Used Games v. Piracy

[TheDooD]

>> read my post's section of revenue streams. That's why. ...It's really the only reason why. Games just have no other way to make money...so they need the cut from used game sales.

Hold up a minute! You are saying that because they can't manage to run a profitable business they deserve special treatment? Really? Really?!? As I said in another thread publishers and developers are free to risk their own money on buying used games from consumers and reselling them if they feel they are truly being hurt by used game sales. They choose not to risk their money though but instead cry like entitled children about not getting something they never deserved in the first place in a cut of the secondhand sales.

You obviously didn't read anything.

No, I said they have no other way to make money like other media. If games had concerts, or theaters, they wouldn't be bothered about it. They'd make money off of the ...shows I guess.

They are free to risk their money. In fact they do. Upwards of MILLIONS just to entertain you. However when you have 2 choices, buy new and give them a slice, or buy used and don't give them jack shit. Most people will decide not to give them jack shit. It's not about the quality of the game, or how well it's marketed. You just don't want to spend the money. You walk away for the same exact product, for a reduced price (sometimes significantly reduced.) They get nothing from you. And that risked money gets wasted. Investors don't invest, companies make no profit, game quality gets beaten and murdered in a dark alley, we complain about the quaity of games, stop gaming, gaming dies because no company is left to make games, because it's not profitable because consumers would rather buy cheap.

>> It's a cycle that we'd rather defend it seems.

Hell you know what? you don't even have to buy used. You can wait to buy it new when the price gets cut, and you still help them out, and make them look good to investors, and aren't slowly causing the doom of the industry.

Normally the only time the prices get cut is years down the road, when another versions comes out(DLC) and or its a sequel. You have to realize place like gamestop can't stock newer games and the shit that comes with it like controllers, guides and whatever without the used market. You have no idea how much shit Gamestop has to throw away because nobody bought it and its taking up space. So whats better them throwing away stuff they can't sell because it just costs too much for people to care or shit have them slash prices just so they can get off their hands and out of the fucking landfill. You may think that its gonna be horrible cycle down that companies are just gonna die off because people are buying used games. Well they're not because of the selling of used games they can buy and have new games in stock. Piracy is the only way companies would even get close to dying off because nobody makes money off it. It's all about the cash flow.

here's a quick example.

A gamestop has a budget to buy a supply of a certain game and they only get 100 copies of said game yet they have 300 preorders and those preorders only allow them to get 50 more copies. Where are they gonna to do to get the other 150. If they cannot sell used games. They can't there's gonna be a backlog until people start buying the copies so that mean 150 people aren't getting what they preordered until the other 150 claims there copy. Yet that's not how it works in real life all 300 people are gonna want their game day fucking one. So they have to sell used games that most companies really don't give a shit about. they only want a double, triple dip into they're own pockets. Selling those used games for 40-30$ out of the former 60$ means people who didn't get a chance to play that game gets to play it and then a portion of the money goes into them buying new games. So I don't see what so wrong used game market the producers and the publishers STILL get their money in the long run. It's just they're not gonna get that money as quickly as they like it to be.

 

[oplinger]

If they have budget problems like that, econ 101 says they should go out of business, because they aren't turning a profit. And the price to make a AAA game has nothing on the price of a blockbuster movie; the only one to even come close was GTAIV, at $100 million -- roughly the cost of a mid-sized blockbuster. And I know, you're going to say something about alternate revenue streams, but the truth is, no matter what revenue stream you look at for films, they don't charge more than $25 per copy/viewing, and that's on the extreme expensive end. If film companies can turn a profit at $11 a ticket and $20 a DVD, game companies can afford to drop their prices lower than $60. Heck, as the various Steam sales have shown us, dropping prices raises their profits -- someone was quoting a figure a while back, where a game halved the price, and quadrupled the sales. The game companies are idiots if they think people have $60 to pay per game in this economy -- or any other one, really. That's a big chunk of change to anyone who lives in the real world.

Yes, I will mention alternative revenue streams. Films have the most. It's not just theaters and DVD sales. Granted theaters are the only places to watch the movie, so everyone has to pay (or pirate the movie from some leaked version.) it's not just 1 million people, movies are much more widespread. So you get...100 million. Some of them will see it twice or more.

DVD sales cash in on the theatrical release, as it slows down, they release it on DVD, and sales shoot up again as people who enjoyed the movie then pay again to watch it at home.

That's almost double the revenue. (if a game made double the revenue, we wouldn't be here.)

Now, TV syndication, you take a TV station, or a network. They want to show your movie on their channels, They pay you 100 million dollars for the ability to show your movie for X number of years. This happens...5,6 ..maybe 10 times for the movie. That's triple the revenue.

That's why movie budgets are so large. Game budgets are much smaller...to reflect the much smaller amount of profit they make.

As for your steam sale statistic, that can also be attributed to the phenomenon i mentioned before. You see something you're interested in for 60 bucks. You say "No sir, i don't have that kind of money" later you see it for 40. You are all over that because that's much less than 60. If you saw it initially for 40, you wouldn't think it was such a good deal, and might not buy it.

