the used games arguement is flawed

[Dr. HeatSync]

What I find amazing is that people still perceive developers and publishers as evil corporations whose purpose in their lives is to make as much money as possible. I think in order to understand why the games industry would attempt to combat used sales brings us to the start of developing a game.

Picture this scenario: starting off a new game idea as a developer, it'll probably take around 2-3 years to finish development. This is even better if you're completely new because then it means you have absolutely zero income. Those 2-3 years where you have to live off what a publisher has invested into you, and you need to make that much to break even (although that doesn't impress any publisher, you need much more than that).

That development time is where you realise that every physical copy is like your life blood; if you lost a sale, thats another blow towards your chance of breaking even or making a profit. It is also seen as a blow towards potential advancements (sequels, new IPs, licensing another engine and so on) A used sale is viewed like a lost sale because no money goes to either party who made the game and instead goes to the retailer. Think whatever you want about that, but both the developer and publisher would've definitely needed that money. Piracy is viewed the same way regardless of whether someone d/l'd Kane and Lynch 2 just to see how bad it was.

So EA comes up with a system, a survival tool known as Project Ten Dollar, which means that new customers are rewarded, or in most player's perspectives, used customers are punished, and considering that developing games is often a very long famine with little to no water for 2 years, can you not see why they are trying to fight that?

People seem to be bewildered at such a choice, when actually this is fucking common sense to come up with a system that helps them survive the long famine, to get something even out of consumers who buy used games. It's almost like everyone has gotten too used to the luxury of Valve's marketing strategy and forgotten that both the developers and publishers are a business first and fun makers second because they need to survive in order to make fun games.

And to those who argue that new games are too expensive and so you buy used, I can't help but imagine this feels more tailored to you because not only to you get the game cheaper, you get the choice of contributing to the companies; to pay for the DLC that is normally free for those who buy new. You pay less and can still contribute, so what exactly is the problem here? You gonna 'boycott and pirate it in the name of fairness'? Is it that the game industry was the first to come up with an alternative/back up method to making a profit?

 

[Jandau]

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.

Books.

Thank you, bye.

 

[halbarad]

Here's what I see.

Everyone says that the game industry can't be compared to any other industry because they know that when compared to any other industry, it really shows the greed of the game industry. So they give every excuse (prices, cost to make, etc...) for claiming that the gaming industry is different and therefore immune to the First Sale Doctrine.

Further, how many of you trust the industry? If the used game stores went away tomorrow, do you think game prices would rise or fall in the long run? Well, with no competition and their no return scam, I can't see why they would fall, indeed I think the prices will rise.

The industry blames everyone for their woes. The pirates and now the used game shops. Who's next?

Stop defending these guys while they raise prices and make life more complicated via DRM.

How do you even work this crap out?
The fact of the matter is the majority of the gaming industry is losing money, they're having to cut costs, drop titles, cut staff. Most are trying to regain their expenditure on the games and obviously make some operating income so they can make the new game.

Idiots like you are the ones who seem to expect to get things cheaper than what they cost to make, then expect a long line of things the exact same way. I hate to break this to you, games cost money to make and it's not cheap, especially looking at top titles like CoD, FIFA, Madden, Final Fantasy, Mass Effect, MoH, Dragon Age - I could list a LOT more. These have higher expenditure in making than most Hollywood films.
Let me explain it this way. If a game costs 32 million, then it sells enough to make back 28 million then a load of used copies that could generate 16 million are sold, the game has still lost 4 million instead of gaining 12 million towards the next game.

It isn't about trust. You're taking from the industry, you're taking their ideas and products, you should pay them. Not pay some thieving middle-man.

DRM is there to stop people who steal, get used copies, and the like.
Jesus christ, I get so irritated with people like you. How self-entitled and arrogant can you be? Not everything in life is free and people who work for a living and make something deserve paying for their hard work...

---

"They are trying to double dip. If the game is up for sale in Gamestop, eBay, etc... then that means that someone already bought it new. The pubs and devs have already been paid.

Are you against the First Sale Doctrine?"
You don't understand how sales work do you? You really are clueless to it all and most of us are just arguing with somebody with no concept of how the system works and is just trying to string together some self-entitled crap.

 

[JPH330]

Comparing used games to used cars is retarded.

That is all.

