Volition Dev Vs. Pre-Owned Games

[Falcon123]

Snip.

Snip

Snippity Snip

Still Snipping

I get what you're saying, and I admit that furniture was probably a bad example to list, but I also included movies, and for good reason. Go on Amazon and just look at all the gently used books, television show collections, movies, and music CDs that are on sale right now. There are a ton, and for exactly the reason you gave: it's just as good, so why buy at the higher price point?

The problem I have with the assumption your point makes (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you are approving of this policy that may go into effect (there's still plenty of time to change their minds if this is in fact what they plan to do) as if consumers are somehow to blame for buying at a lower price point, which, in my mind, is the fundamental problem with this rule.

I'm a relatively broke college student. I don't have the money to buy an XBLA game every month, let alone a full release. But let's say I only got one game every two months. I think we can agree that's pretty reasonable, given that unless it's a sprawling RPG a la Skyrim or a deep RTS, you're probably going to want something new within two months.

Six games at $60 is over $360 when tax is included. I could buy a PS3 and a Wii with that much money right now without even buying used. It's a substantial amount, and it doesn't take into account the next generation of games could be more expensive due to necessity on the publisher's end, or the fact that as an American, I'm far more fortunate as far as video game pricing is concerned, than our Australian brothers in gaming, who have to spend over $110 on a new game, last time I checked.

Now, if I can buy on the used game market, I might be able to pick up some hidden gems that have dropped in price, especially if they're single-player focused (Got Enslaved for $20 a month after release. Crazy) and try them out. I might get more games, or I might have to make less sacrifices in other areas ($360 is still a lot for me), but enjoy the same amount of gaming.

But what about the developers you ask? Well, they might not have gained immediate financial gain from my purchase, but if the game was good, they did make a fan, someone who will go back to their games and buy them new when I have the financial freedom to do so. Heck, I'm far more willing to buy DLC on games I was able to buy on the cheap but were enjoyable for the simple reason that I believe that developer deserves my money .

So now let's see what happens when this "no used games" policy comes into effect. Even after waiting for the price on the hardware to drop, I've still got to get some sort of gaming catalog. If the price point is at $60, I won't budge until it drops, and without a used games market pushing the prices down, it will take even longer than it does already (and some games take forever to drop. Super Mario Galaxy is still sold in some stores I've been to for full initial retail), which means I'll have potentially forgotten about it or found something that I am more sure I will enjoy and let it go. I will no longer buy the games that aren't worth $60 but would be enjoyable at a lower price point since that point does not really exist, and the developer will lose a potential fan who won't care when their next games come out.

See, when you treat your customers like they're the enemy, they no longer feel free to just jump on board, or as if they're welcome there. There's a reason movies aren't tied to codes on your DVD player - Hollywood gains more by having you borrow it (losing a potential sale) but enjoying the movie (in case there are sequels), the actors in it (so you check out their other works) or the director's style (ditto). There's a reason that CDs can be listened to on more than one player - the music industry would rather gain a fan of the band (or even better, the whole record label) that will buy their later music than force them into one more sale.

Every other media-based industry deals with it. You don't hear any other media-based industry complain like this Volition Dev is. They see the positives and treat their consumers as people that deserve respect and will, if given the opportunity, latch onto what is good and support them long-term, even at a small cost in the short-term.

You know, that's exactly what this policy is: short-sighted. Fixing one minor problem and causing a few more in the process, and, if this forum and a similar one on IGN are any indication, a much larger one.

see the real issue that i take with used games (at least from my perspective) is that its the only thing getting in the way of prices dropping over time. Im a pc gamer and as such i see all the games released last year have already dropped by 33%, and will likely drop more this year, the other benefits of digital downloads (where used can't exist) is sales and there no need to be "shelf space" games can be in stores for perpetuity and still make the developer money.

And when they stop making money they can drop it to the slightly lower price point, slowly dropping over time like they cannot now because used is eating up that lower price point. Its a benefit of the dev getting all my money that makes pc gaming worthwhile, sure i can't trade things in, but that just means i have to chose well or wait till its under five pound (With the fairly regular sales this isn't hard.

The used market does really stand in the way of price drops. (except for lets say AAAA titles and i do mean 4a such as COD starcraft etc etc, which don't budge price wise)

I get what you're saying as a PC gamer since the price point tends to be effected by the console market (because otherwise sales across the consoles-including PCs-would be too uneven), but I think your argument stems from an overly optimistic view in which developers are more willing to drop their prices simply because they should , and I don't think your logic on pricing holds up.

