Used Game Sales are a "Bigger Problem Than Piracy"

[shadow skill]

Feel free to explain to all of us what is stopping these publishers from entering the used game market. What makes them so inept that they cannot enter that market? It is the height of unreality that you expect my heart to bleed for a corporation that refuses to capitalize on a market that exists. If these companies are so hurt by used game sales why do they continue to offer Gamestop exclusive content deals which just drives business towards the evil used game seller?

... So... you expect publishers to open their own brick and mortar chains devoted to the buying and reselling of their intellectual properties? Or... perhaps a mail order used game service where the consumer pays more in shipping than they'd save by trading in? Seriously! What in the holy hell are you proposing here? That publishers go sifting through dumpsters for discarded games so they can sell them back to retailers?

As for that last bit, publishers always do a sort of dance with retail chains in hopes of encouraging them to buy as many launch copies as possible. The situations you're describing were attempts to not get gouged quite so hard by an entity who exists only to stand between the consumer and the developer.

Also, how in the motherfucking hell can you even talk about 'hearts bleeding for large soulless corporations' when the used game market is supported entirely by large soulless corporations!

my corporation (whomI'mnotaffiliatedwith) is better than your corporation (whoyou'renotaffliatedwith) / My corporations better than yours! / My corporations better cuz he sells theusedgames / my corporations better than yooouurrs!

Can some one please (a) explain the difference between selling a used game and selling a used car, or (b) explain why I should not be able to sell my car since the money would not go directly to the manufacturer.

A used car is of significantly lower quality than a new car. To the point where a large oversight body was established to effectively calculate the value of used cars, so people wouldn't get gouged by unethical business men.

A used game is identical to a new game, so it can be sold at the same price, if they wanted.

Why would they sell back to retailers when they could sell directly to customers? It is what Cellphone carriers do. Furthermore the used game market is actually a part of what is called the informal economy or extralegal economy. Gamestop and other businesses which are part of the formal economy are in no way required for the used game market to exist. They don't support the market, they just capitalize on it. I can just as easily place a classified add and sell my games that way.

If you only used a new car for one day then turned around and sold it would it not be a used car? Would it not be virtually identical to the new car?

You know EA. already has a storefront where you can buy new games. Valve has practically corned the DD market with Steam. It's a very smart move to simply cut out the middle man. What is so odd about them offering a trade-in mechanism like ATT, T-mobile, Verizon, and Sprint do with cellphones?

 

[puffenstuff]

Can some one please (a) explain the difference between selling a used game and selling a used car, or (b) explain why I should not be able to sell my car since the money would not go directly to the manufacturer.

Well it probably does go directly to the manufacturer in most cases. Unless you buy a car off someone on the street. But really there is no significant difference that would require us to treat games differently with respect to used sales.

I may be wrong about this but I don't think that even franchised dealerships pay anything back to the manufacturer for used car sales.

You can't sell a used car for the same price you sell a new car. There are also functional differences between selling used cars and used games. Such as the fact the fuel pump could be missing or the muffler could've fallen off. There are no parallels between selling used cars and used games.

No matter how "good as new" the car may be advertised as being, it still has thousands of miles on it. It doesn't matter how many times a game is played, its identical to when it shipped. If it isn't, the used game retailers won't accept the tradein.

Ok, two more questions. (1) Why does this difference matter? Sure, the value of a game is binary; it either works or it does not, while a car can be decayed but still work. What impact does this have on the ethics/legality of reselling the car or game?
(2) Let's pick a closer parallel, used books. These have a more or less binary value. You can either read them or you can't. Why should I loose my right to resell a textbook when I am done with it?

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_first_sale
(Note that this has been explicitly held to apply to software even if the EULA says otherwise.)

 

[shadow skill]

Why do retailers deserve to be paid twice for the same product?

They aren't being paid twice. They are being paid once per game they have legally bought. Some they buy from distributors and some they buy from individual people. Each time they are only being paid once. While they might be making a tidy profit off used games nothing they are doing is any worse than what's being done in the auto industry, furniture industry, etc.
What is it about the video game industry that you think they should get special treatment over these people? Or do you not think people should be allowed to resell something they legally purchase?

Real products degrade. That used couch you got for "a steal" might be infested with some entertaining fungus or parasite. That used car's manifold might only be a couple hundred miles from cracking. In both cases, the selling of such products are extremely reprehensible because of the guarantee of eventual failure of real products.

Video games do not degrade in this fashion... or at all. They're either in perfect condition or they are simply not accepted as trade-ins by the retailer. They are getting paid multiple times for the same product, as they also have to pay (a higher price than whatever the trade-in is) for "new" copies. Hell, they're almost getting paid more than twice.