You guys are getting tiresome with comparing this to other forms of sales and media. They're not the same, They shouldn't be treated the same. The logic is almost explosively bad.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

>> read my post's section of revenue streams. That's why. ...It's really the only reason why. Games just have no other way to make money...so they need the cut from used game sales.

Hold up a minute! You are saying that because they can't manage to run a profitable business they deserve special treatment? Really? Really?!? As I said in another thread publishers and developers are free to risk their own money on buying used games from consumers and reselling them if they feel they are truly being hurt by used game sales. They choose not to risk their money though but instead cry like entitled children about not getting something they never deserved in the first place in a cut of the secondhand sales.

You obviously didn't read anything.

No, I said they have no other way to make money like other media. If games had concerts, or theaters, they wouldn't be bothered about it. They'd make money off of the ...shows I guess.

They are free to risk their money. In fact they do. Upwards of MILLIONS just to entertain you. However when you have 2 choices, buy new and give them a slice, or buy used and don't give them jack shit. Most people will decide not to give them jack shit. It's not about the quality of the game, or how well it's marketed. You just don't want to spend the money. You walk away for the same exact product, for a reduced price (sometimes significantly reduced.) They get nothing from you. And that risked money gets wasted. Investors don't invest, companies make no profit, game quality gets beaten and murdered in a dark alley, we complain about the quaity of games, stop gaming, gaming dies because no company is left to make games, because it's not profitable because consumers would rather buy cheap.

>> It's a cycle that we'd rather defend it seems.

Hell you know what? you don't even have to buy used. You can wait to buy it new when the price gets cut, and you still help them out, and make them look good to investors, and aren't slowly causing the doom of the industry.

If you want to argue you help the gaming industry overall by buying new games, fine I can get with that. Hell, if you want to argue that if you really care about gaming buying new is the right thing to do I can even get with that. However, arguing that because of their incompetence to run a profitable business publishers and developers should be legally entitled to a cut of secondhand sales is pure nonsense.

Speaking from a strictly business perspective they deserve fuck all from used game sales even if secondhand sales do negatively influence their bottom line. They invested their money to sell the product as new and were paid for it. After it is sold as new they are removed from the equation. And as I said before new games have to be sold before used games can even exist so if there is a massive market for used games it has to mean that new games aren't selling so bad.

Honestly I think the video game industry needs to fail at such an epic level it is practically scoured from the Earth before it can be properly rebuilt again. As long as companies like Activision, EA, Ubisoft, etc are the ones running the show the gaming industry will suffer.

Unfortunately, two of the three survived the last crash. Although I'm starting to agree -- a crash would be good for the consumer at this point. It's not like the indie devs would be affected, and they tend to treat the consumer well. I love my AAA games, but I'd rather be treated as a valued customer by a company that makes a lower budget product than as a statistic by a company that spends millions. It doesn't matter what industry you're in, if you treat your customers like crap, you don't deserve their business. Gamers, unfortunately, seem to lack the requisite spine to say "wait a minute, I don't want to do business with a company that treats me like crap."

I can get behind that, their is a reason I'm a Atlus/NISA fanboy. They give me a nice gift for buying a game new (or first shipment). I buy a game on the DS from atlus new odds are I get a CD or even a toy doll or art book/poster. What does EA(or any game publisher that uses online codes) give me, day one DLC with a code if I buy it new, stuff that goes into the game (which is nice I won't lie). The problem is it feels like Atlus gives us stuff that if we don't get we can live without (I can survive without a Art book from Ar Tonelico), while EA makes it seems like the code is needed or we lose out on gameplay (Need for speed Hot pursuit brags about it's online which if bought used you won't get to try).

 

[Xanthious]

Then could you get behind the cost of the technology needed to make a game, the skills needed from employees to make a game, and the materials, marketing, deals with retailers, and time and effort put into making those games, all costs money?

I'm sure you could. That's what the budget is for... the stuff they need is becoming more expensive. And so they need more money. They could just...not develop new technology...and use some hobbyist they found on craigslist. The game wouldn't be all that great I'm sure.

How many of us do you think would take an overall and significant drop in every aspect of quality in our games? ..And still pay 50 bucks for it? They need to be a "profitable business" after all.

I totally get games are expensive to make and as I said earlier buying new is better for the industry overall. I simply, regardless of the circumstances involved, draw the line at saying that publishers and developers DESERVE a cut of used game sales.

The solution to their used game problem lies in that they use almost entirely all stick and no carrot what-so-ever. They want to punish the used game buyer rather than reward the new game buyer. What they need to do is reward the new game buyer and leave the used buyer alone. My room mate worked at Gamestop at the time Lego Batman came out and they were offering those keychains with the Lego Batman characters. He said that game sold like crazy new because people wanted those stupid keychains that maybe costed a few pennies to make. Those little extras can go a long way with some people while taking away a portion of the game also goes a long way in the other direction.
=

 

[Joseph Alexander]

This is an issue that will never go away. Unfortunately the software companies will win this one in the end. It's not a matter of if, just when. Since the game resale industry has absolutely no method of countering this short of paying the $10 or whatever to buy online passes or the equivalent themselves and packaging them with the game for resale. It will also never cease due to the fact that people who buy resold games have no voice in the issue. If you refuse to buy the game, you only hurt the resale establishment and if you refuse to buy new, well, the developer didn't have your business to begin with so they are totally unaffected.