See, right now, developers have to compete with the used games market. If used game sales drive the price down, the developers have to lower their prices as well so that there's still some chance that people will buy the game new. I mentioned earlier that I bought Enslaved Odyssey to the West for $20 about a month after it's release. This is largely because it's a single player only game, so people kept trading it back in when they had fully completed it since there was nothing else to do, dropping the price for both the used and new versions since you can't sell a game for $60 new when the used but still perfectly functioning game is $20.

But let's say the used games market isn't there. Single player only games no longer lose their value as they are completed since no one can trade them back or loan them to a friend. There's no incentive for the developer to lower the price point after a month because the game is still just as valuable as it was on day one, and if people want to buy it, they have a monopoly on the price point since no one can undercut them. The price will stay higher longer, doing the opposite of what you predicted.

But what about multiplayer games, you ask? The good ones are not traded in because people keep playing them, so the used game market for them is made insignificant. Gamestop and other used vendors can't resell the game for much less than full price because they don't have many used copies since gamers who buy them are satisfied with the product, therefore making the used games price point minimally lower, but not enough to deter the average individual from buying new and getting the warranty and everything else that comes with new games. Those that are bad would be traded in far more often, thus driving the price point down in the used games market to the point where it should belong given it's quality, and again, to compete, new games must lower their price point as well. Without a used games market, both games would only be able to judge whether the game price should drop by pure sales data, so reaction would be far slower.

So, on the principles of basic economics, having the used games market actually lowers the price of both new and used games due to competition more quickly, and removing it would remove the incentive for game developers to do so.

I'll admit, it's a little different on the PC games market because of Steam's relative monopoly on virtual downloads allowing them to save gamers money in massive ways through well-timed sales, but when you're buying physical copies, you just can't do it. Steam can offer a nearly infinite number of downloads, therefore making it capable of selling copies of the game at the lower price point across the board to all regions it desires simultaneously. Could you imagine Microsoft and Sony trying to coordinate EVERY STORE IN THE COUNTRY to do the same? It's a pipe dream at best. Expecting consoles to keep up with that kind of policy is unfair.

The used games market doesn't hurt prices; it helps. So the next time you try to blame used games for higher prices, remember how economics works and thank Amazon for your lower price points

 

[Falcon123]

That's all well and good, and I know you guys are out there, but you are a minority. Most people do not replay old games over and over.

I agree that DRM is getting out of hand and digital games and DLC pose problems, but I think a lot of them are overblown and in the "sky is falling" realm of things.

Sweeping generalization alert!

I'd argue that nearly every friend I have that games has at least a few games they play over and over again. Anything that prevents that is breaking the point of having a game (ie. enjoying it as much as you can). Limiting play with harsh DRM is basically limiting the utility the product can give you, thus decreasing your desire/willingness to buy it, thus hurting both the consumer and the developer in the process. No one wins.

 

[Zom-B]

ahah but surely economics backs the statement that they can accurately plot price point/demand in a world where there are no pre owned games, and thus lower it over time. I stand by the fact that their businesses and should strive to earn the most from their IP and this would be the way to go without the abritrary undercutting of used games lingering around.

As for your multiplayer argument i have another, in a world where used games don't exist the market trend of tacking on mp where it doesn't belong (which exists to act as a first hand measure currently) will be less prevalent and a true split can occur where both types of games are sold as what they are, rather than some hybrid (the hybrid may work sometimes, but who touched the sp bit of mw3 or bf3, and similarly who really played the crysis 1 multiplayer).

Theres pros and cons to this argument. But to me the pro's outweigh the cons. Without one of their major bugbears the industry would have to look inward and change things like the fixed and unmoving price point.

Without a competing product, there's very little incentive for a company like a games publisher to lower their prices and it's naive to think they'll do it out of the goodness of their hearts or to benefit the consumer.

A perfect example is Nintendo's first party titles. Finally, last year Nintendo adopted the "best sellers" strategy and finally dropped the price on some of their titles. Until last summer, Twilight Princess was $60 with used copies at $55. A game that was released in Nov 2006 did not see a price drop until summer 2011! That's insane. That's almost 5 years and Nintendo clearly didn't feel the need to lower the price for a long time. Same with Mario Galaxy, NSMBWii and a host of other Nintendo games. Those prices never, ever came down.

Without competition from the used market, prices do not go down. If we always had to wait for a sequel for game prices to drop... well, we'd probably see less sequels, which some might look at as a good thing, but would just meant that economic reality for a lot of people would mean buying less games.

