WHY are used video games bad?
- Thread starter tehweave
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Funny thing is, if it wasn't for garage sales and pawn shops growing up I probably wouldn't have owned any other games besides Mario Bros. / Duck Hunt and Sonic the Hedgehog. Apprently I'm a bad gamer but seriously, give a kid a chance to save up his allowance and b-day money. He can either A) Buy one new game or B) Buy 6 used games for the same price as a new game.
What is he gunna pick? Nothing he is doing is illegal, just they have to make buying the original game worth my time.
What is he gunna pick? Nothing he is doing is illegal, just they have to make buying the original game worth my time.
well for me, used video games are bad because I can't stand the thought of people touching them and playing with them before I buy it. Not knowing where its been or whats been done to it is horrifying, the same reason I no longer borrow books from the library. Plus, one of my favorite things is opening a fresh new package of a brand new game that just came out, and has never ever been touched before, possibly not even by factory workers.
I so mad right now...TestECull said:
What part of this are people having difficulty understanding? The publishers/developers are NOT making their money. They're making a small fraction of total potential sales whilst retailers falsely inflate stock levels with used titles obtained via store incentive and back-alley pawn shop mentality. Inflated stock levels are then balanced by the companies by RETURNING UNPURCHASED NEW GAMES for credit by the retailer. The retailer has not made their money off store stock because it was NEVER SOLD.
It's not a case of them finishing their dinner and demanding some off their neighbors, it's their plate being taken from them mid-meal and given to someone else, and wait staff insisting that they had finished it when they protest.
Dude, go watch the WhistleBlowerZero vid. It goes over exactly how underhandedly Gametraders behaves in regard to purchasing used product. We're talking about a company policy which actively seeks to fuck the legal owner of the IP right out of their legal cut under the thinly veiled premise of providing value to the customer.cryofpaine said:
Your internet tough guy is showing, sunshine.Larva said:
This is fucking hilarious. Steam probably singlehandedly saved PC gaming primarily BECAUSE it bypasses the physical retailer and provides a REASONABLE anti-piracy system. Steam is the fucking poster child FOR our arguments against retail theft in the guise of the corporate used game market.
Reading is essential. Direct sell-on from the consumer IS NOT the same thing as the used game market established by retailers. One incentivises false bloating of stock levels to increase profit at the expense of the IP holder, one does not, I'll let you guess which one.TestECull said:
No, see above, see any of my posts. There is a MASSIVE difference between a person selling their old games online and the kind of practices retailers are engaging in. The two are so dissimilar that it's almost comical. You are looking to liquidate unwanted property, it is a one time sale and you are not in a position where your sale directly competes in a market sense with new product.
Also the falliacy of the car dealership or seconds appliances has been repeatedly addressed already. A dealership can't return X number gogomobiles or superbrand refrigerators to the factory for credit against next years model purely because they aren't moving. Game stores can, and do.
You are completely right, but they do have the right to have their product sold without bootleg-equivilants being treated preferrentially by the retailer who is SUPPOSED to be supporting them.
I am not attacking your rights as a consumer. Don't you see that the Retailer is NOT your fucking friend in this issue? They are taking you for a fucking ride while undermining the very principles you support so vehemently here.
The retailer is NOT the Underdog in this deal. Gamestop and Best Buy are fucking MASSIVE in the states. EB and JB-HIFI here in Australia are of comparable size per capita. Any one of these companies could make a SERIOUS bid for complete takeover of any publishing company you please, should they want to, and still have enough left over for platinum cock pumps for every member of the board. They won't though, why? Because if they did, they'd be ripping off themselves instead of the publishers they've obviously so successfully painted as the evil empire in the minds of gamers.
I did not know this, thank for sharing, I really thought Retailers kept bulk stock taht wasnt sold.Timmibal said:GothmogII said:Has it been mentioned yet that that it is purely the fault of the publishers/developers themselves who did not have the foresight to set up conditions to ensure that they would receive a cut of the sales made off of used games?
For one thing, I'm only vaguely aware of how game stores purchase their stock, but it usually follows like this:
Game Store purchases product from seller (i.e. manufacturer/publisher/developer, whomever is handling this). This means, at that point the good is ALREADY PAID FOR ONCE
Meaning the the developer etc. has already been paid for their efforts.
The contention here though, is that while the dev/publisher is getting paid once, the Retailer (game store) is getting almost twice (or more in many cases) this in return via used sales.
The dev/publisher is not some noble creative genius seeking only to get what they're due, they want to get paid twice too, can't really blame them, who wouldn't? But desiring so puts them on exactly the same level as those awful greedy retailers.