 

[ChristopherT]

I haven't heard of anyone bringing this up yet (and if it's said earlier in this topic, sorry, haven't read all the posts, gotta leave soon, stupid I know.) but why if it's such a big deal to them can't the companies offer to buy their games back used themselves, then they can end up making more money off a single disc by reselling it. It wouldn't be that difficult to do and the game makers would be making the extra bucks from used sales themselves. All they would have to do is setup a system for it through their websites, maybe hire a few extra employees, creates a few more jobs, the customer gets to sell their used games, gets to buy used direct from the company, and the company gets the money, win - win.

 

[bpm195]

It troubles me to see consumers arguing for a business' profit margins. The recurring them in the anti used game argument is that since developers mainly profit on the first sell, it's reasonable for them to attach fees to used sells. From a perspective of being sympathetic to businesses that makes sense, but from a consumers perspective I really have to wonder why any consumer would be sympathetic to businesses.

That said, if they want reward customers by creating extra content that's available for free to people that buy new, that's fine. It's a smart business move that inconveniences used buyers but doesn't trample on anybody's rights. However, when there's a feature on the disc and it's only accessible to the first buyer while all subsequent have to pay a fee, then that's a problem.

The way I see it, there is a clear line drawn when the disc is printed. Whether you buy new or used, when you buy the disc you buy the content of the disc and should be able to access it. It's the difference between what EA did with Rock Band 2 and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11.

Rock Band 2 included a free license to a certain set of downloadable songs released at a later date; a well played feature that rewarded people who bought new because they were getting something in addition to the disc, that technically doesn't even require RB2 to access.

Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11 on the other hand on the other hand only allowed players to access the online portion of the game when it was purchased new, or if they paid a fee. Online play was included on the disc, so removing it crossed the line.

I wouldn't say my stance is perfect, but it creates a nice middle ground where it's easy to distinguish between the business incentivising new sales and taxing used sales.

 

[Dexiro]

I think the issue is the scale of the profits that are being lost to used sales.
Selling used games shouldn't be banned or anything, it's perfectly normal, but i can understand why developers would want to see a return from it if like more than half of game sales are for used games. That's a big chunk of money they're missing, and considering the rising price of game development they're gonna want some of that chunk back.

I think it'd be good enough if developers got something small like $1 per used game, either through the retailer or consumer. It's not a massive price to pay and it'd add up eventually. Then again DLC already does that job for them.

 

[Dr. HeatSync]

-snip

They are trying to double dip. If the game is up for sale in Gamestop, eBay, etc... then that means that someone already bought it new. The pubs and devs have already been paid.

Are you against the First Sale Doctrine?

After having a look at wiki, it looks like I'm partially correct where I stand, literally, in Europe there is no First Sale Doctrine, and France has the 'Droit de suite' (Right to Follow) where there is the right for the artist to net money from resales. So if Project Ten Dollar is illegal in the U.S. then they employ their survival tool in Europe and other parts of the world.

But then I'd imagine that the weight of the American law would be against EA and the like, as opposed to the audience, and since they've yet to actually feel that weight, that suggests that either no one has looked at it, or theres a loophole.

It might be that the DLC is not considered as part of the product but as a 'giveaway'. The right to use the DLC is given to the individual who purchased the game as an optional bonus, and that right is permanently fixed (and of course, non-transferable) to that user account when the DLC serial code is entered. Someone who buys used gets the base game, but doesn't have the right to use the 'expansion' DLC transferred, and must purchase the right and therefore buy new DLC.

In short, what you have the right to is the base game when buying new, and the free DLC is perhaps seen as a promotional offer as opposed to a purchase. When buying used, you don't buy the rights to the DLC.

This is purely theoretical, but if there was a loophole its probably this. I don't know that much about the American law, but this my suspicion. EA aren't thick, they wouldn't do something that would get them irreversible damage from the law... I think.

As for being against the First Sale Doctrine, honestly I don't know what to think of it. On one hand profit is always good, but on another I personally wouldn't want money if someone got a heavily scratched version of a media, and with used sales nothing is really guaranteed, and I'd feel as though I was ripping someone off, so no I would not be against the doctrine.

If my theory turns out wrong then I guess I have to agree with the Doctrine and what EA are doing is clearly wrong.

 

[Dr. HeatSync]

-snip

-snip

-snippety snip.

Fair enough.

I don't know if what EA is doing is illegal but I do think it is wrong. I don't think they are entitled to being paid twice for one copy of the game since it can be used by only one person at a time. It's possible the market will punish them and then they will whine about lost sales. Just like when they released Spore with bad DRM and were boycotted and slammed with lots of negative reviews. That's the market responding.