[I loved this post]

The essential flaws with your assertions is there is, and always will be more than one publishing body and retail is not in competition with publishers. Retail is a middle man that once staked it's entire viability by already having stores and distribution in place, "saving" the publisher money by not forcing them to distribute themselves. The organized used game market crosses this line, and has shifted from providing an outlet to subverting the content producer.

And I not "almost" suggesting anything. I'm flat out saying piracy is illegal simply because there are no bodies with the funding to grease sufficient politicians to change those laws. But while its illegal, no one exactly cares that its illegal. Its used as a whipping boy when games underperform, and justifies expenditure in the name of combating it, but every new bit of information provides more evidence that it simply isn't a market force at all.

You know that discs degrade over time right. Some of my old PS1 games have got pits in them because of what I used to store them. I've gotten used games without the booklet or even the case, not to mention a few scratches. Of course even if we had digital used games the mechanism by which they are sold could be rigged to send back some percentage of the money from the sale back to the content publisher/creator.

How is retail not in competition with publishers when some publishers have their own online storefronts which are in direct competition with retail?

 

[shadow skill]

You know that discs degrade over time right. Some of my old PS1 games have got pits in them because of what I used to store them. I've gotten used games without the booklet or even the case, not to mention a few scratches. Of course even if we had digital used games the mechanism by which they are sold could be rigged to send back some percentage of the money from the sale back to the content publisher/creator.

How is retail not in competition with publishers when some publishers have their own online storefronts which are in direct competition with retail?

Because of scale. One or two direct outlets in prime locations does not compete with a retail chain's thousands of locations. Especially if each outlet only sells their IP.

But they are still in direct competition the scale does not matter at all. You didn't say they are not in a great amount of competition you said that they [publishers]are not in competition with retail stores. The fact of the matter is that they are in competition with them. Valve is very much in competition with Best Buy when it comes to sales of their own games not to mention the games of other publishers like Activision. It's like saying that a mom and pop store is not in competition with Walmart down the street because the business the mom and pop gets is a drop in the bucket compared to what Walmart gets. It doesn't actually change the fact that direct competition is taking place.

 

[Xanthious]

Real products degrade. That used couch you got for "a steal" might be infested with some entertaining fungus or parasite. That used car's manifold might only be a couple hundred miles from cracking. In both cases, the selling of such products are extremely reprehensible because of the guarantee of eventual failure of real products.

Video games do not degrade in this fashion... or at all. They're either in perfect condition or they are simply not accepted as trade-ins by the retailer. They are getting paid multiple times for the same product, as they also have to pay (a higher price than whatever the trade-in is) for "new" copies. Hell, they're almost getting paid more than twice.

So because video games hold up better than my old recliner they deserve to get special treatment that no other manufacturer of goods gets? Huh?

Secondly do you or don't you think people should be allowed to sell something they've legally bought and paid for?

Thirdly how do they get paid multiple times over if they have to rebuy this item after they sell it each and every time? Each sale is a seperate transaction. It's not like they are buying one disc and running off copies in a back room. Or is it because they make more money on used games because individuals are willing to sell for less than the distributor you have a problem with?

Finally, have you ever sold anything secondhand? Ever sell a car or a game system or maybe trade in some text books in college? If so did you send the original manufacturer a big chunk of that money that you got?

 

[fielfuego]

... less people playing games in the long run, rather than increased royalties.

You've given me a bit to think about, and I appreciate that.

As a gamer with bills to pay, I can honestly say that this is a balance every person must strike with themselves.

As a code monkey and [theoretical] entrepreneur, I feel that battles such as these are a true test of the feasibility [and fairness] of a business model, an industry, and a civilization. Bickering will occur throughout, and chess moves will be made, but in the long run-- maybe hundreds of years-- gamers that can't hang will get whittled off on one side; shortly thereafter, companies that can't act responsibly enough to keep their base will get whittled off on the other.

Those who are left on both sides will likely be stronger for it:
Companies will be more stable-- boom-and-bust cycles won't affect product quality and employee benefits as much as before; and with any luck, the word "person" will slowly become less synonymous with the word "consumer." We're better than that. Good luck everyone.

 

[fielfuego]

Once the dickface working the register said to me "you don't want to save money?" when I told him I wanted a new game instead of a used one. Then I told him "shut the fuck up and ring me up" and he looked like he was going to cry. But he shut up and rang me up.

Thats... pretty mean, dude.

 

[fielfuego]

People have the right to sell goods privately. Much in the same way you have the right to trade in your old car or sell on your furniture. In fact many products such as are and furniture can increase in value but you don't hear manufacturers endlessly complaining about the used goods market.

