The 'used game' problem. Clear this up for me.

[Drizzitdude]

Quick question rleating to all this 'used games are evil' talk.

Don't game retailers buy the game from the company anyway? I ws always under the impression retailer like gamestop bought the game from the company in order to stock their shelves, and the customer bought it from the retailer.

---> representing buying from

Customer --->Retailer ---> Company

In this situation how does the company lose money when a customer buys a game used? The retailer bought the game in order to distribute it , and if you know hows stores work they usually buy that kind of thing in bulk, possibly more copies than they would sell in the first month of the release when a game make its most revenue anyway. So how does this hurt the companies? Because the retailer has to restock less often because they have a few used copeies on the shelf to sell? Someone elaborate please

 

[Irridium]

Because it seems that for used games, retailers don't have to buy from the publishers to get them, so they're not making money. I doubt they're actually losing lots of money because of it, but they're just not making as much as they think they could be making.

Either way, publishers now have the means [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.308073-PostalGamer-com-Aims-to-Revolutionize-Used-Game-Market] to get money from used sales.

It remains to be seen if they jump on it though. If they don't, then they should shut the hell up about used sales and just deal with it, since they didn't make the move to try and make money off them.

 

[Something Amyss]

I doubt they're actually losing lots of money because of it, but they're just not making as much as they think they could be making.

Yup. They changed the language so now every game sold used is considered a lost sale. And a lot of people are going along with it.

 

[Total LOLige]

Publishers seem to be really exploiting the argument that used games are evil.

They're not, it's a used market, practically every marketable item that isn't food has a secondhand market and you don't see other industries bitching about it. It's very annoying.

I second this. I doubt publishers are losing massive amounts of money.

 

[aprildog18]

All this 'used game' crap would all go away if games were cheaper >:O

 

[Bloedhoest]

All this 'used game' crap would all go away if games were cheaper >:O

I Agree. When a game comes first out I pay ?60.-. If I wait, lets say, 6 months we are down to ?30.- for the same thing.
No way that a party, dev or store, makes a loss on this.

 

[mr.mystery]

I do loves me some Day One DLC

 

[teisjm]

If we assume that people would buy the game new (and while not all, some most likely would), if they could not get it used, every used game sold is a used game the developers and publishers won't make any money on.
The same way they won't make money off of you if you borrow your friends copy of a game, after he's done with it, rather than buy a copy yourself.

Apparently, the loss of poential income has driven gaming companys to the thought, that we obviously shouldn't be able to get any recycle value out of our games, even though it's there. So they're trying to block off features form second hand costumers.
Through Day 1 DLc, through binding your cd-key to for instance, your EA account.

Publishers seem to be really exploiting the argument that used games are evil.

They're not, it's a used market, practically every marketable item that isn't food has a secondhand market and you don't see other industries bitching about it. It's very annoying.

And i'll let beliver258's comment nail it once again, QFT.

Even the comparable industries like the movie industry, and the film industry would have a hard time fighting their used markets, as long as they still press cd's and dvd's.
You can't share a legaly downloaded music file without commiting piracy, but it's fully legal to hand over your CD for a friend to borrow. Removing that option (however they would do that) would create an uproar.
Yet the gameing industry finds it perfectly reasonable.

 

[Something Amyss]

Unlike piracy, there is some sort of logic there. People aren't getting it for free, in fact, a lot of them are tight-arse enough to buy used to save something ridiculous, like 5 dollars.

Whether they're getting it for free or not, it's dishonest to treat any such occurence as a lost sale. While some might be "tight arse" enough to save five dollars on a used sale, there are also some who would buy games if piracy was not an option.

To selectively apply one and ignore the other is inherently dishonest.

There is logic in both or neither. Your argument could be applied to piracy as well as used game sales, so you can't say "unlike piracy" in an equatable argument.

 

[winginson]

For some reason they assume that everyone who bought the game 2nd hand would have still bought it for the full price. I have lots of games that are good value at £5 - £20 but I could not justify buying for £40 - £50.

 

[ThriKreen]

Studios and publishers lose out on valuable information on the games sold back or bought at the lower price, which could help give additional funding to a studio for a decent performing game if one factors in the used sales.

Or just knowing people are buying a game but at said lower price point and could go towards every studio lowering their prices.

 

[4173]

For some reason they assume that everyone who bought the game 2nd hand would have still bought it for the full price. I have lots of games that are good value at £5 - £20 but I could not justify buying for £40 - £50.

The company would still be better off if someone buys it a reduced price, but not used.