Well thats feedback from the audience itself, but its like a message in a foreign language and the translator's experience being from reading subtitles from anime; theres a message but it could be interpreted as wildly as one can guess. You could argue that MW2 was overpriced, but according to sales, apparently people enjoy it. (well actually I do like it but journeying into this might be irrelevant)

If my theory is correct, and what actually causes this to be completely legal: EA technically aren't being paid twice for the game itself, instead merely issuing DLC to those who don't own the right, which is given as a bonus for buying the game new.

It might not be a likable or popular strategy for survival, but if it works it establishes more security, and maybe developers might be willing to take slightly bigger risks because the losses won't be as harsh as they used to be, because as we all know, when games bomb, they really, REALLY bomb.

 

[TPiddy]

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


2. Used games are available pretty much 1-2 weeks after the new version was released.

And why is that? Short, bad, no replay value? Make something worth 60$ and I'll buy it and keep it, simple. Keep churning out 5 hour games with downloadable map packs and I'll just laugh at "the industry".

Hey I'm saying it is a problem with the current model, but one of the reasons this happens is because employees get a game before it goes on release... so many of them get it, play it and trade it back in ASAP. Also, by keeping trade-in values high it encourages players to trade it in as soon as possible to maximize return.

 

[Dr. HeatSync]

-Perma snip

Well if it gets to that point then there will be outcry. This is when it directly affects the experience, and means that a used buyer will definitely have to start forking out money towards the publisher and maybe that would be against the First Sale Doctrine.

But I think its best to remind ourselves: publishers and developers are not evil, they are beings with reason. I wouldn't imagine them purposefully deciding that part 3 of the next craptastic JRPG would only be accessible to new buyers, or that in Dragon Age 2 the final boss says 'to fight me you must first purchase some Premium Content and only then can you finish the game' (and DA was the worst to flaunt its DLC). Such an action gathers controversy, only I imagine that it would weigh much more in the used buyers favour because then you have in real definition an incomplete game, and they have the defense of previous games not going this far, unless of course the publisher finds a loophole.

And no publishers will not rejoice if they can find an even more effective method than the last one they invented, and be able to use it. Nay, they will use such methods without a second thought. They believe that it supports the industry. Its only when a company is actually burned do they take action to fix something. They are investors first and entertainment second.

 

[TPiddy]

So when Gamestop pays nothing for your used game, they are bad. When they pay alot for your used game, they are bad.

I'm not saying they are bad. I'm saying that's one of the reasons why used versions appear so soon after new. No one would go to theatres if new-release movies were available to rent 2 weeks later.

 

[halbarad]

Prove that they are losing money because of me instead of from bad decisions. Do you think EA should have been boycotted over the DRM on Spore? Well, those are the types of decisions I am talking about.

Did it occur to you that they are losing money because they are making bad decisions? Don't spend more money making a game than you can get back. Don't treat your customer like thieves.

You do realise the boycott didn't happen don't you?
Spore sold a shit load of copies.

EA for example lost money from a variety of things. Some games not selling well (Dead Space and Mirrors Edge as examples) yet costing a lot to make because they were new IP's and took a lot more resources, trying to add something new to the industry. The pre-owned situation cost them a lot, wasn't much under 2 years ago that John Riticello was talking about it.

When you heard that US auto makers were in trouble, did you run out and buy a Chevy or did you feel that they dug this hole for themselves?

I don't give a crap about them, why would I. I wouldn't even buy a game from a dev just cause they're going under.

Calling me names doesn't help your argument, it might even hinder it. You don't know my buying habits so don't tell me what I expect.

I think I do since you've already said you won't buy a game at all until you already know you'll like it, and then you buy pre-owned.
Names wont hinder it because what I'm saying, while being aggressive, is based in fact.

Everything costs money to make but no other industry is allowed to circumvent the first sale doctrine.

Quit your fascist first sale doctrine rubbish, it's boring now.

Yes, your point is? People buy and sell used DVD's too but I don't hear the studios whining about the first sale doctrine.

I think you'll find that they don't care because most films don't rely solely on DVD sales.

I can make up numbers too but that doesn't put that amount of money in the bank. Every other industry has to deal with the used market and gaming should be no different.