I understand the thinking that a used game sale isn't another game sale for the publisher, but it's wrongheaded to think that a used market is anything but beneficial to both the consumer and the producer. Used sales allow more people to experience games at a cheaper price point, expose more people to more games and give consumers the security to know that if they can't afford a game "right now" maybe in a month or two there will be some used copies cheaper. Which then forces the publishers to look at sales and pricing and determine if a game needs a price drop. If the game is still selling well at $60, then clearly it makes sense to keep the price high. But if sales drop off sharply, that's a signal that maybe your game is too expensive, or too old (relatively speaking) to compete with newer releases and it's time to aim for a lower price point to generate some new sales.

I think a multiplayer game like MW or CoD could exist as a solely mp experience now, but publishers are still scared to go that route. MAG proves that it can work, as it's still being played actively now. You'd actually think that the developers of games like MW could shift the resources used to create the single player mode to further refine the multiplayer and players would probably be stoked if it resulted in a better game. There's enough single player FPS campaigns that a juggernaut like MW doesn't even need to cater to the single player campaign demographic. Those guys will go to another game for that and still come back to MW for online play.

Regardless, cheap used games lower the entry point into gaming, which publishers should love. Like many hobbies, when people start up they don't want to have to make a big financial commitment until they are sure about it. I think lots of gamers will buy a cheap game to start, and when the next comes out will buy it new. That's what I and a lot of others did with Demon's Souls. I didn't buy it until it had hit $40 (and yes, there were cheaper used copies available, but I paid the extra $5 for new). After playing that game, I knew I would buy Dark Souls at full price, which I did. Had Demon's Souls never dipped below $60 I might not have taken the risk, but I'm glad I did and so is From Software because I was more than happy to shell out $60 to a developer I was confident in.

In the end, abolishing the used market won't cause the games industry to look inwards and adjust prices down. With a market that's held hostage to a "pay $60 or don't play at all" environment, the industry would have very little reason to change unless sales dropped precipitously. I think that enough gamers would suck it up and keep buying that the publishers of major franchises would be happy overall, but I think we'd have far less people buying new IPs and lesser known games and Japanese imports than we do now, which would be harmful to the industry as a whole.

 

[Falcon123]

I get what you're saying as a PC gamer since the price point tends to be effected by the console market (because otherwise sales across the consoles-including PCs-would be too uneven), but I think your argument stems from an overly optimistic view in which developers are more willing to drop their prices simply because they should , and I don't think your logic on pricing holds up.

See, right now, developers have to compete with the used games market. If used game sales drive the price down, the developers have to lower their prices as well so that there's still some chance that people will buy the game new. I mentioned earlier that I bought Enslaved Odyssey to the West for $20 about a month after it's release. This is largely because it's a single player only game, so people kept trading it back in when they had fully completed it since there was nothing else to do, dropping the price for both the used and new versions since you can't sell a game for $60 new when the used but still perfectly functioning game is $20.

But let's say the used games market isn't there. Single player only games no longer lose their value as they are completed since no one can trade them back or loan them to a friend. There's no incentive for the developer to lower the price point after a month because the game is still just as valuable as it was on day one, and if people want to buy it, they have a monopoly on the price point since no one can undercut them. The price will stay higher longer, doing the opposite of what you predicted.

But what about multiplayer games, you ask? The good ones are not traded in because people keep playing them, so the used game market for them is made insignificant. Gamestop and other used vendors can't resell the game for much less than full price because they don't have many used copies since gamers who buy them are satisfied with the product, therefore making the used games price point minimally lower, but not enough to deter the average individual from buying new and getting the warranty and everything else that comes with new games. Those that are bad would be traded in far more often, thus driving the price point down in the used games market to the point where it should belong given it's quality, and again, to compete, new games must lower their price point as well. Without a used games market, both games would only be able to judge whether the game price should drop by pure sales data, so reaction would be far slower.

So, on the principles of basic economics, having the used games market actually lowers the price of both new and used games due to competition more quickly, and removing it would remove the incentive for game developers to do so.

I'll admit, it's a little different on the PC games market because of Steam's relative monopoly on virtual downloads allowing them to save gamers money in massive ways through well-timed sales, but when you're buying physical copies, you just can't do it. Steam can offer a nearly infinite number of downloads, therefore making it capable of selling copies of the game at the lower price point across the board to all regions it desires simultaneously. Could you imagine Microsoft and Sony trying to coordinate EVERY STORE IN THE COUNTRY to do the same? It's a pipe dream at best. Expecting consoles to keep up with that kind of policy is unfair.

