the used games arguement is flawed

[randomsix]

You go purchase a used car but for the car to work you have to pay the company that made the car for a code that allows the car to drive. A car that you just paid for. Any person would be fucking pissed about that. Then you would have some extremely thick people going. "But dude, the company that produced that car deserves compensation, otherwise its just stealing from them"

Sorry just got pissed

But the games work without the code, so it's not like a car that won't drive. The game does the primary thing it is designed for, there's just some bonus material that you miss out on. It's more like paying for a used car with a broken radio and then having to pay extra to get the radio fixed. Also, you know ahead of time that there is content for games that you have to pay extra for if you get it used. It's not like they hide that from you.

Somebody goes to a bookstore and wants to buy a book, but there are only two copies. A new, expensive copy and an old used copy with several middle chapters torn out. It says this clearly over the price tag, that pages are missing. If you buy the used book, is it really the fault of the publisher that the pages are missing?

It is the fault of the publisher when it tore the pages out.

The analogy is not compatible with your argument.

As far as codes go, I have never had any of my consoles connected to the internet, and have no inclination to do so, so how am I going to validate my code? They can't put them all on the disc because someone would find them and post a generator online.

 

[hooksashands]

Did anyone ever stop to consider that the only reason Gamestop manages to write checks for its employees (i.e. friends and family) is because they sell used games?

If they only made money from new releases or were paying royalties to the studio that made the game everytime someone bought a used copy, then they would be bankrupt in a matter of days.

Gamestop isn't getting rich from this. They pay their dues just like everybody else. And since 99% of their employees are videogamers, doesn't it stand to reason that some of their wages go towards new releases/mint copies?

 

[godofallu]

Anyone else find the OP's point to be fucking stupid as hell? Seriously does he actually think that first line makes any sense?

I mean I buy used games all the time, but i'm smart enough to know that gaming companies don't get any money from that. In all seriousness the point some people who care about this topic (not me) are trying to make is that pirate the game = $0 for game company. Buy used = $0 for game company.

I'm not saying you shouldn't buy used, i'm just laughing my ass off at the logic fails the OP has everywhere. Someone bought the game new once = used game sales are better than piracy? That my friend is a logic fail. The reason is because it has no bearing on the ultimate point which you are trying to argue against; how much actual dollars a company gets from used versus pirating.

 

[Monshroud]

It's not like the money is being taken from them, someone else is just making it , Gamestop. Either way they still got paid for 100,000 copies, and only had to manufacture/distribute 100,000 copies.

See this is actually another flaw, because not everyone pre-orders a game. You have sales projections, so for arguments sake, there are "20,000" copies now not being purchased because people are buying used copies soon after the game is released. So they are losing value.

If you get the chance to open and run your own business I would like to see how you feel when you work to produce a product and someone says, "It's not like the money is being taken from you, someone else is just making it."

 

[octafish]

As a PC gamer all I can say is suck it up. I don't even own the games I buy new, it says right there in my license agreement, that the publisher is just letting me use their code for a while. I've learnt to accept that.

As someone who produces copyrightable material for a living I say used games are stealing income from the publisher. Everyone has the right to protect their intellectual property from exploitation from others. With all the game companies going under and being bought out why shouldn't game producers look for all the lost profit they can? I haven't bought a Ubisoft game since they introduced their draconian DRM, but I can see why they did it.

If you don't like paying for day one DLC or multiplayer doodads then don't play their games. Because you have no purchasing power if you buy used, you just have to take it.

EDIT: Reminds me of a China piracy joke my cousin told me. There are two Abode sales execs sitting in a bar at a conference one covering China and the other Europe. The European guy says
"Last quarter despite the release of CS5 our Photoshop sales dropped 15% to 60,000 copies, I'm worried about my job."
The other exec says, "You're worried abour your job, last quarter our Photoshop sales only went up 100%".
The first guy says "You doubled your Photoshop sales? China must be a huge market. How many copies did you sell?"
"Two."


EDIT EDIT: Basically it isn't illegal for you to buy and sell your console games. It also isn't illegal for the companies to try an recoup some of the income lost by these practices. So once again buy new, or buy used and suck it up.

 

[Jkudo]

snip

lol sorry what i meant to say is its not like the consumer is taking money from them, yet the consumer is being punished. Yes you are right that would mean 20,000 games that wouldn't be bought new but chances are if the 20,000 people couldn't get the game used they probably wouldn't get it if there is a significant price difference. So even if 20,000 copies are bought a few months later used that doesn't mean the publisher missed out on revenue from 20,000 copies, but in the case of new games, i can see your point, maybe a difference of a few bucks, but once again you can't blame people for seeing the cheaper one and buying it, if Gamestop sells a used game for $54 and the publisher doesnt get any, thats not my fault, all i did was buy from a store. Instead of trying to charge and guilt your customers, why not take it up with the retailers who are selling your games at high prices then selling them again for lower prices without sending you any.