Can you? I haven't seen one single fact come from you yet. Just mere speculation based on atrocious inaccuracies and personal self-worth.

Yes, it is about trust because if the pubs had no competition from the used market they could charge you anything they want. Since the gaming industry has shown that it doesn't mind screwing consumers to help their bottom line, I don't see why you would trust them.

I am not taking from the industry when I buy used since thy industry is not entitled to get paid twice for one product.

They can charge you whatever they want anyway.
Don't you understand that game stores buy their stock for a certain price.

You do know back in the SNES days Nintendo were charging stores £40 (around $60) per game making the retail price £70 ($100). Preowned games back then were as expensive as a new release now for the simple fact that these stores that do pre-owned games are still in it for a serious profit margin without having to pay somebody else (the dev/pub).

DRM is there to destroy the used market. To make it impossible to resell a game forcing everyone to buy new. DRM has destroyed the PC used market and the console used market is well on it's way to being destroyed.

DRM never has and never will stop pirates but that has never been it's goal.

You're wrong. Everybody knows DRM is to stop the free use of any digital media where DRM is attached. Be it a game, CD or DVD.

Also, why is there even a need for a PC used market? Though you are completely wrong. In my local Gamestation store and CEX there are pre-owned PC games. Though PC games are naturally 25% cheaper than console games in retail and I have no problem with actually paying for a product and giving the money the devs/pubs deserve for their work.

Pot...meet Kettle.

I'm not the one arguing that my personal right of an item is above that of the person/company that is selling the item.

Are you calling me a thief?

Well, in a round-about way you and all those in the pre-owned part of the gaming industry are thieves. It's a known fact that nobody in the gaming industry is happy about the pre-owned market.

Way to dodge the question. Once again, the question is: Are you against the First Sale Doctrine?

I'm from Britain so we don't have a 'First Sale Doctrine'. We believe in paying people for their work and not screwing people out of their money with fake health insurance!

(don't get me wrong, I like the US as a country. I just think it's incredibly backward in so many respects when it comes to laws. But, no place is perfect)

 

[Kagim]

It always shocks me how hard people fight over this.

Illegal file sharing involves duplicating a copy many many times and handing them out for free. That is bad.

Trading games involves bartering your legitimately owned wares. When i legitimately buy a product of any kind i have the right to trade it away for anything me and the other person agree to.

If i buy a chair i can sell that chair to a friend without sending money to Costco or wherever the hell i bought it.

There is a very big difference between taking a game and infinitely distributing it to people at no loss to me personally and trading my legitimately owned possessions.

People like to say "You can't compare used cars to video games! They are different things!"

No. It's not. They might be different things physically the idea is the same. People have the right to barter there possessions with companies that have the proper licenses and have the right to sell used products.

Is it any different from when people would sell games to pawn shops? No one complained about it then.

 

[Aglynugga]

Here's the point. Once I buy a game, it belongs to me. End of story. Can't make copies for money, but whatever else I do with it, is my right. If I choose to sell it to someone else, it is literally no business of anyone else's but mine and the buyer. Nobody else, no matter what they wish. If I buy a pair of shoes and then sell them off to someone, that's my business with my property. A game is no different. Maybe if you were making copies or charging people to play it, but your not. You are simply reselling or trading something that completely belongs to you. If Ea or Ubisoft or Activision can't understand that, it's because they're assholes who don't understand property rights. They don't like gamestop or EB? Fuck, make your own distribution outlet and double your money, otherwise fuck off and choke on that stupid shit.

 

[Gindil]

So when Gamestop pays nothing for your used game, they are bad. When they pay alot for your used game, they are bad.

I'm not saying they are bad. I'm saying that's one of the reasons why used versions appear so soon after new. No one would go to theatres if new-release movies were available to rent 2 weeks later.

There is truly no evidence to support that argument. The only movie I can think that's going to even try this would be the new Freakonomics movie.

Prove that they are losing money because of me instead of from bad decisions. Do you think EA should have been boycotted over the DRM on Spore? Well, those are the types of decisions I am talking about.

Did it occur to you that they are losing money because they are making bad decisions? Don't spend more money making a game than you can get back. Don't treat your customer like thieves.

You do realise the boycott didn't happen don't you?
Spore sold a shit load of copies.

EA for example lost money from a variety of things. Some games not selling well (Dead Space and Mirrors Edge as examples) yet costing a lot to make because they were new IP's and took a lot more resources, trying to add something new to the industry. The pre-owned situation cost them a lot, wasn't much under 2 years ago that John Riticello was talking about it.

