Vigormortis said:
believer258 said:
Okay, I can see there's been some confusion. I am not against used game sales in principle.
LOL, you previously called it theft. Are you not against theft in principle?
Let me start with the simplest answer on the retailer question. When I say they charge to carry a publishers game, it's true. It's just not quite up front. The cut of the profits they take from the sale of the game are the fees they're effectively charging the publisher. If that wasn't clear in my original post, my apologies. But, I think we can both agree this is true.
So it isn't fair that Gamestop should make any profit off selling new titles? They should provide this service for free? Even though the publishers hold them responsible for lost or damaged merchandise? As well, I have yet to find a source for how Gamestop does its ordering of games. Whether it be done on a commission basis or a flat out bulk order. The % you are talking about though either way is the retail price suggested by the manufacturer. It is probably done through credit where every copy sold is commissioned back to the publishers. Either way the agreement is, "We will help you sell your product in return for a small % of the profit." That is called retail. It is what it is and always has been. This isn't some scheme cooked up by Gamestop. That is the deal in EVERY store you EVER go into, EVER. That is what stores do. Family Dollar, Hy-Vee, and Tim's Bookstore. They all do it, it is how a retail outlet works. This is like getting mad at Activision because their games require you to input commands through a device in order to beat the game. That is just how it is. I don't understand the complaint.
Now, to give you an example of how used game sales are hurting the industry, let me begin by setting up a scenario. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that you are the CEO of some big publishing company. You've just received the latest report on the sales figures for your latest, big release. Cutting to the chase, the report indicates you've sold a total of one million units. However, at the other end of the report, you notice it indicates that there has been over three million different accounts (on the service of your choice) that have logged on to play the game. This means that more than twice as many people are playing the game, at some point, who didn't pay you for it as those that did.
So "for the sake of discussion" we will assume your argument is true across the board? Okay, whatever. (For the record: Better debaters assume the other side's fallacies are true rather than make the other side have to assume your fallacies are.) As well we are going to "cut to the chase" aka skip all the nuances about the game including how much production budgets were, what the revenue was, how well it was received, etc. (because that stuff isn't important.) Wow, 3 million accounts - those numbers aren't over-inflated to make a point are they?
ME just assuming your ridiculous scenario is true: If this scenario were true you have to look at a couple of things. First off if this were true, most people that bought your game - sold it. (Fast too - considering this is a fresh report on a new game in this example) Then the people who bought that title used turned around and sold it. Then another group bought it up. Considering the limited amount of time that lapsed in this scenario you have to deal with 1 thing. YOUR GAME SUCKS. Nobody wants it. They keep fucking selling it. The longest this example could possibly assume is 3-4 months out. In that period of time if this activity is happening, a lot of people were curious about your title and it just plain sucks. You made a shitty game. So bad that once someone owns it for about 2 weeks they don't want to own it anymore. Congratulations, you made Zelda 2.
But seriously, as much as you would like for it to, your scenario doesn't end there. Psychonauts is widely speculated to have sold bad due to bad marketing. Not used games or anything. It is a valid argument too. The game cover/pinup doesn't really make you think "Well-written Cult Classic."
Instead, it makes you think something more along the lines of this:
However, with poor marketing Psychonauts caught on so much that copies were and still are hard to come by. Buying that game used is going to cost you at least $20. It is just in short supply but with high demand and nobody want to give up their copy. Because
it is a good game. Of course publishers want to push these dumb ass scenarios out there. It means they don't have to produce quality titles which takes the risk out of their business. We consumers are just suppose to buy up any ol' game that comes out for 60 bucks and be happy about it. I don't know about you but if I spend 60 bucks, I want 60 bucks worth of game. I have been burned enough by game companies not delivering on this.
Ordinarily, this wouldn't matter much. And in the "olden" days, it was a moot point. However, and this is something I think most people are forgetting, we live in the age of online gaming. This means that game developers and publishers don't just make a game and throw it out there. They have to provide updates and support, host and maintain content and match servers, and subsequently, pay employees to do so. Therefore, if over half of the people currently playing the game online didn't pay you for it, then continuing to host it online for them equates to a loss.