I sincerely hope to make games one day and i've thought about it, used sales wouldn't bother me, i'd be a developer , i would have already got paid lol it's publishers that would be askkng for more money i'd probably never see.
At the end of the day, if you try to guilt people or punish them you just ruin your image and look ridiculous. Like someone above me said its not illegal for them to try to recover some cash, but why not take it from the people actually selling your used games?
Edit: someone else above me made a valid point about gamestop needing the revenue from used sales, while it is an important part of there revenue stream, retail markup is substantial, which is why games bought digitally or generally much cheaper(despite the distributing and whatnot). Also i dont want to demonize the retailer because they do need to pay there employees, but gamestop for example, pay very little to get those used games.

 

[spiritslayr]

I rarely buy Used games as I'm a bit OCD with the front covers and manuals looking perfect which you don't necessarily get with Used.
The only game I have pre-owned is Halo 3 and that's because my original disk got scratched and I didn't want to pay £25 for a new copy when I could pay £15.
I think the issue that developers have with used games is that the stores make such a huge profit on them. In my local game shop they offered me £2 for a like-new copy of Assassins Creed 1 and would have sold it for £8-£12.

 

[MrJohnson]

Wait, I thought games worked like every other industry ever. Where they sell the product to the stores and the stores make a profit. If it doesn't work that way that's just stupid.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Unfortunately, neither the companies nor the consumers are completely innocent in this argument. If everyone were forced to buy new copies, prices would rise, and privacy abuses (such as protection systems phoning home to reveal playing habits) would skyrocket. Yet, games without copy protection are pirated just as ruthlessly as those that have it.

But what I've seen so far is that companies like to alternate treating software purchases as media or as licenses as it suits them. Injustices are more apparent in the music industry, where DRM encrypted music files expire as their CODECs are retired. That song you bought for Zune 1.0 is incompatible with Zune 1.3. Does Microsoft honor your licenses and upgrade your tunes to the new protocol? Nope. You have to buy it again, just as ownership of the LP White Album doesn't entitle you to the CD (which, if it's a license, it should).

Like music artists, we're a couple of steps removed from the development teams. They make the game, and then the publishing houses slap on the DRM devices, the required service requirements, the play restrictions and so on. They're the ones destroying your gaming experience. Of that $60 price tag you pay, the Dev team sees about $5.

If you want to support the developers, pirate the stonking game and then cut the development house a check for $20. And then encourage your buddies to do the same.

Incidentally, as a PC user, my sources for preowned games have been eBay and Craigslist. But these days, I'm patient enough to wait until a game drops to a reasonable price. This also has the lovely side effect of ensuring those bugs that would be patched out, are.

U.

 

[CplDustov]

Used games 'steal' dev profits in exactly the same why I 'steal' from Whirlpool by not willfully destroying my washing machine. The whole thing is absurd. That my choice somehow reduces their profitability, despite not breaking contracts, does not make me a 'thief'.

Hahaha love the comparison more than anything that's happened all day.

so was the PIRATED GAME. do you really think pirates get their game from nothing? no. they BUY the game, and then UPLOAD it.

True, but I think the point is the purchase of the new game would be able to support the player that bought it. If that copy moves owner it's still one person; an uploaded copy multiples whereas a preowned game doesn't

 

[migo]

dude the pro piracy people will never see that, they will keep saying what they do is better then buying used and then run away. They are afraid of logic and fact, it scares them so.

No, it's more like the devs started bitching about used games so people say screw it, lets not pay anybody at all.

 

[shadisky]

I only buy used games because that's all I can generally afford. If I like the series, or really want to support the developer, I'll save up and will buy it new.

Also, buying a copy of a game means you can do almost anything you want with it. It's like buying any other form of art/entertainment media. that physical copy is yours to stomp on, lose, get stolen, or lend (or use, obviously). you can't reproduce it, or use it's data, in any professional (for money) way.

I just now realised that someone already said this, so yes, I did just pull a noob move


I appologise for the plagerism.

 

[Pimptimus_Prime]

Normally I would stay out of this, but unfortunately the few people who have brought up the real point seem to have been ignored. None of you, on either side of this, have any sort of valid arguments:

When a game is made, a publisher orders what is known as a "Print Run". This is the sum total of copies of the game that have been ordered by retailers. Each and every copy of those games is then payed for by the individual retailers who will be selling the game. So if Walmart orders 250,00 copies of the game and Gamestop orders 100,00 and Best Buy orders 150,000, those retailers pay for all 500,000 copies of that game. They then sell those games for an amount that they agreed with the publisher would be a fair amount of profit (The MSRP, or Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price). If the game proves popular enough to sell out that first run, a "Second Print Run" is ordered and often times a new amount of payment per unit is negotiated. this second run can be more profitable than the first for the Publisher and the Development Houses, but not always. No matter what, both Publisher and Developer have received fair payment for ALL COPIES in circulation. Their current argument is merely an attempt to make slightly more out of their IP.

