the used games arguement is flawed

[starrman]

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.

Yup.

I cannot fathom why people would support the games industry on this. If you buy something legally you are then the owner of that item. What you choose to do with this item is entirely up to you.

2nd hand games trading has been going on since the dawn of time. Companies are only getting on their high horse now because these days they spend too much making shitty crap that's half finished and nobody wants to own once they realise. Stop spending gazillions of $s on crap and focus on making games people will want to keep...

 

[lazyslothboy]

I think the biggest problem with used games is that it is a five dollar difference most of time. It strikes me as ridiculous that the people who buy it at the price $55 for a used game would be completely against paying for a $60 new game if the used option was unavailable.

 

[Nexus4]

legally though, aren't all ownership rights given to the person who buys a new copy of a game when they actually buy it? Wouldn't it be their legal right to sell it off used as they have total ownership of the copy of the game. If this is true, and held to the letter, then game companies restricting access to content on the disk after it has been sold used would infringe on the ownership rights of the person who bought it new. When they bought it, it became their legal property 100% and it is their right to sell the game in it's entirety. Companies that restrict content are infringing on the ownership rights of the original owner, that were transferred to the second owner when the game is sold used. Perhaps we'll see a lawsuit on this issue in the future...

 

[TPiddy]

The game companies just need to start lowering the prices of their games quicker. That's it. Close the window of opportunity for Gamestop to sell used. You keep a game at full price for a whole year, everyone is going to buy the used for 5 dollars cheaper and a 7 day guarantee instead of full price and you are stuck with it.

This is exactly it. The markdown is not enough. Movies start out at the theatre, where they are typically $12 - $15 a ticket, then they come out on demand or for rent at about $7, and then they later they start becoming free on TV. They have a graduated pricing model. Games stay the same damn price for way too long!

MW 2 is still over $50 pretty much everywhere I go. Brutal Legend, new, I got for $20 from Future Shop. And I liked it. Left 4 Dead 2 I got new, on special, for $40. The games industry is doing this to itself. They need the Gamestops and EBs of the world to distribute, but at the same time they have created a niche that Gamestop will happily fill and must fill in order to remain in business.

There are a couple of inherent problems with the current model:

1. Used games are indistinguishable in quality from new games.
2. Used games are available pretty much 1-2 weeks after the new version was released.
3. New game prices are so high that people are very picky about what they buy. New movies are around $20. Much less thought goes into what you will and will not spend $20 on than what you will or will not spend $60 on.

 

[TPiddy]

legally though, aren't all ownership rights given to the person who buys a new copy of a game when they actually buy it? Wouldn't it be their legal right to sell it off used as they have total ownership of the copy of the game. If this is true, and held to the letter, then game companies restricting access to content on the disk after it has been sold used would infringe on the ownership rights of the person who bought it new. When they bought it, it became their legal property 100% and it is their right to sell the game in it's entirety. Companies that restrict content are infringing on the ownership rights of the original owner, that were transferred to the second owner when the game is sold used. Perhaps we'll see a lawsuit on this issue in the future...

Well, it is legal, but many companies now are locking access to online play if you buy used, making you pay extra for it. If the game is sold largely based on its online feature this is just unfair. It'd be like selling Avatar but making you pay extra for the 3D if you bought it used.

 

[gl1koz3]

It's about experience. Only way to control that is to enforce some sort of central authorization. Ways to do that properly is an another discussion. But you certainly can't compare used games to piracy. It's just a way of admitting they can't think of anything else.

 

[Michael Logan]

The game companies just need to start lowering the prices of their games quicker. That's it. Close the window of opportunity for Gamestop to sell used. You keep a game at full price for a whole year, everyone is going to buy the used for 5 dollars cheaper and a 7 day guarantee instead of full price and you are stuck with it.

This is exactly it. The markdown is not enough. Movies start out at the theatre, where they are typically $12 - $15 a ticket, then they come out on demand or for rent at about $7, and then they later they start becoming free on TV. They have a graduated pricing model. Games stay the same damn price for way too long!

MW 2 is still over $50 pretty much everywhere I go. Brutal Legend, new, I got for $20 from Future Shop. And I liked it. Left 4 Dead 2 I got new, on special, for $40. The games industry is doing this to itself. They need the Gamestops and EBs of the world to distribute, but at the same time they have created a niche that Gamestop will happily fill and must fill in order to remain in business.