They don't have to provide updates and support on a truly good game. I know some people can't wait but I am a big proponent for "release it when it is ready". I wish Valve made more games I cared about instead of FPS based stuff. I like their practices. I love Arenanet's way of handling GW2. By releasing a good game in good condition, they have a lot of time (at least 6 months to a year) before people will expect more of them. Updates and support are something companies use to allow them to release broken/buggy software and have people be OK with it. In the "olden days" they couldn't release a buggy game or it would tank. How were they to distribute a patch? Games bought on release day never had problems in the olden days.
But this, again, wouldn't be such an issue if the retailers who are reselling used titles paid even a small percentage of the huge profits they make on them to the publishers. Not to mention, not charge ridiculously high prices for them or trick people by repackaging them as "new". Sadly, they don't. As a result, we get stuff like Online Passes and it's ilk.
Haha, you actually believe that if they did, online passes wouldn't still exist. By the way, Gamestop makes more money per year on new sales over used sales.
And please don't assume I'm some corporate minded jerk who's defending all of that. I'm not. But at the same time, people who defend stores like Gamestop are just as guilty of the same thing they're accusing me of being.
No they aren't. Gamestop is being used as a scapegoat for the industry to chastise the gaming community indirectly for buying used. All of their arguments are fallacious and nothing more than excuses to their shareholders.
They don't make bad games, gamers "just want something for nothing."
They don't make bad games, gamers "just aren't playing them right."
They don't make bad games, gamers "just don't know what we want." (There is a half-truth in that one)
etc.
Believe me, I agree with your second assertion about a lot of people not having the cash to buy into an "uber-expensive" new game without pre-knowledge. (though I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume most only buy a new game used, then pay full price for subsequent releases) I've been in that boat before and still am on occasion. However, it doesn't make sense to defend stores like Gamestop over it.
Yeah it does, it justifies the demand for a used game market.
There is nothing wrong with used game sales. The issue I have is how most stores handle it. By that I mean having store policies that screw both the customer and the publisher. Again, if they'd pay even the smallest of a percentage of the massive profits they make from used sales back to the publishers and developers, there'd be no issue at all. And, in the end, everyone would win.
I hope that clears up my stance on the whole affair a bit. Kinda sick of one side or the other chastising me because they assume I think one thing when in fact I don't. Whether it be those for or against used games.
The underlining part is called a handling fee. They aren't screwing over the publishers. That is a service to customers and only customers. It is a side market. Are you willing to go give 15% of your trade-in value of your car to Ford if you trade it in for a Nissan? If I make a rocking chair and sell it to someone for $100 and they sell it a few years later to someone else for $50 am I entitled to $5 of that sale?
Do you know how long retailers have to hold on to games that are traded in that don't sell? That means all those madden games and any other crap game someone brings in has to sell before money can be made. You either do it to all games or none. So the retailer is actually taking losses in some areas (games that don't resale) for allowing people to trade-in. Not ever game that gets traded in, gets bought. That is probably why all those PS2 games are in envelopes now in Gamestop. It was probably more cost efficient to do that instead of spend money and dead shelf space on cases.
It seems like you have given a lot of thought to the publishers side of the debate and not much thought to the retailers perspective. Which is also part of the industry. The reason people are assuming you are pro-publisher is because that is what you argue for and whose arguments you side with often in your posts. As well, you have made fallacious comments regarding retailers. That is why frustration comes out in users. We read these bullshit articles by publishers and it is irritating. Then someone comes on and echoes them but can't substantiate them. You make yourself an easy and tempting target. Most of what comes out of a publishers "mouth" is a tactic. If you look for it you can usually find the angle. Not that I am a conspiracy theorist or anything, it is just that marketing is a strategy game in itself. Some of their tactics are a good thing. This war on Gamestop and used games though is a dirty underhanded tactic that is just crap.
) I got a program to play hacked games on the ps2, and put the program's file on my Starwar's Battlefront 2 disc. However, I couldn't use the lan which is when the file would've been activated, installing the program so I could not continue. Had I been able to, I would've burned the illegal game to a disk and then plaqyed it. One can also modify the console to play an illegal game. On a ps2 this could be done by changing the disk slot to open from the top upwards.