The used games market doesn't hurt prices; it helps. So the next time you try to blame used games for higher prices, remember how economics works and thank Amazon for your lower price points

ahah but surely economics backs the statement that they can accurately plot price point/demand in a world where there are no pre owned games, and thus lower it over time. I stand by the fact that their businesses and should strive to earn the most from their IP and this would be the way to go without the abritrary undercutting of used games lingering around.

As for your multiplayer argument i have another, in a world where used games don't exist the market trend of tacking on mp where it doesn't belong (which exists to act as a first hand measure currently) will be less prevalent and a true split can occur where both types of games are sold as what they are, rather than some hybrid (the hybrid may work sometimes, but who touched the sp bit of mw3 or bf3, and similarly who really played the crysis 1 multiplayer).

Theres pros and cons to this argument. But to me the pro's outweigh the cons. Without one of their major bugbears the industry would have to look inward and change things like the fixed and unmoving price point.

I definitely understand what you are saying, and in a perfect world, you're absolutely right, but by removing the used games market, you've created a monopoly in which they don't have much incentive to lower prices until they absolutely have to, and I doubt that they will. See, in the current system, publishers sell the game to retailers at a fixed price, thus creating a range of prices at which those retailers can offer the game to maximize profit. The cycle by which a publisher can receive data, analyze it, respond to it, sell versions of the same game to retailers at the newly established price point (if there is one), and have those copies hit the shelves is far longer than it is on a digital market. If the whole of games was a digital market (and you could make a good case for it), I would agree with you, but as of right now, response time is far too long for such a thing to occur.

And tacked on multiplayer will always be a feature because it will increase sales no matter what is going on, therefore increasing the amount of time that mostly single player games will take before dropping to the next price point.

On a digital market like Steam, you're absolutely right. In the retail market in which console games currently exist, your theory is far too flawed without a dramatic overhaul of the system, which isn't what's being proposed by this policy.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

Well looks like I'll stick with my PC exclusively if that because the case. Because I play a lot of "low key games" that don't get big numbers shipped and I don't always get them on day of launch. For example if Atlus releases a Shin Megami game and I wait a few months to get the money and no new copies are available what the hell do I do then huh? At least we PC we don't have to worry about that problem.

 

[hashtag]

As a PC gamer, I find this hilarious

I'm a PS3 gamer and I'm lol'ing right now.
However there really is no guarantee Sony won't turn a round a pull this same shit.

 

[LeQuack_Is_Back]

If a console maker ever pulls that, I will refuse to acknowledge their existence, much less buy their products.

 

[Falcon123]

I get what you're saying as a PC gamer since the price point tends to be effected by the console market (because otherwise sales across the consoles-including PCs-would be too uneven), but I think your argument stems from an overly optimistic view in which developers are more willing to drop their prices simply because they should , and I don't think your logic on pricing holds up.

See, right now, developers have to compete with the used games market. If used game sales drive the price down, the developers have to lower their prices as well so that there's still some chance that people will buy the game new. I mentioned earlier that I bought Enslaved Odyssey to the West for $20 about a month after it's release. This is largely because it's a single player only game, so people kept trading it back in when they had fully completed it since there was nothing else to do, dropping the price for both the used and new versions since you can't sell a game for $60 new when the used but still perfectly functioning game is $20.

But let's say the used games market isn't there. Single player only games no longer lose their value as they are completed since no one can trade them back or loan them to a friend. There's no incentive for the developer to lower the price point after a month because the game is still just as valuable as it was on day one, and if people want to buy it, they have a monopoly on the price point since no one can undercut them. The price will stay higher longer, doing the opposite of what you predicted.

But what about multiplayer games, you ask? The good ones are not traded in because people keep playing them, so the used game market for them is made insignificant. Gamestop and other used vendors can't resell the game for much less than full price because they don't have many used copies since gamers who buy them are satisfied with the product, therefore making the used games price point minimally lower, but not enough to deter the average individual from buying new and getting the warranty and everything else that comes with new games. Those that are bad would be traded in far more often, thus driving the price point down in the used games market to the point where it should belong given it's quality, and again, to compete, new games must lower their price point as well. Without a used games market, both games would only be able to judge whether the game price should drop by pure sales data, so reaction would be far slower.

So, on the principles of basic economics, having the used games market actually lowers the price of both new and used games due to competition more quickly, and removing it would remove the incentive for game developers to do so.

I'll admit, it's a little different on the PC games market because of Steam's relative monopoly on virtual downloads allowing them to save gamers money in massive ways through well-timed sales, but when you're buying physical copies, you just can't do it. Steam can offer a nearly infinite number of downloads, therefore making it capable of selling copies of the game at the lower price point across the board to all regions it desires simultaneously. Could you imagine Microsoft and Sony trying to coordinate EVERY STORE IN THE COUNTRY to do the same? It's a pipe dream at best. Expecting consoles to keep up with that kind of policy is unfair.