I do not agree with game companies doing this, personally, and here is why:

1) They have absolutely no right to say what I can and can't do with physical property that I legally purchased and made my own. If I want to resell it to recoup some of what I spent in order to either pay bills, get drunk, or buy another product, that is my right.

2) There are essentially no standards of quality in video game development. A development studio is equally capable of turning out gold and garbage, even within the same genre. As reviews are subjective opinion, few games release demos, and trailers only show you so much (that a marketing department has specially chosen to show you) buying a game is more often than not an act of faith to some degree. That said, there are essentially no retailers where you can return a game you are dissatisfied with due to piracy fears. Often the only recourse when you find yourself totally stuck with a game you are dissatisfied with is to sell it at a resale store. I think it is flat wrong for the games industry to expect me to buy a product that I am unable to return if I am unhappy and to force permanent ownership on me, then turn around and think they can limit what I can do with it after it is, by the standards they approve, irrevocably my property.

3) I sold a 1995 Chevrolet Beretta and purchased a used 2007 Ford 500. I can say beyond a single doubt that neither Ford nor Chevy saw a dime from either sale. Nor should they. The price they asked had been met and ownership had changed hands.

4) It's simply bullshit cash grabbing by the publishers. In a post above, oplinger mentioned the numbers of units needed to be sold in order to not only cover costs but turn a profit for all involved. He was correct. The thing is, a developer and publisher are aware of this fact. They print a certain number of their product and distribute them to various retailers in various regions based on projected sales figures in order to reach their target goal of units sold. A publisher isn't going to publish 5 million copies of a game if they only expect to sell 1 million. The lesson of Atari and E.T. 30 years ago showed the industry early on what kind of problems that can cause. The point of all of this is, a resold game is one which has already been purchased at full price and the game companies have already profited from. They have really lost nothing. The assumption that a person buying a preowned copy of a game for, say, $30 rather than $60 robs them of a sale is just arrogant and wrong. This may be the case in a very small portion of resales, but in the majority of cases, it is due to the buyer not having the money to pay full price for a game to begin with so they buy on the cheap to have something to play. The other major factor is, the game may not be worth full price to begin with. There is a reason my local resale store had Duke Forever on release week. Before resellers became common, game companies were content with the full price sales they received on the initial purchase, now that they see a potential revenue stream there, it's a problem. As evidence of this, one need only consider that the game companies aren't trying to stamp out resale locations by only allowing the original buyer to access the full product and permanently blocking part of the game for future owners, they are selling the used buyer the blocked portion on the side to claw in more money.

As an aside, it is the publishers who generally mandate the implementation of this type of tactic. Most developers got their check from the original sale and are just glad someone else is enjoying the game they poured their blood, sweat, tears, and love into since the original owner wasn't anymore. Besides, why not just work harder developing a game I don't want to get rid of? My library is full of games I don't play anymore but would never sell. Better yet, make me some great DLC and enjoy the revenue from the purchaser of the used copy buying the DLC rather than receiving no money from the original owner who has moved on and won't spend the cash on DLC for a game they don't play.

1. yes they do , no you didn't games are a digital property, and yes you can sell your copy's disc.
2. and? its called compiling your own preveiw.
3. a car is a physical property it can't be copied with out materials/time/machines/etc.
4. yes and no, this is a coping tactic to deal with the massive increase of resales thanks to huge corporate game stores like Gamestop.
overall you have no clue what your talking about.

1. And if devs lock data on a disc that needs a key to unlock via a online pass/day one dlc?
2. He has a point, I mean if I bought Final Fantasy 13 for 60 bucks instead of 20 I would have been pissed. Games don't show enough of what it is about or have a demo. Like Mass Effect 2, it didn't have a demo till like a few months after it came out.
3. And a game that removes advertised features after it has been bought and resold is no different?
4. And he has a point, a resold game is already purchased and accounted for, but publishers want to double dip in that "untapped" resource of money. Do you see Universal pulling this with Blockbuster?
I think it's you who doesn't get it man.

1.then how about they have you download the new purchase content then, you want that?
2.how about waiting til the hype about it is over and they release a demo or RENT THE GAME AND CHECK IT OUT, theres a plethora of things you can do to learn about a game and not be screwed.
3. regardless physical property != digital property, stop trying to compare the 2 its just childish to think that way.
4.you must of missed the point "massive increase of resales" EB games was big yes but Gamestop took it to a whole new level.
and yes i do get it, which is more than can be said in any of your posts on this matter.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

ok boiling this down to the basic point:
they don't get any money from your purchase, you don't get the whole game.
alot of the time the game will be available for first purchase cheaper later down the line.
in other words you don't have the money to buy new right off the bat? then you have to wait a bit to buy the whole game.

Why doesn't this apply to cars, music, movies, books, and anything else people sell on e-bay and amazon and even a garage sell.