DRM on Dead Space [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Space_(video_game)#DRM] Something else to consider: It was a financial success [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Space_(video_game)#Reception]

Dead Space was a commercial success as well, with EA CFO Eric Brown confirming 1 million sales in 2008 across three platforms

Mirror's Edge was unique, but it lost points for repetition, a bad story, and no true freedom in the levels other than preordained paths. Even the director of ME said that it was something he felt they could have done better on. Regardless, it is getting a sequel. Perhaps they can clear that up. But telling me that because someone bought it used that it is killing EA is truly a lot to swallow.

Calling me names doesn't help your argument, it might even hinder it. You don't know my buying habits so don't tell me what I expect.

I think I do since you've already said you won't buy a game at all until you already know you'll like it, and then you buy pre-owned.
Names wont hinder it because what I'm saying, while being aggressive, is based in fact.

Shenanigans. It distorts your argument by trying to attack the person. Basically it's bad form in a debate by trying to hit a person "below the belt" so to speak. The question is, why should anyone believe you if you have to resort to calling someone thief for their own personal decisions? That's the part that makes no sense.

Everything costs money to make but no other industry is allowed to circumvent the first sale doctrine.

Quit your fascist first sale doctrine rubbish, it's boring now.

Yes, your point is? People buy and sell used DVD's too but I don't hear the studios whining about the first sale doctrine.

I think you'll find that they don't care because most films don't rely solely on DVD sales.

Oh they do, but the thing is, they're attacking the DVR at the current moment because the DVD has been an established market for 10+ years. It's almost as funny to watch them attack digital recording as it is the RIAA trying to put in 3 strikes rules in the US.

I can make up numbers too but that doesn't put that amount of money in the bank. Every other industry has to deal with the used market and gaming should be no different.

Can you? I haven't seen one single fact come from you yet. Just mere speculation based on atrocious inaccuracies and personal self-worth.

I'll help on this one:

If a game costs 32 million, then it sells enough to make back 28 million then a load of used copies that could generate 16 million are sold, the game has still lost 4 million instead of gaining 12 million towards the next game.

Since you're pulling up God of War-like numbers, let's link to that: Linkage [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98960-God-of-War-III-Developed-for-44-Million]

Part of the large budget may have something to do with the amount of people that worked on God of War III, which Hight said was a "shocker" to him. God of War took roughly 30 people to create, God of War II took around 60, but God of War III was completed with the efforts of no less than 132 separate human entities. Why so many? Hight reveals: "The biggest area that we grew was graphics, on the art side.

So no, that's not normal except for AAA games such as God of War. Most games have less staff and less of a budget to produce a fun game. Ex: Steam produces fairly good games with ~30 people employed full time. Epic Games is larger so is on par with God of War with their games. We won't get into Activision or Ubisoft since they're similar to Epic and Sony. Now you have to understand the deals that these big guys tend to do. For the first 60 days, most of the revenue (say... 35%) goes to the developer. After those 60 days, as the game sells, it goes to the publisher in a higher percentage. So the publisher makes more money than the developer for a game as they use the proceeds to fund their next game. But that's all with the publisher and developer who have little, if any control on how a game is received. All this explains numbers far more than used sales. Greatly received games give more profits to the developer, poorly received games fill up Gamestop. (Just to clarify, Beyond Good and Evil is a great game, but I can now buy it used for much cheaper than I could new. Where do you think my incentive lies?)

Yes, it is about trust because if the pubs had no competition from the used market they could charge you anything they want. Since the gaming industry has shown that it doesn't mind screwing consumers to help their bottom line, I don't see why you would trust them.

I am not taking from the industry when I buy used since thy industry is not entitled to get paid twice for one product.

They can charge you whatever they want anyway.
Don't you understand that game stores buy their stock for a certain price.

You do know back in the SNES days Nintendo were charging stores £40 (around $60) per game making the retail price £70 ($100). Preowned games back then were as expensive as a new release now for the simple fact that these stores that do pre-owned games are still in it for a serious profit margin without having to pay somebody else (the dev/pub).

Also, there's still a number of games that retail for $60 here, for PS3 that are 3 years old. Price differentiation is something the publishers really need to work on.

DRM is there to destroy the used market. To make it impossible to resell a game forcing everyone to buy new. DRM has destroyed the PC used market and the console used market is well on it's way to being destroyed.