There are a couple of inherent problems with the current model:

1. Used games are indistinguishable in quality from new games.
2. Used games are available pretty much 1-2 weeks after the new version was released.
3. New game prices are so high that people are very picky about what they buy. New movies are around $20. Much less thought goes into what you will and will not spend $20 on than what you will or will not spend $60 on.

This. One of the reasons I buy games preowned is because I dont want to pay $65 for a game Im going to play once. Therefore I wait til the game goes down in price, this takes time and more often than not the preowned games gets lower price faster.

 

[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.

People who pirate vidoe games hate the industry more then jack thompson, I would rather invite him over to game then people who get there games off torrent

I don't care to find out who Jack Thompson is, but even without knowing it, you're just being ridiculous.

 

[gigastrike]

Developer ships out copy of game. Person A buys game new, developer makes money. Person A plays game and sells game back to store. Person B wants game, but doesn't want to spend as much money.

Option A: Buy used game. Store makes money, developer doesn't.

Option B: Pirate game. No one makes money.

Either way, the developer doesn't stand to make any money. It doesn't matter what happens to a used game because the developer already made all the money they possibly could off of it. Buying a game used doesn't have any effect on whether it was sold new because a used game can only be bought after it was already sold new. Therefore, buying a used game is equal to piracy in regards to the developer.

 

[Krantos]

OK, I'm not going to look through the last 3 pages to see if anyone else did this already, but here it goes.

Specifically, I'm addressing the argument that buying used means that 2 people enjoyed the game but the company only got paid for one.

-Person 1 buys the game for full price (lets assume $60). By doing so they have purchased the right to own the game.

-Then they sell it to Person 2 for $30, which in turn transfers their right to own to Person 2. Person 1 no longer has the right to own the game.

-They've received $30 of their Original $60 back, so they paid $30 to play the game but no longer have the right to own it.

-Person 2 paid $30 to play it and own it, but now it's used, which significantly lowers it's perceived value.

-Together Persons 1 & 2 paid $60 for the game. That means that one person is allowed to own the game.

-Person 2 has the right to own the game. Person 1 does not. All that has happened is that the price was divided between two people rather than one person paying for all of it.


I think where a lot of people are stumbling here is the misconception that "enjoying" a game is the same as owning it. It's not. If I lend a game to my friend for a weekend, should he have to pay the devs for it? No.

Having the right to own means that you keep it in your possession permanently unless you sell that right. Once sold, you no longer have that right. That means that selling your used games is legal. Copying them and selling the copies is not.



Personally, I think this argument is funny. Not so much what people say, but where it came from.

Developers and Publishers LOVE the console market, because gamers play a game for a while, then shelve it for a new one. That means that they're almost always looking for a new game. That's a ton of money for the game's industry.

Unfortunately for the games industry, they failed to consider the downside to this - Console gamers see no need to own a game long term. Owning it for a month or two is usually enough. That means that rather than let their games collect dust, they sell them to recoup their losses.

So the industry is placed in a difficult position. The very economic model that garners so many new sales also yields increased trade in used games.

So what do they do? Do they accept it as a part of the process? Do they welcome the chance to target more and more audiences when people who wouldn't have purchased the game at full price buy it used instead (btw, contrary to belief this can be good, if the game is good, because it can bring in new fans)? Do they start developing games with more long term appeal so that people don't want to sell them?

No. They piss and moan and try to claim that it violates their rights.

This is only an issue because of the mainstreaming of games and the generally disposable nature of console games. It would not be an issue if people had a reason to keep games, but the very disposable nature of console games is what the developers want because it keeps demand up.


In short, the used games controversy only exists because the industry wants the best of both worlds. They want gamers to continually purchase new games, but they don't want them getting rid of their old ones. They can't have both. At least not without some really stupid legislation.


Oh, and btw.

Ahem - STOP TRADING AT GAMESTOP (or similar retailers). SELL/BUY ONLINE FROM OTHER PEOPLE. IT WILL SAVE YOU MONEY.

Seriously, the buyer gets the game for less than the stores sell them, and the seller gets more than the stores will buy them for.

 

[TPiddy]

This. One of the reasons I buy games preowned is because I dont want to pay $65 for a game Im going to play once. Therefore I wait til the game goes down in price, this takes time and more often than not the preowned games gets lower price faster.

Exactly... and rather than punish the retailers who are 'stealing their business' they try to punish the consumer instead.