Buy a car used, you shouldn't get radio
Buy a CD used you got no case
Buy a movie used they remove all the bonus crap
Buy a book used they replace the cover with a generic one

But wait they don't do this, only game companies who want to be treated like those I mentioned yet don't at the same time.

it does:
buy a car used, its tires are bald and the engine has over 50k miles on it.
buy a CD used and there is no booklet and the CD is scuffed up.
buy a movie used and the blu-ray is scratched or ringed and there is a hard water stain.
buy a book used and there is some pages missing , the spine is cracked and there is a coffee stain on the face.
in most used products there is some form of repercussion in buying used if you live in the real world.

Yeah that's true and you're right, but all those things are based on what the previous owner did to it, NOT the company removing or locking it out.

 

[Support Walker]

I haven't bothered reading all that everyone has said, just thought I'd throw in my personal experience.

When I started buying games, I bought them used. These used games were awesome (and most of which were out of publishing). It got me hooked. I always sell back my used games and earn some extra money and buy new games as they come out. (Borderlands, Red Faction:G, Dynasty Warriors Strikeforce, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood).

So to plot this out,
Buy a new game(-$60), play the hell out of the game, resale the game (+$30), take money out of my paycheck for a new game(+$30), Buy a new game(-$60), rinse, repeat.

That's how I roll. I'm thankful that i can resale my games. Sadly, if we move to the point that games become "one shot" games where you can only play it once... I won't be able to sell my used games and get that extra money. this hurts my incentive to buy a new game. If I'm broke I don't buy games. Knowing that I can only pay roughly $30 for a new game because I'm trading in an old game really helps.

Personally the video game industry has pissed me off. Game companies have been known to make an entire game, cut it in half, sell the first half as the "complete game"($60) then sell the other half in parts for ($10-$20) each. An example would be Army of Two. So in total to even play the full game sometimes we have to pay $80-$100 per game.... That's like 1/3 the cost of the entire console.

I'm so thankful for indie game companies making amazing games like Minecraft and Terraria. I have bought and gifted digital copies to almost all my friends and family. ($10-$20) per game that is constantly getting updates is awesome.


To sum it up. Unfortunately the cost of a complete game is getting to be too much for me. I still sell my old games to buy new games (definitely going to get Assassin's Creed Revelations). but not as much as I used to. I'm irritated that when I pay $60 I don't get ALL the content for being loyal and not getting the game used (Dragon Age:O, Mass Effect 2, Army of Two, Etc, etc, etc...). Currently I'm buying more indie games because they are cheaper, have (i feel) better support that actually cares, and I'm glad that almost every game I buy I feel like I get an equal amount of gameplay to dollar ratio. I've yet to buy an indie game and feel disappointed. The same cannot be said about games I've bought from "Big Videogames".



Please excuse any type-o's. I have to go to work soon so I rushed.

 

[Joseph Alexander]

ok boiling this down to the basic point:
they don't get any money from your purchase, you don't get the whole game.
alot of the time the game will be available for first purchase cheaper later down the line.
in other words you don't have the money to buy new right off the bat? then you have to wait a bit to buy the whole game.

Why doesn't this apply to cars, music, movies, books, and anything else people sell on e-bay and amazon and even a garage sell.

Buy a car used, you shouldn't get radio
Buy a CD used you got no case
Buy a movie used they remove all the bonus crap
Buy a book used they replace the cover with a generic one

But wait they don't do this, only game companies who want to be treated like those I mentioned yet don't at the same time.

it does:
buy a car used, its tires are bald and the engine has over 50k miles on it.
buy a CD used and there is no booklet and the CD is scuffed up.
buy a movie used and the blu-ray is scratched or ringed and there is a hard water stain.
buy a book used and there is some pages missing , the spine is cracked and there is a coffee stain on the face.
in most used products there is some form of repercussion in buying used if you live in the real world.

Yeah that's true and you're right, but all those things are based on what the previous owner did to it, NOT the company removing or locking it out.

used is used, if you buy used you had better be ready to not get something as good as new.
and they aren't removing anything your electing to not get the whole thing.

 

[oplinger]

>> read my post's section of revenue streams. That's why. ...It's really the only reason why. Games just have no other way to make money...so they need the cut from used game sales.

Hold up a minute! You are saying that because they can't manage to run a profitable business they deserve special treatment? Really? Really?!? As I said in another thread publishers and developers are free to risk their own money on buying used games from consumers and reselling them if they feel they are truly being hurt by used game sales. They choose not to risk their money though but instead cry like entitled children about not getting something they never deserved in the first place in a cut of the secondhand sales.

You obviously didn't read anything.

No, I said they have no other way to make money like other media. If games had concerts, or theaters, they wouldn't be bothered about it. They'd make money off of the ...shows I guess.

They are free to risk their money. In fact they do. Upwards of MILLIONS just to entertain you. However when you have 2 choices, buy new and give them a slice, or buy used and don't give them jack shit. Most people will decide not to give them jack shit. It's not about the quality of the game, or how well it's marketed. You just don't want to spend the money. You walk away for the same exact product, for a reduced price (sometimes significantly reduced.) They get nothing from you. And that risked money gets wasted. Investors don't invest, companies make no profit, game quality gets beaten and murdered in a dark alley, we complain about the quaity of games, stop gaming, gaming dies because no company is left to make games, because it's not profitable because consumers would rather buy cheap.