The used games market doesn't hurt prices; it helps. So the next time you try to blame used games for higher prices, remember how economics works and thank Amazon for your lower price points

ahah but surely economics backs the statement that they can accurately plot price point/demand in a world where there are no pre owned games, and thus lower it over time. I stand by the fact that their businesses and should strive to earn the most from their IP and this would be the way to go without the abritrary undercutting of used games lingering around.

As for your multiplayer argument i have another, in a world where used games don't exist the market trend of tacking on mp where it doesn't belong (which exists to act as a first hand measure currently) will be less prevalent and a true split can occur where both types of games are sold as what they are, rather than some hybrid (the hybrid may work sometimes, but who touched the sp bit of mw3 or bf3, and similarly who really played the crysis 1 multiplayer).

Theres pros and cons to this argument. But to me the pro's outweigh the cons. Without one of their major bugbears the industry would have to look inward and change things like the fixed and unmoving price point.

I definitely understand what you are saying, and in a perfect world, you're absolutely right, but by removing the used games market, you've created a monopoly in which they don't have much incentive to lower prices until they absolutely have to, and I doubt that they will. See, in the current system, publishers sell the game to retailers at a fixed price, thus creating a range of prices at which those retailers can offer the game to maximize profit. The cycle by which a publisher can receive data, analyze it, respond to it, sell versions of the same game to retailers at the newly established price point (if there is one), and have those copies hit the shelves is far longer than it is on a digital market. If the whole of games was a digital market (and you could make a good case for it), I would agree with you, but as of right now, response time is far too long for such a thing to occur.

And tacked on multiplayer will always be a feature because it will increase sales no matter what is going on, therefore increasing the amount of time that mostly single player games will take before dropping to the next price point.

On a digital market like Steam, you're absolutely right. In the retail market in which console games currently exist, your theory is far too flawed without a dramatic overhaul of the system, which isn't what's being proposed by this policy.

thats not what a monopoly is. A monopoly is where one company has complete control of the market (the closest real world example right now is actually steam). The incentive to lower prices is the same for any free market product, to compete with opposition companies. Things like Indie games and the app store are proof that theres a market for lower price point shorter quality titles. All it takes is one convincing economist in one of the big companies to give this a try and it will stumble. (our last chance failed , which was section 8 prejudice btw, so anyone moaning about a fixed price point who didn't buy that gem should be ashamed) but it will be tried again in the future. Hopefully its more successful that time.

Companies follow the money, if it can be proved that our market wants this it will happen, now getting that initial proof may be tough, but one of the big boys will try again. Its too big of a concern to ignore.

Perhaps my use of the word "monopoly" was a bit vague. You're right, one company does not have complete control of the market, and in a world where there are a variable number of distinct price points and each game comes out at the corresponding value, you'd be correct in saying that that my monopolistic forecasts are incorrect.

But we can only model after the world in which we currently exist, and this world is the world in which this policy may be passed. As it stands now, there are two major price points in the console market, with minor deviations on the XBLA: $60 for a full retail purchase, $15 for an XBLA game. This is mostly because of the gamer culture's inherent belief that if it costs less, it must be worth less, and therefore not be as good as the $60 game. That's what's happening right now , and if it changes, then I'll be inclined to agree with you...

...But right now, it won't. Even if a major economist of one company (as you put it) decided a $50 price point, or $40 or whatever, was a better option for a specific game, the sample size would be far too small to make any generalizations that would impact the whole of gaming. It will take years, likely decades, before a system like the one currently on PCs that takes into account a far greater number of price points, was accepted in the console gaming market. It's the type of change that will occur slowly and gradually as more and more companies eventually try it, and that's if it's a good idea. The console gaming market is different than that of PCs, and I'm not well-versed enough to know that it is the best plan moving forward (though again, even if it is, it will happen slowly)

So what do we have now? Publishers all working together selling games at the same price point. While it's not an actual monopoly, it still operates like one , at least as far as sale to retailers is concerned. The used games market provides a much needed variable that, at least for now, is necessary to accelerate change.

If you want to make a policy like this make sense, you need to find a way to make a Steam-type program available for console gamers to do what PC gamers already do, allowing more room for experimentation, accelerating price changes due to far quicker feedback, etc. Do you trust Microsoft to do that after the fail that is Games for Windows Live? Do you trust Sony to do it after they've been continually hacked and just had a major leadership change? Because I don't, and thus, given the current console retail culture, have to react as negatively to this policy as I am.