DRM never has and never will stop pirates but that has never been it's goal.

You're wrong. Everybody knows DRM is to stop the free use of any digital media where DRM is attached. Be it a game, CD or DVD.

Amen. DRM has always been the wrong answer to an imagined problem.

Pot...meet Kettle.

I'm not the one arguing that my personal right of an item is above that of the person/company that is selling the item.

Don't think he was either.

Are you calling me a thief?

Well, in a round-about way you and all those in the pre-owned part of the gaming industry are thieves. It's a known fact that nobody in the gaming industry is happy about the pre-owned market.

Way to dodge the question. Once again, the question is: Are you against the First Sale Doctrine?

I'm from Britain so we don't have a 'First Sale Doctrine'. We believe in paying people for their work and not screwing people out of their money with fake health insurance!

(don't get me wrong, I like the US as a country. I just think it's incredibly backward in so many respects when it comes to laws. But, no place is perfect)

Gaming isn't about "screwing" people out of their work. A few things that some people can do is give away their game (League of Legends, DnD Online, Dungeon Fighter Online...) away but charge for other things. There's plenty of free to play games as well as other ways to make a buck. So if you're on about one business model aspect, you should look into others. Nothing says I'm entitled to give MY money to a developer of a game just because the game is at Walmart. If Gamestop offers it for 25% less, then I'm going to respond to that incentive. It's the same as people choosing a Ford Focus over a Mercedes because the cost is higher.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The problem with the used games equal piracy or is worse than piracy is that everybody seems to ignore the fact that the games that are bought used were once new.

On the contrary, that fact is quite often alluded to by those who would equate used games to piracy.

Seriously the gaming companies just want more money and the more half-wits who agree with them the better it is for them to make a profit.

I want to interrupt you for a moment for a number of reasons. First, you engage in rhetorical fallacy for the second time, but here it is quite direct where you dismiss people on the other side of the argument as stupid. Second, because I'd like to sarcastically point out that you cracked the code!

Yep, a business wants to make a profit. Scandalous!

Now i have no problem with companies wanting to make a profit. . .

Except you just said you did in the previous sentence, but please continue.

. . . but forcing people to purchase codes to get access to everything their copy has to offer pisses me off. Why? You may wish to ask.

I will indeed ask! Why?

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"

I love the "used other consumer product" argument, I really do. On the surface, your claim still appears to be correct and yet, a closer examination reveals that there are distinct differences. When a car is used, its inherent value has degraded as a result of use. Parts wear out, efficiency decreases and so forth. You pay less for this product because it is, in fact, a lesser product than it was new. No reasonable person would pay the price of a new car for a used car when the vehicle is unarguably an inferior example of said vehicle. If you look beyond that, the vehicle manufacturer still has a stake in said vehicle. They are the ones who produce replacement parts in most cases and as such they still turn a profit on the maintenance of said vehicle. Better still, since the warranty is guaranteed by the dealer rather than the manufacturer in this case, such service actually generates a profit rather than a loss.

Games on the other hand do not naturally degrade. Certainly a disc can be damaged, but in such a case the result is a non-functioning product that can easily be returned or exchanged. A used copy of a particular game includes the same information and data the new copy did.

Finally, you managed to squeeze two different fallacies into a single sentence by constructing a straw man and an ad hom.

Then you have the arguement over online gameplay. Do i even need to answer this one?

Since you have not even made clear what the argument is, or defined your stance upon it, I would say so.

*looks over at idiots flipping me off* -sigh-

Really? Again?

The money for the online gameplay comes from the first purchase of the used copy.
Seriously i shouldn't have to explain this...

On the contrary, I really hope you do.

The arguement seems to be acting as if their was going to be an increase of people on online servers which doesn't happen unless the game was stolem from the retailer. Otherwise the purchaser of the used copy is taking the place of the first purchaser.

Depending upon the game in question, there may be a cost associated with maintaining the service. Some games offload this on the players and use a p2p connection. This is, generally speaking, a functional solution but is often seen as inferior to other options. From the glaring problems caused in some cases thanks to a host advantage (if nothing else, the host is guaranteed to have the lowest latency) to problems switching hosts in the event of a problem to the annoyances of having to deal with periods of terrible performance while hoping the host will switch to someone else, you'll find plenty of people will argue against such a route. Other games use dedicated servers, which unfortunately have a cost associated with them. Beyond simply paying for the hardware and software required to run the server (not the game itself obviously, but rather security software, OS and the like), you have to pay for bandwidth, electricity, a space for the server to live, the salaries of people who ensure they stay operational and so forth.