>> It's a cycle that we'd rather defend it seems.

Hell you know what? you don't even have to buy used. You can wait to buy it new when the price gets cut, and you still help them out, and make them look good to investors, and aren't slowly causing the doom of the industry.

Normally the only time the prices get cut is years down the road, when another version and or its a sequel. You have to realize place like gamestop can't stock newer games and the shit that comes with it like controllers, guides and whatever without the used market. You have no idea how much shit Gamestop has to throw away because nobody bought it and its taking up space. So whats better them throwing away stuff they can't sell because it just costs too much for people to care or shit have them slash prices just so they can get off their hands and out of the fucking landfill. You may think that its gonna be horrible cycle down that companies are just gonna die off because people are buying used games. Well they're not because of the selling of used games they can buy and have new games in stock. Piracy is the only way companies would even get close to dying off because nobody makes money off it. It's all about the cash flow. here's a quick example.

A gamestop has a budget to buy a supply of a certain game and they only get 100 copies of said game yet they have 300 preorders and those preorders only allow them to get 50 more copies. Where are they gonna to do to get the other 150. If they cannot sell used games. They can't there's gonna be a backlog until people start buying the copies so that mean 150 people aren't getting what they preordered until the other 150 claims there copy. Yet that's not how it works in real life all 300 people are gonna want their game day fucking one. So they have to sell used games that most companies really don't give a shit about. they only want a double, triple dip into they're own pockets. Selling those used games for 40-30$ out of the former 60$ means people who didn't get a chance to play that game gets to play it and then a portion of the money goes into them buying new games. So I don't see what so wrong used game market the producers and the publishers STILL get their money in the long run. It's just they're not gonna get that money as quickly as they like it to be.

You. You are like a voice of reason. Thank you for not comparing it to auto theft, or movies. I love you.

...but, prices tend to get cut when sales slow to a certain level. It can be 3 months...6 months..just depends how well it's selling.

The industry also could die off, or become significantly smaller just from used sales. Since used games can sell for almost half off very quickly after release, it cuts into the share of the profits the devs and publishers get. WHich means they get less money, and eventually fold.

In the long run also doesn't help them very much. If game C doesn't get so much profits, investors may back out, and they have much less money to work with when the "long run" kicks in.

The used games market isn't really the problem, it's the lack of money going to devs, and the lack of alternate revenue streams. In games, you either hit, or you miss big. You don't get a second chance to make up for the loss.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

If they have budget problems like that, econ 101 says they should go out of business, because they aren't turning a profit. And the price to make a AAA game has nothing on the price of a blockbuster movie; the only one to even come close was GTAIV, at $100 million -- roughly the cost of a mid-sized blockbuster. And I know, you're going to say something about alternate revenue streams, but the truth is, no matter what revenue stream you look at for films, they don't charge more than $25 per copy/viewing, and that's on the extreme expensive end. If film companies can turn a profit at $11 a ticket and $20 a DVD, game companies can afford to drop their prices lower than $60. Heck, as the various Steam sales have shown us, dropping prices raises their profits -- someone was quoting a figure a while back, where a game halved the price, and quadrupled the sales. The game companies are idiots if they think people have $60 to pay per game in this economy -- or any other one, really. That's a big chunk of change to anyone who lives in the real world.

Yes, I will mention alternative revenue streams. Films have the most. It's not just theaters and DVD sales. Granted theaters are the only places to watch the movie, so everyone has to pay (or pirate the movie from some leaked version.) it's not just 1 million people, movies are much more widespread. So you get...100 million. Some of them will see it twice or more.

DVD sales cash in on the theatrical release, as it slows down, they release it on DVD, and sales shoot up again as people who enjoyed the movie then pay again to watch it at home.

That's almost double the revenue. (if a game made double the revenue, we wouldn't be here.)

Now, TV syndication, you take a TV station, or a network. They want to show your movie on their channels, They pay you 100 million dollars for the ability to show your movie for X number of years. This happens...5,6 ..maybe 10 times for the movie. That's triple the revenue.

That's why movie budgets are so large. Game budgets are much smaller...to reflect the much smaller amount of profit they make.

As for your steam sale statistic, that can also be attributed to the phenomenon i mentioned before. You see something you're interested in for 60 bucks. You say "No sir, i don't have that kind of money" later you see it for 40. You are all over that because that's much less than 60. If you saw it initially for 40, you wouldn't think it was such a good deal, and might not buy it.

You guys are getting tiresome with comparing this to other forms of sales and media. They're not the same, They shouldn't be treated the same. The logic is almost explosively bad.