 

[Something Amyss]

If piracy wasn't an option, my friend, neither would second-hand sales. Let's not get too far into hypotheticals.

Of course, that's neither true nor to the point. Even if it was, it does nothing to defend your claim. Your argument is they do it to save money, which means they would otherwise buy the game new. Either that, or the argument does not apply to the "lost sales" argument in the first place. And either way, that's not unlike piracy.

A lot of people bring a lot of money into speculating businesses who bring nothing to the industry. 'Sides, in the specific part of said industry, the console part, piracy is negligible in the first place.

That last part is outright false, if the yearly XBox bans alone are any indication. Ther is a strong modding.piracy community, and I don't know a single board I go to where one can admit to piracy without a ban where there aren't a few or more willing to vocally announce they're pirating.

The former part is unproven and likely false as well, gicen used games do put money back into the games industry. Used sales tend to pump money back into new games. This is easily demonstrated by Gamestop's model of pushing used trades towards new sales (with bonuses). Of course, it is apparent that it benefits them in the long run, but if people were not applying that credit forward, their business model would have to be significantly adjusted.

 

[gbemery]

Publishers seem to be really exploiting the argument that used games are evil.

They're not, it's a used market, practically every marketable item that isn't food has a secondhand market and you don't see other industries bitching about it. It's very annoying.

Shhhh quite! They might hear you....and then we'll all have to be paying more for used cars, clothes and everything else in a second hand market.

 

[Something Amyss]

Publishers seem to be really exploiting the argument that used games are evil.

They're not, it's a used market, practically every marketable item that isn't food has a secondhand market and you don't see other industries bitching about it. It's very annoying.

Shhhh quite! They might hear you....and then we'll all have to be paying more for used cars, clothes and everything else in a second hand market.

Luckily, clothing companies can't lock out used sales. automotive could lock some parts, but not all.

And so far, digital's the only venue in which our consumer rights have been reduced to "drop trou and like it."

Otherwise, we might have an epidemic.

 

[gbemery]

Publishers seem to be really exploiting the argument that used games are evil.

They're not, it's a used market, practically every marketable item that isn't food has a secondhand market and you don't see other industries bitching about it. It's very annoying.

Shhhh quite! They might hear you....and then we'll all have to be paying more for used cars, clothes and everything else in a second hand market.

Luckily, clothing companies can't lock out used sales. automotive could lock some parts, but not all.

And so far, digital's the only venue in which our consumer rights have been reduced to "drop trou and like it."

Otherwise, we might have an epidemic.

Well the clothing company just might come around to the used clothing stores and chop off the sleeves until you pony up some bucks for them, and i like my sleeves. /sarcasm

Its is rather sad though how people accept the DRM abuse so easily. If it did and could happen to any other venue do you think people would just roll over and accept it like they do with digital sales?

 

[zehydra]

it's like piracy, someone paid for it initially, but the re-distribution means that someone doesn't pay for a new one.

That's my understanding of it anyway.

 

[Pearwood]

Allow me to sum up my opinion.

Dear publishers. Cry me a river.

That is all.

 

[StriderShinryu]

The basic issue isn't that all used games are evil, it's that when the GameStop pricing model is used, there generally is a loss of a new copy sale. I highly doubt a game company cares if you buy a year+ old game used for half of what it originally cost at retail. At that point they're probably not even really tracking it's sales anyway. What they do care about, and logically so, is when someone walks into a store and buys a used copy of a game for $5 or $10 less than a new copy. At that small price difference, it's entirely likely that the consumer could have and would have purchased the new copy of the game if the used copy was not available (or if, in the case of things like Project $10, they would have to spend the extra money to get full functionality of the game anyway).

The GameStop pricing model, which is used by almost every major retailer that sells used games these days, is parasitic and clearly costs game companies new copy sales.

 

[burningdragoon]

There's nothing "wrong" from buying used. The "problem" with used games is that there isn't really any significant amount of time between game launching and used games being available and that a used game is practically just as good as a new one. So instead of a retail buying one batch of games, selling out and buying another batch, they get in one shipment of the release, and then sell many of the same copies several times over depending on the game.

People talk about how other products have a second-hand market, but (and I can't speak in specifics) the systems are not exactly the same. People don't buy clothes, wear them once or twice return them a few days or weeks later. Used car dealers don't sell cars that are for all intents and purposes new or for almost full price of actually new.

Even if you have zero issues with the used games market, it should be pretty easy to understand what the "problem" is and understand that it is a legitimate concern for the publishers.