 

[StriderShinryu]

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

Well, others have already covered issues like wear and tear (doesn't exist with games as the new product is the same as the used one) and continued maintenance related revenue (games don't need maintenance, many other used items do) so there's no need to mention that again. If you're talking about entertainment media specifically, well, it's still vastly different. Games only have one revenue stream, that being the new copy sale. Every other entertainment medium, however, has multiple revenue streams so the loss of new copy sales doesn't hurt them near as much. There's certainly some ground for debate on this topic as a whole, but comparing used games to used anything else doesn't hold any water.

 

[Deshin]

If I buy 1 original game and pirate 4 others and you buy 5 used games then I've done more for the industry than you and you have absolutely no right to turn your nose up at me.

Can you dispute that bottom line?

 

[halbarad]

Not that I mean to directly defend the publishers viewpoint, but you seem to have the missed the point.

Someone else bought that game first. You are interested playing the game. You are also willing to pay for the game, even though you want to save a little cash.

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.

Now, the value of 1 game has served 2 people and the profit from that second consumer is lost.
If that same copy is sold used again, another potential profit is lost.

It sounds a little extreme, but as far as the publishers are concerned, it has the exact same effect as piracy. Possibly even worse, because pirates never planned on paying for it. So not only are they not getting any money, the profit from the copy that they themselves produced is going entirely to someone uninvolved to save them money.

Edit: And no, I don't think that tyrannical copyright protections are okay, and I merely meant to describe how the publishers see it themselves.

its ok. I just saw some idiots defending the game companies and it pissed me off.

Think about that for a little while. Oh okay, sure. Let's just sabotage all of the companies (filled with hard working people that these days have less than great job security) that make the games that we want to play!

This person speaks truth in what appears to be a sea full of overwhelming wrongitude!

But seriously, it's incredibly rare I'll buy a game used. I will only buy used if there isn't a new copy available simply because this used-market that's spreading around is damaging the games industry.

If people want games, start paying for them. And I don't mean pay the middle man/game shop. I mean pay for a new game so the people who make the game actually get something, even if it means shopping around for a bargain which means you have to wait or even straight out waiting for a sale/price drop.

Hell, buy games on steam. Especially in the sales.


-----


Oh, and somebody early on in this thread mentioned CD's, DVD's, etc. If you read there are actually rules against lending, loaning, etc of them. Nobody enforces them, but they are there.

 

[veloper]

If I buy 1 original game and pirate 4 others and you buy 5 used games then I've done more for the industry than you and you have absolutely no right to turn your nose up at me.

Can you dispute that bottom line?

QFT. That's what it was all about.

Nobody is questioning the legality of buying used games and that's what the OP doesn't get. You do.

 

[StriderShinryu]

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

Well, others have already covered issues like wear and tear (doesn't exist with games as the new product is the same as the used one) and continued maintenance related revenue (games don't need maintenance, many other used items do) so there's no need to mention that again. If you're talking about entertainment media specifically, well, it's still vastly different. Games only have one revenue stream, that being the new copy sale. Every other entertainment medium, however, has multiple revenue streams so the loss of new copy sales doesn't hurt them near as much. There's certainly some ground for debate on this topic as a whole, but comparing used games to used anything else doesn't hold any water.

Cars need maintenance BUT you don't have to pay JEEP, Ford, etc... for that maintenance. You can buy third party parts (usually cheaper) and you can take it to a local shop or you can fix it yourself. Heck, you can even go to a junkyard to get official used parts for very very cheap.

Used books can be in perfect condition too. Most people take care of their belongings and so if they sell them they are in very good and functioning condition.

Used CD/DVD's, yeah, they can also be in perfect condition.

The game industry has you all fooled into thinking they are victims, while they play a "buyer beware" scam on you. You can't return an opened game AND you can't read the EULA, test the game, etc.. without opening it. What an awesome scam. What if you buy a vacuum cleaner and you open it and it doesn't work, can you take it back?

You don't have to pay Jeep, Ford, etc. for vehicle maintenance and upkeep, but many do. It's like having the option of needing to repair your computer and taking it back to where you bought it or the PC shop down the street. Both get your PC fixed, but one is more famiiar and more "accepted."

Used books, CDs, DVDs, etc. can all be in great condition when purchased used, sure, but the makers of those products don't really care about the used markets nearly as much. Why? Initial cost isn't as high and they easily recoup lost profits in that market elsewhere. Books undergo multiple version releases, re-releases, recovers, movie right sales, etc. The music industry has all of it's licensing, merch, touring, etc. Movies have multiple version releases, cross advertising promotions, etc. It's not about the used product being somehow inherently worse than the new product, it's about the used market being more damaging to the authors of the game experience than in other forms of entertainment media.