Your argument is tiresome as well. It's a smoke and mirror argument that was thought up by some PR guy, which has somehow been picked up by a lot of gamers. Videogames are no longer a niche product. There are almost as many households equipped to play them now as there are that are equipped to watch movies. Further, games also have multiple revenue streams: Xbox, PS3, Wii, DS, PSP, PC hardcopy, PC digital distribution, and now, console digital distribution as well. These are all just as different in terms of revenue streams as theaters, pay per view, and DVDs are. As for the $40 thing, people don't avoid buying games at $60 because it's not a deal. They avoid buying at $60 because they literally can't afford it. It's not in the budget. You industry apologists get all annoyed when consumers aren't worried about the publisher's bottom line, but you don't seem to care about the consumer's bottom line at all. Excuse us for being more worried about putting food on our tables than buying and funding videogames.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

This is an issue that will never go away. Unfortunately the software companies will win this one in the end. It's not a matter of if, just when. Since the game resale industry has absolutely no method of countering this short of paying the $10 or whatever to buy online passes or the equivalent themselves and packaging them with the game for resale. It will also never cease due to the fact that people who buy resold games have no voice in the issue. If you refuse to buy the game, you only hurt the resale establishment and if you refuse to buy new, well, the developer didn't have your business to begin with so they are totally unaffected.

I do not agree with game companies doing this, personally, and here is why:

1) They have absolutely no right to say what I can and can't do with physical property that I legally purchased and made my own. If I want to resell it to recoup some of what I spent in order to either pay bills, get drunk, or buy another product, that is my right.

2) There are essentially no standards of quality in video game development. A development studio is equally capable of turning out gold and garbage, even within the same genre. As reviews are subjective opinion, few games release demos, and trailers only show you so much (that a marketing department has specially chosen to show you) buying a game is more often than not an act of faith to some degree. That said, there are essentially no retailers where you can return a game you are dissatisfied with due to piracy fears. Often the only recourse when you find yourself totally stuck with a game you are dissatisfied with is to sell it at a resale store. I think it is flat wrong for the games industry to expect me to buy a product that I am unable to return if I am unhappy and to force permanent ownership on me, then turn around and think they can limit what I can do with it after it is, by the standards they approve, irrevocably my property.

3) I sold a 1995 Chevrolet Beretta and purchased a used 2007 Ford 500. I can say beyond a single doubt that neither Ford nor Chevy saw a dime from either sale. Nor should they. The price they asked had been met and ownership had changed hands.

4) It's simply bullshit cash grabbing by the publishers. In a post above, oplinger mentioned the numbers of units needed to be sold in order to not only cover costs but turn a profit for all involved. He was correct. The thing is, a developer and publisher are aware of this fact. They print a certain number of their product and distribute them to various retailers in various regions based on projected sales figures in order to reach their target goal of units sold. A publisher isn't going to publish 5 million copies of a game if they only expect to sell 1 million. The lesson of Atari and E.T. 30 years ago showed the industry early on what kind of problems that can cause. The point of all of this is, a resold game is one which has already been purchased at full price and the game companies have already profited from. They have really lost nothing. The assumption that a person buying a preowned copy of a game for, say, $30 rather than $60 robs them of a sale is just arrogant and wrong. This may be the case in a very small portion of resales, but in the majority of cases, it is due to the buyer not having the money to pay full price for a game to begin with so they buy on the cheap to have something to play. The other major factor is, the game may not be worth full price to begin with. There is a reason my local resale store had Duke Forever on release week. Before resellers became common, game companies were content with the full price sales they received on the initial purchase, now that they see a potential revenue stream there, it's a problem. As evidence of this, one need only consider that the game companies aren't trying to stamp out resale locations by only allowing the original buyer to access the full product and permanently blocking part of the game for future owners, they are selling the used buyer the blocked portion on the side to claw in more money.

As an aside, it is the publishers who generally mandate the implementation of this type of tactic. Most developers got their check from the original sale and are just glad someone else is enjoying the game they poured their blood, sweat, tears, and love into since the original owner wasn't anymore. Besides, why not just work harder developing a game I don't want to get rid of? My library is full of games I don't play anymore but would never sell. Better yet, make me some great DLC and enjoy the revenue from the purchaser of the used copy buying the DLC rather than receiving no money from the original owner who has moved on and won't spend the cash on DLC for a game they don't play.

1. yes they do , no you didn't games are a digital property, and yes you can sell your copy's disc.
2. and? its called compiling your own preveiw.
3. a car is a physical property it can't be copied with out materials/time/machines/etc.
4. yes and no, this is a coping tactic to deal with the massive increase of resales thanks to huge corporate game stores like Gamestop.
overall you have no clue what your talking about.

1. And if devs lock data on a disc that needs a key to unlock via a online pass/day one dlc?
2. He has a point, I mean if I bought Final Fantasy 13 for 60 bucks instead of 20 I would have been pissed. Games don't show enough of what it is about or have a demo. Like Mass Effect 2, it didn't have a demo till like a few months after it came out.
3. And a game that removes advertised features after it has been bought and resold is no different?
4. And he has a point, a resold game is already purchased and accounted for, but publishers want to double dip in that "untapped" resource of money. Do you see Universal pulling this with Blockbuster?
I think it's you who doesn't get it man.