Does anyone here know enough about copyright law to back this up? It makes basic sense-- raw goods & manufactured goods vs media-- and any refutations of this "sell the rights" idea are pretty historically unenforceable, but I don't know anything about what rights are *technically* non-transferrable when it comes to media.

 

[puffenstuff]

People have the right to sell goods privately. Much in the same way you have the right to trade in your old car or sell on your furniture. In fact many products such as are and furniture can increase in value but you don't hear manufacturers endlessly complaining about the used goods market.

Does anyone here know enough about copyright law to back this up? It makes basic sense-- raw goods & manufactured goods vs media-- and any refutations of this "sell the rights" idea are pretty historically unenforceable, but I don't know anything about what rights are *technically* non-transferrable when it comes to media.

It is quite complicated and I don't really understand it (Yet another reason why copyright law needs reform) but I in the US you generally have the right to resell copies of copyrighted material such as books, DVDs, and games. This appears to apply even if the EULA says otherwise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine for more details.

 

[Terramax]

My solution is "If you can't by something new, then you have more concerns you should be worried about"... it's not the industries fault that people can't manage their wallet and complain that prices are too high even slightly.

People ARE managing their wallets. They do this by buying games second hand.

You're blaming the consumer because they're too smart to part $60/ £40 on a new game that only lasts 5-10 hours with no replay value when they can buy a second hand game for a fraction that lasts twice the length?

Lowering prices also means the developers get less money. Less money means less money to use for future projects and less room to expand. If games don't have room to expand, then how can you expect them to become better?

Since when does an expanding company make a game better? I argue most companies become worse as they get bigger. They make more sacrifices, take longer to make bigger games, more original, innovative and fun ideas are thrown out for stale, stagnant ones.

And, no, lowering prices can mean higher sales figures and more money. Horses for courses.

Without expansion, we wouldn't have the Wii.

The wii isn't an expansion. It was a creative idea that was cheap to make and marketed well.

Hell even games like Crysis wouldn't exist today if there was no profit margin on the sales.

Well Crysis is the perfect example of everything that is wrong with game companies.

1.) It would help if they made it so that the game could be handled by most people's PCs and, no, it is not the consumer's fault if they don't want to fork out on another graphics card just to play one over hyped piece of crap.

2.) The easier solution would be to spend more time on making the games play well than making them look good, which usually ends up making production costs much lower.

Give me an old Treasure title like Ikaruga over Crysis any day of the week.

The game industry may seem to be there for the gamers but they're there because there's business. If they can't get profit, they have no real incentive to stay in the industry and if that happens, there would be no new games.

Only the dumb companies like EA, Activision and Ubisoft would fall out of existence. But clever businesses like Nintendo, ones that evolve and find new ideas of making money will carry on doing so until the test of time.

 

[(LK)]

Is reselling a book unethical?

And before you say it, no, it does not matter to this point that the pages might be a little dog-eared or that the cover has a crease in it. Cosmetic damage and depreciation is irrelevant to property rights. The same damage is incurred to used games, as you point out:

The price difference between "used" and new games rarely, if ever, exceeds 20%. If it does, the game likely had massive gouges all across the disc.

Then, laughably, after claiming this you then claim reselling games is different because games don't depreciate. You can't even keep your claims consistent with one another.

The flaw in your numerous different and disjounted arguments is that they are compartmentalized and openly self-contradictory. Your entire argument is you deciding what you want to believe first and then making up facts and logic on the fly to suit it, regardless of truth or common sense or your own previous arguments.

What you are saying is you have decided what you believe and nothing in the universe can change that. That is fine, but don't expect that display of proudly illogical behavior to convince anyone else they deserve to surrender their rights.

Furthermore:
The business of publishing has existed for centuries, and has thrived despite the fact that a century ago publishers were forced to accept that once they sell a copy of a work they lose control over the property rights of its' subsequent owners, who may resell it and set prices as they wish. A century before that there wasn't even such a thing as copyright, and do you know what? The business still existed profitably then, too!

Piracy is a new thing and is understandably hard to figure a solution to. Resale is not, and centuries of human commerce and experience, frankly, have a lot more weight than the bizarre opinion of a single, young, outraged human who is approaching the subject entirely with emotion and with open disregard for rational reason.

 

[loremazd]

I don't see why anyone's upset with how the industry is starting to address the situation. EA's basically making it so if you buy it new, the DLC is free down the road, and it worked great for mass effect 2. That's not hurting the consumer at all.

 

[Atmos Duality]

COMPETITION IN THE VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY IS ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A BETTER GAME THAN THE COMPETITION! RETAIL CHAINS LEECHING CAPITAL FROM PUBLISHERS/DEVELOPERS IS NOT COMPETITION! IT IS SUBVERSION! THE FUNCTION OF RETAIL IS DISTRIBUTION! BUT THEY ARE NOW MAKING EXTENSIVE PROFITS FROM REDISTRIBUTING WORKS THEY PLAYED NO PART IN CREATING OR SUPPORTING!!