As for the vacuum cleaner bit, I think you're off there as well. If I buy a vacuum and it doesn't work, or doesn't work in the way advertised, then the product may be defective and I have every right to return it. If I buy a vacuum and then decide I don't like the colour I can try returning it but may be refused because the problem isn't with the product. If I buy a game and it actually doesn't work most stores will allow you to return it in my experience. If I buy a game and decide I don't like it then, once again, it's not that the product is defective and many stores won't accept the return.

 

[halbarad]

"I would argue that used game stores help the industry. They act like a second chance for games that most people would never pay full price for. When Wal Mart marks games down to clearance prices, is that hurting the game industry too?

Also, consumers know that without used game stores, their purchase is permanent since it is hard to return opened software. This affects buying decisions. I don't sell games so I am careful to only buy what I KNOW I will like. I pass on games that I am unsure of or I wait until they are clearanced out in retail stores or cheap in used game stores.

Loaning a cd is unenforceable and I doubt there are any laws against it since you can do what you wish with a product once you purchase it. Imagine if Sony told you that your new TV could only be used by you at your house."

If you argue that, you're wrong. Simple fact.
How does it act like a second chance for a game? Sure, a person buys that game but it doesn't benefit the industry in the slightest unless those people then nag a few people into buying brand-new copies of that self-same game.

Get this into your head. Sales to the stores on used games does not = money into the industry.
No, it's not because the price is agreed by the pub and it still generates them money. Face facts, they know much more about business than you, or I, ever will.

... what?
Sales are always permanent and what does this have to do with anything. I'm saying that buying pre-owned is bad for the industry which it is. Your argument is that... pre-owned shops are good because you can offload unwanted games to them?
Please, please, please; tell me how this has any relevance to the argument?

I think you'll find out by reading many regulations that loaning of any material, CD, DVD, etc is against the rules. They can't enforce the rules but they are still there. Why don't you have a read through some of your CD's and look at the end of the credits of your DVD's. It's all there plain to see.
Your TV comparison is stupid. As stupid as the car comparison in the other thread and any other comparisons. It's a completely different standard to set and it's pointless. It's like comparing a cow to an orange.

-

Strider is correct as well. All sales returned due to product defect by law have to be refunded (if you live in one of these proper countries that have laws against selling faulty products and if having sold one you have to take it back and refund if there is sufficient proof)

 

[StriderShinryu]

Then it looks like game companies need to adapt then. They cant force the market to change they have to actually change themselves. Just because games only have one avenue of making revenue that doenst make them special in anyway. The thing is its the exact same as any other used product. You buy the product and aslong as your not infinging on the copyright you can legally do whatever the hell you want with it.

I absolutely agree, but that doesn't validate the comparisons many people are making. Of course, when other options are brought forward by the game industry many gamers seem to throw fits. Things like heavier reliance on DLC, smaller (but in total more expensive) episodic style games, attaching some sort of subscription service to games, cash unlockable extra modes and content, etc. have all been brought up as ways for game companies to change up their way of making revenue beyond just the new copy sale. The only way for game companies to spread out their revenues a bit that gamers seem to widely support is a plan to lower prices in a quicker and more balanced fashion so there's less interest in buying used (and less profit in it for companies like GameStop). It may be an intelligent move but it's pretty obvious to see why game companies aren't exactly diving on board as no profit driven industry likes to say "we're going to sell our products for less than we think someone will pay for them."

 

[Deshin]

nope that is where im 100% right, they are not gamers they do not support the industry. Are you saying you download games illegally?

I've got over 60 PS2 titles, over 40 360 titles, and a handful of PC/PSP/PS1 titles all original and none used/second hand/rented, that means the majority of the cash went straight into the dev's pocket and not the store's. The total value of all of the above easily ranks in a couple of grand. Especially seeing as most of the PS2 games here were LM32 (? 75) per new release. (yeah, local game retailers have a monopoly, sucks doesn't it?) That's roughly 4k (give or take half a grand) on video games over the last 10 years, most of which went to devs and the industry.

I may or may not (I admit to nothing) have a few PSP or PS1 titles acquired through illicit means playable on my PSP (once again, I admit to nothing).

Tell me right up now to my face (well, you know what I mean) that I am not a gamer and I'm a parasite on the industry.

 

[Deshin]

Steal games, your a parasite to the industry and not a gamer.

So there's no such thing as shades of grey? Everything is clear cut black and white like that?

Then we have come to, what I like to call, an impasse.