 

[Falcon123]

Perhaps my use of the word "monopoly" was a bit vague. You're right, one company does not have complete control of the market, and in a world where there are a variable number of distinct price points and each game comes out at the corresponding value, you'd be correct in saying that that my monopolistic forecasts are incorrect.

But we can only model after the world in which we currently exist, and this world is the world in which this policy may be passed. As it stands now, there are two major price points in the console market, with minor deviations on the XBLA: $60 for a full retail purchase, $15 for an XBLA game. This is mostly because of the gamer culture's inherent belief that if it costs less, it must be worth less, and therefore not be as good as the $60 game. That's what's happening right now , and if it changes, then I'll be inclined to agree with you...

...But right now, it won't. Even if a major economist of one company (as you put it) decided a $50 price point, or $40 or whatever, was a better option for a specific game, the sample size would be far too small to make any generalizations that would impact the whole of gaming. It will take years, likely decades, before a system like the one currently on PCs that takes into account a far greater number of price points, was accepted in the console gaming market. It's the type of change that will occur slowly and gradually as more and more companies eventually try it, and that's if it's a good idea. The console gaming market is different than that of PCs, and I'm not well-versed enough to know that it is the best plan moving forward (though again, even if it is, it will happen slowly)

So what do we have now? Publishers all working together selling games at the same price point. While it's not an actual monopoly, it still operates like one , at least as far as sale to retailers is concerned. The used games market provides a much needed variable that, at least for now, is necessary to accelerate change.

If you want to make a policy like this make sense, you need to find a way to make a Steam-type program available for console gamers to do what PC gamers already do, allowing more room for experimentation, accelerating price changes due to far quicker feedback, etc. Do you trust Microsoft to do that after the fail that is Games for Windows Live? Do you trust Sony to do it after they've been continually hacked and just had a major leadership change? Because I don't, and thus, given the current console retail culture, have to react as negatively to this policy as I am.

Definitely some food for thought, unfortunately because i see the way the world is going used games will be redundant when this switch over happens (its happened for music, its happening for movies and television as we speak) it's a matter of waiting. So while you raise some strong points it becomes moot when faced with that reality. (and to my mind direct downloads create a great equalizer that shelf space is no longer a given).

And the optimist in me kind of hopes it changes the fall heavy release schedule we have atm, he drought periods suck and there are clearly better times to release weaker games.

I see what you're saying. In ten years, when a service like that has been accepted across the board, used games will simply cease to be and there won't be a need for a policy like the one presented here. That being said, I'm far more pessimistic about us getting there as quickly as you do, if only because AAA titles, the ones that really run this industry for better or for worse, are seeing sales that are better as ever, making the need to rush the switch unnecessary.

When the time comes where used games have become such an unnecessary redundancy that it makes no sense, I'll jump right on board with you, but it's not coming today, tomorrow, or before this next generation of games comes out, and as things are now, it just won't work. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Royas]

Piracy =/= about who pays or who doesn't. Piracy can also involve money payments, but none go to the original creator.

Your seriously going to say piracy and buying used games are the same. That's what your seriously going to do?
I do not even know where to begin on how wrong you are. If people actually think this, you and they deserve all the crap corporations currently and are going to dump on you.

News flash, they are. Fact of the matter is your desire to buy a game used, or the purchase in itself, did not in anyway influence the original buyer to purchase the game new. The guy that bough the game brand new would have done so even without the used games market, he is the customer and would have been regardless.

In the end of the day when you buy a used game you do not contribute any money to the industry, even if the copy was at one point brand new.

pirates = used games buyers

Only problem with this is, the law says different. First sale doctrine, fair use rights and consumer rights and the capitalist system itself say different.

 

[Jaythulhu]

Pre-owned is the only way to get any value for money here, unless you're a pc gamer exclusively, in which case you can either wait 6 - 12 months for the bollocks price to drop or pirate the damn thing.

Or open your eyes and not shop at shitty retailers like GAME, GameStop and all those who sell overpriced used games.

I don't generally respond to trolls, however, I'm bored & I have a few minutes left at work so I'll answer your nonsense anyway.

A) My choices for game retailers are limited to EB games or whatever the K-Mart in the town 4 hours away gets. Open your own eyes. Not everyone lives in a city with ready access to the internet and plenty of retailers.

TES V: Skyrim, got it on the second day as hard copy for 30? (Amazon is my friend), Saints Row 3, got it two days after release for 20? (hard copy), Batman Arkham City and Serious sam 3 both for half price one month after release (sweet Steam sales).

Yeah, the only way to get lower price games as a PC gamer is to wat 6-12 months or pirate...

Bully for you, would you like a potato chip? Amazon is not my friend. Skyrim pc is still full price, Saints Row 3 was so damn boring it led to my post. Amazon is not my friend, I'll never use them again after being ripped off for quite a bit of money, and buying things from steam is.. well... read on.

I don't download games because when I lay down my cash I want something I can hold in my hands. Even if I was willing to just accept virtual stuff in exchange for my real money, the cost of downloading a typical game (6gb) would cost somewhere in excess of 1200$AU and take about a month to complete as the only net access I can get is pay per mb ($0.2/mb) for shitty satellite.

Maybe, just maybe you console gamers would not have to pay 60$ for your new games if you would not support business models like GameStop, who rely mostly on used games [heh, a distributor who relies on the sales of used products from an industry that relies on this distributor to sell their products actually new] to exist and thus allowing console games to get cheaper.

C) Who are you, exactly, to start flapping about names like "console gamers" as if it's a derogatory term? You're not the messiah mate, get over yourself. And get a few facts before you spout inflammatory rubbish. I own a pc, only a pc, and only play games on a pc.

However I acknowledge that, as a consumer, the used console game market is much better value for money than purchasing new games. The publishers may not like it, but it is still the best way to purchase games at retail (for our lucky console kin).

Honest, I have no love for used games. They get the same product as people who buy new, without actual loss of quality (a used game plays the same as a new one... if you actually inspect the disc before buying), give their money to the worse kind of fatcats and then whine about every step of publisher / developer to actually reward people who give them money.

What on earth are you trying to say here? Of course used games play the same as new ones, what do you expect? Some little magic internet gremlin running around deleting code from discs and downgrading texture and mesh quality?

 

[A Satanic Panda]

sniper

Bully for you, would you like a potato chip? Amazon is not my friend. Skyrim pc is still full price, Saints Row 3 was so damn boring it led to my post. Amazon is not my friend, I'll never use them again after being ripped off for quite a bit of money, and buying things from steam is.. well... read on.

sniper

What on earth are you trying to say here? Of course used games play the same as new ones, what do you expect? Some little magic internet gremlin running around deleting code from discs and downgrading texture and mesh quality?

And of course today of all days Skyrim gets a 33% discount on Steam.

Spoiler: What if all old games had amazing graphics, and Internet gremlins have been slowly making them worse and worse?

 

[DanDeFool]

Well, it's a little more complicated than that, Jameson.

Named after a brand of hard liquor. Makes sense, I guess...

Erherm. As I was saying, you're forgetting about the fact that many people who sell used games use the proceeds to buy new games, but that's really neither here nor there.

Maybe you could go with the Steam model: i.e. offer users more games, faster, more conveniently, and with frequent financial incentives to buy. This model allows you to maximize your earnings from both your new properties, and your old ones. Maybe Jonny Mc. JRPG-Smith isn't too interested in buying Saints Row 2 at $59.99, but if you offer it to him a year later with ten other games for $90, maybe he'll decide to pull the trigger.

You could stop focusing so much on licking Microsoft's balls by consistently exploiting top-of-the-range graphics hardware to its maximum potential. Because honestly, who really benefits from shilling all that high-powered hardware? Here's a hint: It's not you. Maybe you could spend all that art design money on things like better game design, larger amounts of content, and more refined gameplay. Hell, you might even save money that way. There's nothing really wrong with PS2-era graphics, and you've got the tools and talent to pull that stuff off in your sleep.

And you might also invest in better project planning and improving work/life balance for your employees. Up-front planning, if done well, can dramatically reduce the overall costs of any major project, and maybe if your dev teams weren't too burned-out or too laid-off to work on the next big project, you would be able to benefit from their experience in the form of faster development and fewer problems.

But I guess you were too busy fantasizing about sticking a giant Microsoft-branded spkied dildo up your customer's asses to think of any cost-saving or revenue-generating alternatives that don't involve screwing us out of stuff that we paid for and making us want to call you nasty names on the Internet. Se la vie, I guess.

 

[AsurasFinest]

Piracy =/= about who pays or who doesn't. Piracy can also involve money payments, but none go to the original creator.

Your seriously going to say piracy and buying used games are the same. That's what your seriously going to do?
I do not even know where to begin on how wrong you are. If people actually think this, you and they deserve all the crap corporations currently and are going to dump on you.

News flash, they are. Fact of the matter is your desire to buy a game used, or the purchase in itself, did not in anyway influence the original buyer to purchase the game new. The guy that bough the game brand new would have done so even without the used games market, he is the customer and would have been regardless.