1.then how about they have you download the new purchase content then, you want that?
2.how about waiting til the hype about it is over and they release a demo or RENT THE GAME AND CHECK IT OUT, theres a plethora of things you can do to learn about a game and not be screwed.
3. regardless physical property != digital property, stop trying to compare the 2 its just childish to think that way.
4.you must of missed the point "massive increase of resales" EB games was big yes but Gamestop took it to a whole new level.
and yes i do get it, which is more than can be said in any of your posts on this matter.

1. We are heading to that day where everything will be a purchase you have to download which
sucks
2.Some companies don't put out Demos at all, and if I rent the game I'm going to beat it meaning I WON'T BUY IT ANYWAY
3.I can compare the two when the disc I buy has locked content I have to have some code to unlock.
4.And what point are you getting at.

I'm not going to keep this stupid argument up because neither side is going to back down. I buy my games new a lot of the times but knowing I can buy a game I might have missed on used and now worry about will I be losing content is something that shouldn't be a issue.

 

[Fingers O'Toole]

It's nothing to do with piracy, really; it's just another damn excuse to make money.
By using piracy as an excuse, they can attempt to justify gathering more profits, whilst reducing profits for second hand game shops.

It's exactly the same as the whole "DLC expansions" where, unless you buy the game new, you'll have to purchase the rest of the plot/unlockables for an extortionate price - it's just petty greed hidden under the thin guise of piracy issues to pass the blame back to the gamers rather than the creators.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

ok boiling this down to the basic point:
they don't get any money from your purchase, you don't get the whole game.
alot of the time the game will be available for first purchase cheaper later down the line.
in other words you don't have the money to buy new right off the bat? then you have to wait a bit to buy the whole game.

Why doesn't this apply to cars, music, movies, books, and anything else people sell on e-bay and amazon and even a garage sell.

Buy a car used, you shouldn't get radio
Buy a CD used you got no case
Buy a movie used they remove all the bonus crap
Buy a book used they replace the cover with a generic one

But wait they don't do this, only game companies who want to be treated like those I mentioned yet don't at the same time.

it does:
buy a car used, its tires are bald and the engine has over 50k miles on it.
buy a CD used and there is no booklet and the CD is scuffed up.
buy a movie used and the blu-ray is scratched or ringed and there is a hard water stain.
buy a book used and there is some pages missing , the spine is cracked and there is a coffee stain on the face.
in most used products there is some form of repercussion in buying used if you live in the real world.

Yeah that's true and you're right, but all those things are based on what the previous owner did to it, NOT the company removing or locking it out.

used is used, if you buy used you had better be ready to not get something as good as new.
and they aren't removing anything your electing to not get the whole thing.

Again buying all the stuff I mentioned used has NO COMPANY DOING ANYTHING TO LOCK IT OUT. If I elect to buy it used from someone fine I am expecting it to not be perfect, but I shouldn't have a publisher locking crap out. How would you feel if the car company who made your car came to your house and RIPPED out your radio because you bought your car used? It's the same thing game publishers are doing.

 

[Racecarlock]

why do game companies have to always equate game pirates with used game buyers?

Because from the standpoints of the game developers, publishers and distributors (so, basically, anybody NOT dealing in used games), there is basically no difference whatsoever between an used game buyer and a person who pirates the game.
Whether that means for you that used games should be considered bad or piracy considered not so bad, that's a different and uglier story.

But let's say you personally think used games and piracy are radically different.
Please, DO TELL, how exactly is an used game buyer any different from a pirated copy anyway ?
The fact that he pays some cash ? Well, buying a bootleg version is pretty much the same too (from a user perspective, awareness of bootleg status not being all that relevant), and I doubt you'd be endorsing that.
So what makes used games so special that they deserve an exemption ?

Because I AM NOT THE ONE WHO TOLD THE RETAILER TO KEEP THE FUCKING MONEY! I do think they should change that policy, but the fact of the matter is that I just want to save some damn money and used games for say $10 or $5 (Bargain bin) are really good deals for me. If they want to compete with the used industry, then they can lower their damn prices. But no, they just mark the used consumer as a criminal too. Why? Because they feel entitled to all of your cash. I know they worked hard on it, but hard work doesn't always equal good work, and besides I am strapped for cash, so with used games I can get more than 2 a year. I am not a robber for wanting to save some fucking money. The retailer is the robber for keeping all of it. Maybe once the industry realizes that, they can pressure the retailers into at least getting a small cut, instead of trying to get me arrested or something.

 

[Joseph Alexander]

Excuse us for being more worried about putting food on our tables than buying and funding videogames.

if your having such a problem of affording basic necessities maybe you should review if you should be buying video games in the first place.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

ok boiling this down to the basic point:
they don't get any money from your purchase, you don't get the whole game.
alot of the time the game will be available for first purchase cheaper later down the line.
in other words you don't have the money to buy new right off the bat? then you have to wait a bit to buy the whole game.

Why doesn't this apply to cars, music, movies, books, and anything else people sell on e-bay and amazon and even a garage sell.

Buy a car used, you shouldn't get radio
Buy a CD used you got no case
Buy a movie used they remove all the bonus crap
Buy a book used they replace the cover with a generic one

But wait they don't do this, only game companies who want to be treated like those I mentioned yet don't at the same time.

it does:
buy a car used, its tires are bald and the engine has over 50k miles on it.
buy a CD used and there is no booklet and the CD is scuffed up.
buy a movie used and the blu-ray is scratched or ringed and there is a hard water stain.
buy a book used and there is some pages missing , the spine is cracked and there is a coffee stain on the face.
in most used products there is some form of repercussion in buying used if you live in the real world.