Fair reasoning. Unfortunately, it's not a fair market for the legitimate customer either.

The publishers and retailers have already burned their last ethical bridge with me:
NO REFUNDS ON LEGITIMATE PURCHASES means I will instead attempt to minimize the potential loss I might incur if I buy a game that I do not like, or does not function.
Like it or not, that probably as "fair" as it is going to get for the consumer.

You will pardon me if I cannot feel remorse for a company that abjectly attempts to wring the consumer for all s/he's worth without offering any form of recompense in return. They call it capitalism, I call it a scam. Especially when business is still booming (for the PUBLISHERS) despite all of this piracy and 2nd hand sales.

 

[Hurray Forums]

If you don't like used game sales mister developer do the same thing that every other industry has to do. Make it good enough and give it enough exposure that people want to buy it right when it comes out, make it good enough that people want to hold on to it instead of selling it, and make enough copies that it's reasonable for someone to find it new. Also, I think developers fail to realize that used game sales is a big part of the reason developer can get away with $60 games, if someone buys it and dislikes it they can resell it and get some of that money back. So, in a way, used games do get them some money.

 

[Xanthious]

Fair reasoning. Unfortunately, it's not a fair market for the legitimate customer either.

The publishers and retailers have already burned their last ethical bridge with me:
NO REFUNDS ON LEGITIMATE PURCHASES means I will instead attempt to minimize the potential loss I might incur if I buy a game that I do not like, or does not function.
Like it or not, that probably as "fair" as it is going to get for the consumer.

You will pardon me if I cannot feel remorse for a company that abjectly attempts to wring the consumer for all s/he's worth without offering any form recompense in return. They call it capitalism, I call it a scam. Especially when business is still booming (for the PUBLISHERS) despite all of this piracy and 2nd hand sales.

This is exactly why I typically buy used anymore. Gamestop has a seven day return policy (cash or credit) on used games. If I don't like it or go through it within a week I am free to return it for a full refund or another game. However, if I go someplace like Walmart or even Gamestop and buy a new game and it's broke or god forbid opened or I beat it on the first day or just plain hate it then I'm stuck with it and either have to sell it myself or take a loss trading it in. As much as I dislike Gamestop as a company their seven day return policy on used games has done a lot to change my view of them.

 

[Gildedtongue]

So, what? Is the used car industry making the car companies whine and ***** about their sales and go screaming to their local governments for monies and various other programs?

Oh, right. Well, fuck, if I can have a "cash for old-systems and games" program maybe I'll think about it, but to be honest, I'd think about it for five seconds and go pick up a used game.

To be honest, the majority of the time I just wait around and either pick up a used game, or if a game I'm somewhat interested in drops into the $20 bin, I'll pick it up. And why all of this? Because we know where the money goes to. Buy a new game from a store, the store sees about $2 from that initial $60. $5 goes to printing and transporting the game, about $4 goes to the paycheques of the team of 30 programmers who actually made the game. $20 goes into the overhyped advertising trying to saturate the game into the public mind where when it finally comes out we look at it in ennui, and the bulk of that money goes into lining the executive's pockets, because of course they did so much work giving nods of feigned interest on the project, and stuffing bills into the thongs of underaged male strippers in their "business trip" to Thailand.

So, I'm going to go buy used, then go paypal the people who made Cave Story, or Iji $20, and they'll see more money per unit than the codemonkey working for EA.

 

[IankBailey]

I'll say it again: it's hilarious to see the same people who attack piracy for "not compensating the developers" try to defend used games.


"LOLHYPOCRISYLOL"

This a hundred times over. It's ridiculous to say pirating is wrong then turn around and buy 10 used games. At least the pirates aren't in denial about what they're doing.

 

[Doc Cannon]

I try to be in a neutral ground when it comes to piracy, I just prefer not to give an opinion. God forbid I offend someone and I'm labeled a thief or a capitalist (which, to me, are pretty much the same!).

But since the issue is used-game trade...
I am amazed at how so many people attack those who buy used games. It's legal. It probably keeps game stores working. It probably makes some people buy it new once, so they can sell it later (but they bought it at least!). But above all: it's legal.
They are not criminals, they are not assholes. It's stupid to pretend someone will pay more of his hard-earned money if there's the chance to save some. Or is buying a used car also a sign of asshattery?
People have the right to spend their money as they see fit.

If the gaming industry wants to get some of that money, it's their problem. Let them take their own measures (like that free-DLC-for-first-time-buyers thing).