Publishers should do what I'm telling everyone. Bite my shiny metal ass. I can sell a used car without paying off the manufacturer. I can sell a movie without paying the movie studio. Why should used games be any different. I'm sorry postalgamer.com you're intentions are good trying to compromise but I refuse any compromise.
PostalGamer.com Aims to Revolutionize Used Game Market
- Thread starter Hevva
- Start date
Two questions I'd like to ask
1) Will this company show how many times a particular copy of a game has been sold and resold?
2) What if a copy is eventually re-sold enough times that the cuts the developer/publisher get out of the sale, are actually more than when the game is bought new? If you look at it from a certain point of view, they haven't lost anything at all (in a business transaction, you give up something or provide a service, and you're compensated for that monetarily).
1) Will this company show how many times a particular copy of a game has been sold and resold?
2) What if a copy is eventually re-sold enough times that the cuts the developer/publisher get out of the sale, are actually more than when the game is bought new? If you look at it from a certain point of view, they haven't lost anything at all (in a business transaction, you give up something or provide a service, and you're compensated for that monetarily).
I think he's referring to the game Postal which is quite notorious for its crudeness and violence.Irridium said:
This is still stupid. It's like car companies demanding a cut of used car sales from dealers because a new person is driving the vehicle.
You sell a product, someone buys it, and you can't capitalize on it anymore. That's that. There's no other industry where a company thinks it's entitled to more money because one of its purchased products is resold to someone else and no one would LET a company do that. I'm tired of companies bitching about this.
You sell a product, someone buys it, and you can't capitalize on it anymore. That's that. There's no other industry where a company thinks it's entitled to more money because one of its purchased products is resold to someone else and no one would LET a company do that. I'm tired of companies bitching about this.
I work at a Gamestop, and just the other day asked why we don't do this, offering publishers a cut of the profit on used games in exchange for a larger cut or a discount on new games, and the answer I was given was 'because the publishers would never go for an idea like that and are committed to new game sales only'. Honestly, I really hope this succeeds though, I'd like to see Gamestop knocked down a peg.
True. But the difference is many of these games provide an online multiplayer service. Those who buy the game used are using it without giving the developer a dime. So its not quite the same scenario as the used car example.Nurb said:
When you buy a new car you get a 5 year warranty to cover repairs that can't be blamed on you.drkchmst said:
More movie companies give you a code to download a digital copy of any movie you buy when you buy it new.
The game industry isn't the only industry where you get rewards for buying new. Why is a compromise where you as a consumer get the same benefits for buying a game used such a bad thing?
Every other industry is hands off. They don't get a cut out of the used sales whatsoever. My concern is by letting the game publishers wet their beak, it will keep prices on used games high as opposed to them drifting to something near a fair market price. Many used titles sold at gamestop have ridiculous mark ups such that when I look up a copy on amazon I can usually find it quite a bit cheaper even after paying for shipping (and probably in better shape if anyone else remembers Confessions of a Gamestop employee). Another possibility is obscure titles that don't sell well, and eventually reach that $5 and under bin could be phased out instead of letting them continue to circulate through the used game market. There are some gems that I wouldn't for the world want to see become impossible to find.
Intriguing idea; I hope it takes off and takes off in a way that benefits the people more than the companies. The biggest hurdle would be getting the average person aware that something like this exists and the envelope isn't just "random trash" they add into the box.
Also, intercontinental delivery anyone? Depending on who's paying for the envelope it might be more expensive then 10% of profits.
Also, intercontinental delivery anyone? Depending on who's paying for the envelope it might be more expensive then 10% of profits.
I disagree with you this is funny not stupid.Nurb said:
It makes publishers sound like the mafia. We need a cut of your sales to protect you from lawsuits and other natural disasters.
I heard GameStop failed to pay up. He fell down some stairs onto some bullets.
Ok ok maybe I do agree with you and I quoted you to say I agree with this post.
Yet I don't see digital sales doing this with the way most Publishers break into the Digital market. They are selling their games for the same price as the physical copy. Even if they went 100% digital gamers would still not see a drop in price. This is why there will always be a market for the physical copy. Some people will prefer the physical copy, and when it costs the same, why not? The only difference is the extra profit they are making by cutting out a costly process of distribution and shop sale markup and replacing it with a cheaper digital distribution system and extra profit.Jake Martinez said: