Used games

[Rofl Harris]

Oh hell no. I never use them personally. Fortunately for me, there's a local video game shop. Or purchase online from someone.

I'm the same, I don't know if we even have Gamestop here. Around 70% of my game collection is from eBay. It can't be good for the industry; the publishers and developers haven't received a penny from me for the games I bought from eBay.

 

[Rofl Harris]

Well, there is the slight possibility that a seller you purchased a used copy from on ebay, put some of that money towards a new game or system.

Good point, there must be some function explaining that phenomenon somewhere in economics. I suspect it's probably pennies in this example simply because the value of the item is probably small compared to the income of the seller; but it must be significant when one sells their new car after three years to buy another brand new one. If I wasn't so bone idle I'd look it up.

 

[Iwata]

If it weren't for used games, I'd have missed out on games like Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Valkyria Chronicles, etc.

 

[DoPo]

So, I am supposed to just shout "burden of proof" over and over again? OK, then - burden of proof. Prove what you're saying is true or you there literally cannot be any discussion.

I don't think you understand how this works. You're not providing proof for your perspective.

Neither have you. And I'm discussing your perspective here.

The first statement I made is a statement of logical fact, you simply misinterpreted it. There is no need for citation. If you find a flaw with the logic I will happily discuss further.

What about those that bough a used game then bough a new one because of it? Is this still one lost sale? Is it something different? What about people who wouldn't have bought the game full price but instead bought it half off or something? Are they both combined counted as a lost sale?

Discuss. Why are you simplifying it that much that it's wrong.

My second statement "Used games do not contribute anything to the industry" is not a contentious one. It should surely be you who suggests that the "advertising generated as a result of the used games establishments offsets the inevitable loss in revenue seen by publishers" that should provide some sort of evidence? That sounds like complete nonsense to me.

No, you are supposed to prove your claim first. Do they contribute nothing? Are you sure? How can we be when everything we have to go on is your word? Why is my word worth less than yours? Are you omniscient?

As for "Prove what you're saying is true or you there literally cannot be any discussion"... You are not the person who determines whether a discussion can be had or not.

How can I discuss anything when I have so many questions from only the claims you made? I cannot discuss it - I can say stuff but that's not discussion.

I notice how you've refused to acknowledge the points I've made in reply to your post. Can I consider that you have no sensible retort?

Yes, I have nothing to base it on.

 

[Genocidicles]

One thing that annoyed me about TB's video is that he said stores like Gamespot and Game are rolling in the money.

I don't know about Gamestop, but Game filed for bankruptcy about a year ago, only just being saved in time (and it's still not doing so well), whilst EA and Activision were doing fine (EA is in a worst place now, but that's hardly because of used games).

 

[MysticSlayer]

I can't really take sides too heavily in the argument, especially since most of the arguments people use to defend their side are nothing more than "it's common sense" and "you have no data to support your argument." While the former is obviously flawed, the latter is OK if you actually use data to support your own position, which rarely happens. Just look at Jim Sterling's latest video where he basically says, "You have no data to back up your argument," but he fails to provide any real evidence to support his own position outside of some anecdotal evidence and numbers from a few years ago, and those numbers hardly even support his position in the defense of used games outside of "Well now you know why Gamestop pushes it so hard." The thing is, the used games debate is based heavily on numbers, but few ever really provide numbers in their arguments and possibly for good reason: no enough people care enough about the issue to really research it, causing a lack of numerical data to begin with.

With that said, though, personally, I'm still a huge fan of used games. It gives me the opportunity to play games that I missed from a few years ago and can't find new anymore. Also, since used games are very often a cheaper alternative, it allows me to put less risk on a game that I may not enjoy. However, unless those two options apply, I generally buy new just because it helps support the developer more than buying it used.

If people really had the money to buy everything new then wouldn't they, you know, do it more?

I'm not going to go in-depth on the economics here, because it's something most of us know already given how logical consumers spend money, but if I can get X for $20 or $30, which do you think I'm going to buy? Unless there is something about the $30 product that increases its utility, I'm going to go with the $20 one because I not only get the product but I have $10 leftover that I can put towards another product, which should help maximize my total utility for the $30 I had to spend.

Granted, there are things about the used game market that affects demand for it outside of simple price, but the above does show why there is demand for used games: they are often cheaper, and all you need is the demand curve to show how that works.

Sure, some people just simply don't have the money and are forced to go with the lower priced option, but if we are talking about those with enough money to spend on both (as the example deals with), then any good, logical consumer would go for the lower priced option when all else is equal.

 

[GoddyofAus]

I can only comment on this issue as an Australian consumer of video games, so that is what I'll do.

I both agree and disagree with TB. He is basically saying we need to get fucked in the arse so the industry can survive and cancers like Gamestop can finally get what they have had coming to them for years. On the latter issue, I agree with him 100%. Me and my fellow countrymen have had to put up with EB Games (Gamestop AU) and the big publishers ripping us off for far too long. 100 AU dollars for a standard edition hard copy, while the AU dollar trades higher than the Greenback. And when the government subpoenas them into explaining why this is, they are told the fucking truth; that EB and the big publishers are exploiting a market that continues to purchase their products at those prices. They basically admitted to profiteering from consumer ignorance. Un-fucking-acceptable. If the death of Used Games spells the end for gaming retailers, than so be it. They're reaping what they sow, and won't get any sympathy from me.

On the former point however, I have to disagree with him, because if extreme anti-consumer behavior is what's required to keep this industry in its current form alive, than I say let it die, because history is on our side. The last time it died, or came close to death, the industry re-invented itself and came out 10 times better. Maybe that's exactly what should really happen so EA, Microsoft, Ubisoft and Activision can be reminded the hard way who the fuck is in charge, while Valve can sit pretty on their mountain of cash that they earned by sticking to their guns on consumer rights where others didn't.

 

[Chris Tian]

snip

I can't really sit through the total buscuit video. That guy seems to have very little clue what hes talking about. Dismissing the comparison to cd's because musicians have other income options like concerts and royaltys? That makes no sense. Musicians get this money for additonal service/products, its not like whoever bought the cd has to pay the royaltys, and concerts? Really? For that money they have to, you know, perform a live show and people have additional fun there, thats more a comparable to a DLC.

Publishers can make additional money through micro-transactions and DLC too and the principle would be the same even if that would not be tha case.

I get that it sucks a bit for the publishers, but second hand markets are a thing for almost every industry so why exactly do publishers think they get a free pass here? (Exept for the ridiculous points the vid made)

What should also be taken into account is that the whole used games market frees up money on people participating in it. Alot of that money will most likely go towards new games, at least in many cases I know.

 

[Cyfu]

One thing that annoyed me about TB's video is that he said stores like Gamespot and Game are rolling in the money.

I don't know about Gamestop, but Game filed for bankruptcy about a year ago, only just being saved in time (and it's still not doing so well), whilst EA and Activision were doing fine (EA is in a worst place now, but that's hardly because of used games).

A really good point! Even though EA isn't doing so well they still have a lot of fucking money. The only reason they don't have more is because they spend so much money on developing a game and marketing it. So when they actually releases the game they have to sell millions to get back what they've spent.

 

[Rofl Harris]

I get that it sucks a bit for the publishers, but second hand markets are a thing for almost every industry so why exactly do publishers think they get a free pass here? (Exept for the ridiculous points the vid made)

I think the distinction comes with the fact that used games and brand new games are generally of the same quality to the end user, coupled with the fact that they're often the kind of thing people don't replay as much as say, music CDs or DVDs. Whether that says more about producers making games which people are more likely to want to keep hold of or not I don't know.

 

[Pink Gregory]

*shrug* always seemed like effective recycling to me. If someone doesn't want to keep the game, what else are the going to do with it apart from throw it away? That's a waste.

I understand that it does cut into profits, but for there to be a used market there have to be new games bought in the first place, so not accounting for that in budgeting seems like a foolish mistake that many publishers make. There can potentially be more used sales than new sales, but continually producing copies of games more than, say, two years old would be massively unsustainable and unprofitable, and thus copies of older games would become increasingly rare, driving the value of private sales and rentals up.

Do we want that?

Admittedly I've never seen what Gamestop does, but I don't really think anyone would want that.

I'm certainly not against incentives to buy new, because those sales are needed for a used market to exist; but ultimately it's the responsibility of the publishers and developers to encourage these new sales, either through reasonable pricing, a good product, effective marketing (effective =/= expensive) and other incentives. Giving orders to the consumer isn't going to endear them to your company or your games.

 

[Chris Tian]

I get that it sucks a bit for the publishers, but second hand markets are a thing for almost every industry so why exactly do publishers think they get a free pass here? (Exept for the ridiculous points the vid made)

I think the distinction comes with the fact that used games and brand new games are generally of the same quality to the end user, coupled with the fact that they're often the kind of thing people don't replay as much as say, music CDs or DVDs. Whether that says more about producers making games which people are more likely to want to keep hold of or not I don't know.

The quality of a new game and and a used game is the same, thats right, but the quality of a new and used cd/dvd is the also same. He clearly states that the difference in his opinion comes from additional income like royaltys and live shows and that on the other hand makes absolutely no sense.

I have to say I replay older games alot more than old music cds or movie dvds. I think that depends heavily on the product and the consumer in each individual case and is not a strong point do differentiate cds/dvds from games on a more basic level.

In general I think its always a bad idea to try and force the consumer to give you their money, they should want to give it to you.
Include small stuff in the new copys like items, skins, hats and whathaveyou and dont make them available in any other way then with a new copy, exclusivity can be a huge selling point.

 

[CaptQuakers]

One thing that annoyed me about TB's video is that he said stores like Gamespot and Game are rolling in the money.

I don't know about Gamestop, but Game filed for bankruptcy about a year ago, only just being saved in time (and it's still not doing so well), whilst EA and Activision were doing fine (EA is in a worst place now, but that's hardly because of used games).

Game were rolling in money until they started being idiots, They tried to buy in more than they could ever sell, Gamestation owned by the same company never had the issue and they were doing quite well.

Ea do well because EA make some of the best selling games on the market (Activision do as well but only the one game a year)

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Can someone tell me a good reason why the developer or anyone should earn from second hand sales?
Every other industry has second hand sales, so what's so different about games? What makes developer/publisher entitled to the money of the second sale? They sold the product, it's not theirs anymore. They aren't entitled to more money from that sale.

It's rather depressing how the big publisher managed to brainwash such a huge part of the consumer base to stop looking out for themselves and look out for the weak and poor publisher. Anyone who is against second hand sales is nothing but brainwashed.
The publisher are a business, not a charity organization. You DON'T need to look out for them. They look out for themselves. However, you need to care about yourself because the publisher certainly won't. They will milk you as much as they can and once they are done, they will trow you away. And believing their bullshit PR and fake numbers is just naive.

 

[Kinitawowi]

I think the best way to prevent used games being a thing is to stop making games that people want to play through and toss aside in the space of four hours. Make better, more creative, and possibly more challenging games (that last one will get me lynched in certain circles), with more options for longevity and replay value, that don't rely on nebulous multiplayer to provide their entire content.

Of course, this runs contrary to their other goal - they want you to toss aside a game in four hours rather than sticking with it for a hundred, because that way you'll go out and buy something else. Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

 

[jnixon]

Can someone tell me a good reason why the developer or anyone should earn from second hand sales?
Every other industry has second hand sales, so what's so different about games? What makes developer/publisher entitled to the money of the second sale? They sold the product, it's not theirs anymore. They aren't entitled to more money from that sale.

It's rather depressing how the big publisher managed to brainwash such a huge part of the consumer base to stop looking out for themselves and look out for the weak and poor publisher. Anyone who is against second hand sales is nothing but brainwashed.
The publisher are a business, not a charity organization. You DON'T need to look out for them. They look out for themselves. However, you need to care about yourself because the publisher certainly won't. They will milk you as much as they can and once they are done, they will trow you away. And believing their bullshit PR and fake numbers is just naive.

completely agree, it's one thing to accept absolutely awful business practices like on disc DLC but to stick up for it and argue that places like GAME (who make next to nothing on brand new titles) are ruining the game industry is ridiculous. Used games have been around for years and the gaming industry has thrived WITH them, the problems it's going through at the moment are clearly not due to used games at all and it's a cheap scapegoat to blame them. Used games are good for the consumer, people should start wanting to be treated fairly and not accepting the abysmal practices companies like EA have been using for far too long

 

[CaptQuakers]

Can someone tell me a good reason why the developer or anyone should earn from second hand sales?
Every other industry has second hand sales, so what's so different about games? What makes developer/publisher entitled to the money of the second sale? They sold the product, it's not theirs anymore. They aren't entitled to more money from that sale.

It's rather depressing how the big publisher managed to brainwash such a huge part of the consumer base to stop looking out for themselves and look out for the weak and poor publisher. Anyone who is against second hand sales is nothing but brainwashed.
The publisher are a business, not a charity organization. You DON'T need to look out for them. They look out for themselves. However, you need to care about yourself because the publisher certainly won't. They will milk you as much as they can and once they are done, they will trow you away. And believing their bullshit PR and fake numbers is just naive.

completely agree, it's one thing to accept absolutely awful business practices like on disc DLC but to stick up for it and argue that places like GAME (who make next to nothing on brand new titles) are ruining the game industry is ridiculous. Used games have been around for years and the gaming industry has thrived WITH them, the problems it's going through at the moment are clearly not due to used games at all and it's a cheap scapegoat to blame them. Used games are good for the consumer, people should start wanting to be treated fairly and not accepting the abysmal practices companies like EA have been using for far too long

Why should GAME be able to push sales of used game before sales of new games ? They aren't looking out for you guys they are looking out for themselves, If they were they wouldn't offer you a tiny amount for a game only to sell it at over 100% mark up....

 

[Entitled]

Used games do not only not contribute anything to the industry (as far as I am aware?)

Advertisement. There are numerous people who got into series, or genre, or developer or something, some even into gaming in general, because they got a cheap second hand game first to show them the way in.

Wouldn't the same also be true for piracy? There is a larger than zero number of people who might have bought it thanks to such access, and that number might even be bigger than the hypothetical lost sales, therefore it is plausible that this institution of access benefits the industry.

Excuse me if I'm mixing you up with someone else, but weren't you one of the vocal piracy opponents?

 

[Entitled]

Can someone tell me a good reason why the developer or anyone should earn from second hand sales?
Every other industry has second hand sales, so what's so different about games?

Not in every industry, only in the ones that sell physical products. Information is not a product, it's an abstract concept with no real scarcity, but potentially infinite access for everyone.


When you download a game, you are not getting "a copy", you are getting the permission to create a copy.

We might give it a certain artificial scarcity to give some distribution monopolies to the publisher, but why these monopolies should be granted in a way to semi-accurately mimick physical property, is not self-evident.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Can someone tell me a good reason why the developer or anyone should earn from second hand sales?
Every other industry has second hand sales, so what's so different about games?

Not in every industry, only in the ones that sell physical products. Information is not a product, it's an abstract concept with no real scarcity, but potentially infinite access for everyone.


When you download a game, you are not getting "a copy", you are getting the permission to create a copy.

We might give it a certain artificial scarcity to give some distribution monopolies to the publisher, but why these monopolies should be granted in a way to semi-accurately mimick physical property, is not self-evident.

That's not how Europe works. If I buy something, it's mine, including licences.
So whether I got a copy of the game, or a licence to use the game, i'm allowed to sell it. And information is a product, just not a physical. Everything you sell is a product or a service. Since games are obviously not a service, it's a product.

Why should GAME be able to push sales of used game before sales of new games ? They aren't looking out for you guys they are looking out for themselves, If they were they wouldn't offer you a tiny amount for a game only to sell it at over 100% mark up....

Because it's their store and they have the right to operate the store however they want? And even if they aren't looking out for us, the way they are looking out for themselves is helping us as well, unlike the way publisher look out for themselves.
Ya know, I would rather pick the smaller of the two evils. Certainly not the bigger.