Yeah that's true and you're right, but all those things are based on what the previous owner did to it, NOT the company removing or locking it out.

used is used, if you buy used you had better be ready to not get something as good as new.
and they aren't removing anything your electing to not get the whole thing.

His point was that the equivalent loss of value for games would be things like a scuffed up case, a scratched up disc, or a missing manual. What game companies are doing is more like the used book store pulling out 50 pages or so, and then charging you to put them back in instead of taking back a defective product -- or a car dealership yanking out the air conditioner, and expecting them to pay you to put in a new one. It's just not kosher.

 

[Neal Tse]

I think Frost27 hit a lot of the important points. I realize that game companies, particularly the publishers, are looking to maximize profits. They're already doing things their entitled to. They release DLC, they upped the standard game price up to 60$ (don't forget that), they release shitty games at full standard prices. Even insisting on a unique online game pass per user, I'm alright with. They are NOT entitled to used sale profits.

Even if they can work out a commission with Gamestop (wouldn't that be a neat solution), they still can't turn off a switch to downgrade a product that's resold. They made their money when the primary buyer bought the game. If they're not making back their costs from that plus dlc/extras, then that's a budgeting issue on their end. It's not my fault, and not my problem to fix if I buy their product used.

That's the key difference between used an pirated. A pirated game was likely never paid for, or even if it was, was distributed to thousands of other users who were likely to never pay for the game anyway. A used game was bought once, bought and paid for, and then distributed down once at a time may 2-3 additional people at most. A pirated game isn't likely to be played online and additional DLC purchaed, a used game is highly likely.

I'll say succinctly, the publishers are making as much as they're going to already, the rest is beyond their control, and beyond their entitlement. They may consider it a risk that I'll sell my game to someone else who "might" have bought a new copy. I consider it a risk buying a product I may not like that I can't return.

 

[Xanthious]

used is used, if you buy used you had better be ready to not get something as good as new.

Really? So that means that the "used" sectional I just paid next to nothing for should have been broken down in some way by the original owners before I came and picked it up because they never used it? Any smart shopper knows that if you look hard enough you can find like new merchandise being sold as used in almost any market. Wear and tear is not needed for something to be considered used. A used product is simply one that has already been sold to a private owner, condition is irrelevant. If I buy a TV and never take it out of the box when I sell it I'm not going to get what the store would get for it new I will have to take a used price or likely not sell it.

I buy used all the time and the used products I buy are often times equal in terms of quality as their new counterparts. However, used games aren't so much the problem as the problem lies in the gaming industry's inability you catch more flies with honey than you do vinegar. They want to punished used buyers while they should be focusing on rewarding new buyers.

 

[Joseph Alexander]

ok boiling this down to the basic point:
they don't get any money from your purchase, you don't get the whole game.
alot of the time the game will be available for first purchase cheaper later down the line.
in other words you don't have the money to buy new right off the bat? then you have to wait a bit to buy the whole game.

Why doesn't this apply to cars, music, movies, books, and anything else people sell on e-bay and amazon and even a garage sell.

Buy a car used, you shouldn't get radio
Buy a CD used you got no case
Buy a movie used they remove all the bonus crap
Buy a book used they replace the cover with a generic one

But wait they don't do this, only game companies who want to be treated like those I mentioned yet don't at the same time.

it does:
buy a car used, its tires are bald and the engine has over 50k miles on it.
buy a CD used and there is no booklet and the CD is scuffed up.
buy a movie used and the blu-ray is scratched or ringed and there is a hard water stain.
buy a book used and there is some pages missing , the spine is cracked and there is a coffee stain on the face.
in most used products there is some form of repercussion in buying used if you live in the real world.

Yeah that's true and you're right, but all those things are based on what the previous owner did to it, NOT the company removing or locking it out.

used is used, if you buy used you had better be ready to not get something as good as new.
and they aren't removing anything your electing to not get the whole thing.

Again buying all the stuff I mentioned used has NO COMPANY DOING ANYTHING TO LOCK IT OUT. If I elect to buy it used from someone fine I am expecting it to not be perfect, but I shouldn't have a publisher locking crap out. How would you feel if the car company who made your car came to your house and RIPPED out your radio? It's the same thing game publishers are doing.

yet again i need to point this mundane point out: digital property != physical property, you simply can not compare them.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Excuse us for being more worried about putting food on our tables than buying and funding videogames.

if your having such a problem of affording basic necessities maybe you should review if you should be buying video games in the first place.

It's not that I'm having a problem with that, it's that videogames cost as much as two or three days worth of food, when they really have no reason to. I'm not going to pay that much for a game, period. I will, however, gladly pay $10 or $20, and it won't eat into my food budget -- or any other budget aside from my entertainment budget. If I'm going to drop $60 on a single purchase, I'm going to Busch Gardens or something, not buying a flippin' game.