In the end of the day when you buy a used game you do not contribute any money to the industry, even if the copy was at one point brand new.

pirates = used games buyers

Just wow.People actually think this.
I hesitate to use the word stupid, but I honestly can't think of any word more accurate and fitting for people that actually think this.
I guess buying a used car is piracy as well!!Same with buying a used book, movie or any other commodities that are passed around used.
Your logic is flawless and clearly not wrong on every single level.

You clearly have no knowledge about how the market works, what the market is and what your rights are as a consumer and how devs like Volition want to erode them. Since you clearly don't understand, stay out of all conversation regarding used game sales, since anything guys like you say only helps to hurt us as consumers.

You are the fool for trying to assume that all commodities are created equal. Digital media is not the same as physical media, and even among each category the market functions differently.

I find it funny how you go through great lengths to overtly call me stupid without saying so while trying to compare a car purchase to a game purchase. Dear god the amount of silliness is overwhelming. To begin with a car is not even the same type of merchandise as a videogame. Games are a luxury but for most, cars are a necessity. What this means in economic terms is that when one sells a used car they will most likely be buying a new one, as the item itself (like a house, or microwave, or TV, or refrigerator) is necessary for daily living. This is not true for games. And this is just one of the implications.

Lastly I never once said or implied that buying used games is in anyway wrong. You just assumed it. I was just trying to illustrate that from a developer and market perspective there is no significant difference between pirating a game or buying it used.

You call used game buyers pirates and then try to back out of the statement. Classy.
Its written there black and white, clear as crystal. You accused legitimate buyers of being pirates, you didn't say that only devs consider it piracy(they are also wrong for thinking this).

AS for the car purchase, I was using your example of how buying used equals piracy, as did many other commenter's did after reading your post, because apparently everyone understands the failure in logic you presented except for you.

Simple fact is, used games and products are here to stay. They are a cornerstone of our market and are necessary for it to survive. No amount of bitching by you or greedy publishers is going to change this. They try and you might as well just kill the videogame market now, instead of waiting for the inevitable collapse that trying to fight them would bring.

 

[A-D.]

These Guys are trying real hard to get blacklisted by me. In effect basicly going out and telling me to my face "Dont buy our Stuff. Like ever..dont do it because..you shouldnt!" And yes that logic and response is basicly about how much sense the whole Used Games are Bad Debate makes. Your Game sells for 60 Bucks? Fine. Its only 10 Hours long? Okay. It has no replay Value on top of that, is rushed out, buggy as hell or entirely just not fun to the Consumer? Not okay, in fact im entitled to return it.

In fact if i wanted to, i could mail it back to your Dev Headquarters..or to your Publisher, with a Letter attached stating every Reason as to why the Game sucks and where you can stick your Game. Oh and because you're of course right dear Devs, i would also include proof of Purchase, meaning you are holding a Used Game in your Hands that someone else paid for. Im sure you dont mind screaming like little Girls now thinking you caught some weird Disease.

But thats beside the Point, if i buy something, anything, that does not work as advertised or my expectations were not met, or its a faulty Product. I can return it within a set amount of Time and get my Money back. Isnt that logically the same Thing? The game was used, just because i didnt basicly sell the Game back to the Store for Credit or such doesnt change that Fact. The Store cant really just put a new piece of plastic around it and sell it new, well i suppose they could, but probably too much effort.

The trick to avoiding the Used Games market? Make games that People will keep. If the Games are so awesome nobody wants to trade them in? Well guess what, they wont be traded in. Dont see how that logic is so hard to grasp. Course some People will anyway, there's always those few that buy a Game, play it through and return it, cant help that, that will always be there. But a Used Games Market with only a few Games is better than a market with tons of Games, dont you think?

So here's the Deal Volition, and any other Dev and Publisher listening. Make your Games worth our Money. If they arent worth the 60$ Pricetag you slap on them, People wont buy them until they are cheaper. If people arent entertained by your Product, they will return it, some way or another. How is that Logic hard to grasp? Oh and..while we're at it, evolve with the Market, otherwise you will get left behind and cease to by for your lack to adapt to changing Situations. The Market isnt what it used to be 10 Years ago, its different now, adapt or die. Its that simple. Dont try and make the market adapt to you, the Customer feeds you, without them, you are nothing.

And on that note..Microsoft wont do this. Think about it, every major Decision they did that was actually bad? People spoke out about it and Microsoft felt the backlash, they arent stupid enough to try, they'd prod and poke first, test Reactions, before they would even consider something like this.