This has primarily been a concern since consoles became the primary platform for most sorts of games. Previously, if people wanted to play a game the cost of doing so was passed on to the community anyhow. Indeed, this is still the case today with any of a number of PC games.

The basic point is that, if there is a cost associated with such an endeavor, and historically this cost has been fielded by the players themselves, why is there a problem now? My guess is that, for the first time, the attempt to transfer the cost is seen and felt by a significant portion of the player base.

There have been other attempts to do the same thing. Call of Duty periodically puts out a new pack of maps. While you aren't exactly forced to buy them to keep playing the game, you will be regularly kicked from servers when it rotates to a map you don't have. This has the same effect as simply charging for online access and yet people don't really complain; indeed, they are often pleased when such content becomes available. One might pause and wonder why, and again the reason is simple enough: you have an illusion of choice. You can opt to not buy into the scheme. Sure, your play experience will degrade but at least you still have access. This is in spite of the fact that such a scheme affects people who purchased the game new as well.

What it really comes down to is that people complain at length about this precise issue and yet I feel no real compulsion to side with them. You choose to purchase a game used, you argue that it is your right (and I completely agree that it IS your right) and in doing so you cut the people who took all the risk associated with making a game, the people who poured years of their lives into its production out of the loop. And for what? An 8% discount? With such a snub, why would the developers and publishers actually care what you think when they gate access to content?

/end rant
Sorry just got pissed

I agree that I ought to have the right to sell a game that I own. I also agree that I ought to be able to buy a used game if I see fit. But, where I differ from you is that I will not begrudge a company if they attempt to force a stake in the used market. I think some of the mechanisms that have been tried (such as gating access) are a bit heavy handed certainly but I also realize that I can always just choose to purchase a game new. People make the "price" argument all the time but the reality is that I don't personally see that savings of five bucks to be worth dealing with the headaches, nor do I feel that gamestop has a greater right to my money than a company does.

 

[Salem_Wolf]

I hear all this talk about used games, but what about video game rentals? Not trying to defend or attack anything, but I'm actually curious on the views of that. If Blockbuster, let's say, buys a few copies of the games and rents it out to dozens of people, how much of that profit is seen by the gaming company? Sure you could argue renting could lead people to buying the game later, but can't you just as well use that argument for piracy? And the same thing with GameFly, they purchase how many copies and rent maybe 10 times the amount they've purchased? Like I said, not trying to defend or attack anything, but I am curious on what people think on that.

I also like to say that this is on topic, since technically you're renting used games. So let's not question the validity of my discussion. But to be aligned perfectly with the topic, I don't typically support used game sales if the game is less than six months old or something, typically at that point you're saving maybe 5 bucks and I'd like to support the developers directly with a brand new sale instead of purchasing a game already sold. Now, if the game is hard to find, like I recently purchased Digital Devil Saga II used, then that's different, because a new copy will cost more money than I typically have to spend. It's a thin line with used games, and it often depends on the circumstances, but I try to support companies directly with a new sale than a used copy, only because they'd make more off the new than the used which, typically, I like to think will translate into a bad ass sequel.

Thin line, like I said, where do you cross and where do you not? I don't believe it's all black-and-white. Though I'm still curious what people think of renting.

 

[ItsAPaul]

When you get 5-6 figures for a car, you can probably afford to not care about who buys and sells that car. Apparently the developer/publisher's cut from new video games isn't enough to just let that game fly on and off Gamestop's shelves. Why you'd sell a game to Gamestop for 1/4 of the price so they can mark it $2 below the new version of the same game's price is beyond me, but apparently enough stupid people exist to keep Gamestop afloat doing just that.

 

[ItsAPaul]

When you get 5-6 figures for a car, you can probably afford to not care about who buys and sells that car. Apparently the developer/publisher's cut from new video games isn't enough to just let that game fly on and off Gamestop's shelves.

Ok, would you be more concerned if $20,000 went missing from your savings account or if $60 went missing?

Yeah, thought so. What was your argument again?

Used cars are okay, and while used games are legal and nothing can be done, they somehow aren't okay. I was pointing this out and you decided to make a retarded reference for some reason.