but if they game is being sold to Gamestop and then resold from Gamestop back to a customer, then the developer should get some of that profit. Be it in the form of it being sold back or it being sold to another person.

The developer gets money off a used game it's just a slower transfer of money. Gamestop buys games in bulk from the publisher that's the 1st time they get paid and then they get money off the single game sells that's a 2nd time they get money from Gamestop. How do you expect Gamestop to get money to afford the bulk purchase of a new product. If you want them to give publishers more money off a used game. After somebody sells a game they bought the ties to publisher is cut. Gamestop is basically the middle man, they're handling, storing and transfering products. Publishers are biting the hands that feed them because guess where a majority of the money they get from the bulk purchases comes from used games.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Yes they do, if the game is for sale used, it was already bought new and the publishers already got their money.

Fair enough, but its still their work being sold and resold. I don't see the problem of getting a cut of that profit if they don't already.

The problem is that they aren't entitled to be paid more than once per copy of the game.

Would you mind explaining to me why? I understand that they shouldn't if its just a friend selling the game to another friend, but if they game is being sold to Gamestop and then resold from Gamestop back to a customer, then the developer should get some of that profit. Be it in the form of it being sold back or it being sold to another person.

First Sale Doctrine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine]
That's why. They cannot controll what happens to a copyrighted item once they sell it once. They already made their money off of the "First Sale" and thus, get none when it changes hands. Even if the changing of hands is done for profit.

Yes they do, if the game is for sale used, it was already bought new and the publishers already got their money.

Fair enough, but its still their work being sold and resold. I don't see the problem of getting a cut of that profit if they don't already.

The problem is that they aren't entitled to be paid more than once per copy of the game.

Would you mind explaining to me why? I understand that they shouldn't if its just a friend selling the game to another friend, but if they game is being sold to Gamestop and then resold from Gamestop back to a customer, then the developer should get some of that profit. Be it in the form of it being sold back or it being sold to another person.

Sure, what CM156 said and I'll add a little to it.

They sell the game to you. You now own it and when you sell it, you (the owner) are entitled to all of the money. The person who bought it becomes the new owner and so on and so forth.

To push it further, should you sell the game to Gamestop. Should Gamestop pay you when they sell it because you once owned it? No and the same applies to the publishers. They sell it once and it is no longer theirs to sell.

Seems my post got eaten, so if this is a double post my bad. Yup double post sorry!

I agree up to the point where after its sold, the person who bought it can do whatever as long as they don't infringe on the copyright. This part however "The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained" is pretty dumb to me. It just seems that retailers have found a loophole where they don't have to inform the developer/publisher of how many copies of the used game they have sold and don't have to pay anything.