All that being said, I actually hope the game companies succeed. If I am thinking about buying a game used, I will factor any cost associated to play online into my decision and buy accordingly. Not rocket science here.

 

[hooksashands]

If we were talking about a privately owned business where you can sell/trade games, is that considered criminal too? Or does the blame rest solely on Gamestop?

 

[Michael Logan]

I dont see the problem here, If they remove features from preowned games, gamestop has to sell the preowned game cheaper because its not a whole game.

I get the game even cheaper than before and everyone is happy, no?

 

[Der Kommissar]

You buy the game at discount, and get your enjoyment out of it. Thus, you have received your value out of the product, and those who worked to make it receive nothing.

It's not like there exists any legislative or logical entitlement for a Creator of goods to reap every profit of what is their Creation when it has gone out of their hand and exchanged owners.

It's interesting to see yet another paradigm shift. Or perhaps the defendants are just not online right now.

 

[b3nn3tt]

I'll care about the developers and publishers getting my money as soon as they care about my finances. I don't care that Gamestop gets the profits from used game sales because they offer a service that saves me money. The publishers complain that they aren't making money on multiplayer, well quit focusing on that and make compelling single player games, but then they wouldn't sell 25 million copies of Modern Warfare 2.

The used games argument is all because of a problem the developers and publishers partially created by making sub par games at a cheaper price by adding multiplayer and neglecting the actual game and now they need to create a boogeyman to demonize so they can beg for more money.

I completely agree with this. If developers are concerned about a lack of sales, it should suggest to them that the game they've made isnt good enough for people to either buy in the first place or keep

If a game is released that only lasts five or six hours, with a strong emphasis on multiplayer, then there will always be people who don't really care about the multiplayer, so once they complete the game (in a very short space of time) there is little incentive for them to keep it, especially if those five or six hours weren't even that great

Similarly, developers don't lose any money in terms of multiplayer from used game sales. They just don't gain as much as they want. If I go out and buy a used copy of Modern Warfare 2, for example, I would be able to play it online, taking the place of the original buyer of the game. So there is one game, and one person playing online. No loss, just no additional profit

For me, I think that a reasonable solution to the 'problem' of used games, would be to make games DLC-heavy, but release them new for a lot less money. This would solve the issue of developers not making money from used game sales, as people could still buy the DLC and give money to the developers. It would also be better for the customer, as you have to pay less money for a new game; if you like it, then you can pay some money for extra content for the game, if you don't like it then it's less of a loss than it currently is. Also, this system could be used for mulitplayer, so that the game you buy new from the shop is single-player, and you can buy the multi-player aspects if that's what appeals to you

Obviously there are a few flaws to this idea,but I like to think that in principle it's a reasonable solution

 

[Altar]

I don't really understand people that find buying used games wrong. Mainly because how is it any different to buying anything else used?! You know, cars, Tvs, PCs, books, clothes and what not... unless of course you find that wrong as well, do you people?! So why are games so... er, special?!

 

[Jandau]

Oh boy, this old chestnut again? Oh well, let's cover the bases:

The "Developers get nothing from the second hand sale" argument. There are two respones I have to this:

Response 1: Same goes for EVERY used item industry EVER. Why should games get special treatment?

Response 2: Why should I care? Arguing that publishers and developers want to make money is all well and good, but in the end it's simply Capitalism. So why am I not allowed to be a capitalist as well? They want to make money, I want to save money. Why should I feel bad about wanting to keep my profit? Why should their bottom line be more important to me than my own? And if there's a legal way for me to get games that saves me money, why shouldn't I take it? The "They need money" argument cuts both ways. You can't have just the half that serves your point.

- - -

However, here's some ammo for the other side as well:

The reason games are different than cars is that there is minimal (if any) loss of value due to it being used. Used cars are cheaper, but they are also worn, torn, smell funny, etc. Used clothes are worn, used books might be damaged. Used games either work (no loss of value) or they don't (in which case you return them and demand your money back). There is no downside to buying used. That is also why second hand dealers can sell used games at almost the same price as new ones.

This is also the logic behind EA's "Project $10", with one-use codes in new copies of games. They are trying to create an artificial "decay" of value of the used product as well as bring in some money from those sales. Personally, I support that idea and think it's far better than just ripping people off on overpriced DLC later on (which EA also does, but that's another matter).

- - -

Finally, comparing Piracy to Used game trade:

Are you serious? Legality aside... no, wait, you can't just say "Legality aside". Used games are LEGAL. Saying people shouldn't sell their old games is saying that those people don't have any rights as customers and consumers. It's saying they are simply paying for a VERY expensive rental. It's also spitting in the face of the very concept of ownership.

Gaming industry needs to get over itself on MANY levels...

 

[Alandoril]

If the person buying used wasn't going to buy new in the first place, the company haven't lost any money they just haven't gained any.