That notion that they'd have to 'cut-back' and not make as many games is pure bull too. As I've said, they've already been paid, now they want their seconds.Sorry guys, incorrect. The publishers, and by extension the developers are only paid CONDITIONALLY on releases. As I said before, the retailer retains the right to RETURN bulk stock to the publisher as credit against future releases. Because retailers artificially inflate their stock level by actively encouraging trade-ins of popular titles, and then encourage used sales over new at the till (See WhistleBlowerZero's rant on youtube for gamespot's ridiculous policy on used games) the publisher then has to account in its future shipments for the credit already owed to these retailers. This means less money to the publisher, which often means the developers percentage of their future titles is affected also.boag said:
Let's see that again. The retailer aggressively attempts to create the 'hyped game' stock situation boag outlined in order to maximize the profits made on SOMEONE ELSE'S IP. This isn't publishers and developers double dipping, this is them attempting to get their fair share in the first place! I agree with the right of the customer to do what they like with property they have legitimately purchased, but this is not about a person gifting a game to someone else, or selling on their old titles on e-bay or similar. This is a case of Retailers parasitically abusing your rights for their own bottom line, I would say to the eventual detriment of all.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6wnow_zero-originality-episode-1_videogamesTimmibal said:
It's nearly impossible to find the video, but here it is. Ok, so GameStop is by and large practically (and in some cases, actually) criminal. That still doesn't address the original premise of the post - that the used game market is not a bad thing, despite what game publishers think. And in the video, he actually advocates being able to buy and sell used games. You seem stuck on one example of a company being an @$$, and saying that the entire market is therefore criminal and should be done away with.
Even with GameStop in the equation, there's still nothing I've seen that says there are any problem with having a used game market. It's not like GameStop is forcing you to resell your game so they have used games to sell. It's not like they're opening up the games so they can sell them as used without someone ever buying them in the first place. Even if they were doing that, they wouldn't have that copy of the game to be able to send back to the publisher, so the publisher wouldn't have to refund it, so they did get paid full value for it. Now, if GameStop were returning those used games to the publisher for a refund, then maybe you would have an argument.
At its core, the issue is still "# people currently playing the game = # of copies that developer was paid for".
People might have said this but I'll do it as well.tehweave said:
It's not just about greed, it's about getting payed for your labour. For a small company/developer sale of preowned games might brake them. Admitedly the ones complaining the loudest are the big publishers, but they aren't the only ones who are complaining. So it's not all about companies being greedy, some of it is, but not all.
It's not just one company, I see paralells between Gamestop's business practices and nearly every other major video game chain I have seen. Just because Gamestop's practices seem to be the most cutthroat does not make the behaviour permissable.cryofpaine said:
No, but you are HEAVILY encouraged to do so, with large signs entreating thus, upsale promotion requirements for staff in this regard and offers of cheaper purchases of anticipated titles if items from an arbitrary list are included with your trade-ins. Also, assuming the best of the retail sector and implying that gamestop is a black sheep for a moment, ALL video game stores I have seen ALWAYS put used stock in preferential point-of-sale. Any marketing reps will tell you that placement is a HUGE factor when dealing with a retail outlet.
Again, I see no problem when the individual decides to sell-on their legally purchased property. What I have a problem with is when that consumer right is perverted to prop up the bottom line of a company which isn't even really giving the customer anything remotely approaching a fair deal in the first place, let alone the potential damage to the industry as a whole.
meh. as long as my budget is smaller than the average man's urethra, i'll keep buying used games.
Now a days the only reason used games "might" suck is because of the way they do the DLC. For example buy Dragon Age and various parts of the game are DLC. When you trade it in and they resell it the next person that buys this used game won't have access to that content without buying it. On newer games its a cost savings of $5 or $10 bucks but depending on the game your sometimes losing 1/4 or a 1/3 of the content.
Sorry to remove what you wrote, but otherwise the quote be most of my post. Yup. Good times.GothmogII said:
Anyways.
If no one buys new games cause they don't want to pay full price, the stores themselves buy less new games because they get sold less, so the devs make less money because ya know, they're getting paid less and then they might decide, "oh shit time to rethink our strategy for making money..." but let's be honest, based on their current actions, do you really think they'd actually think that through well enough? They'd more likely just make more and more clone games that do get them enough fanboy income and say "fuck you" to the rest.
That's what I mean.
Well curses. I stand by my point, but it was made in return to a point that wasn't even your point. But I agree that the prices are god damn expensive. All my recent purchases have been on steam sales because they make it possible for me to really afford 'em.StarCecil said:
I don't see what the big deal is anyway. I mean, sure, if one guy buys a game for 60 dollars and gets tired of it and sells it, another guy might be able to buy his copy at a store for, let's say, 50 dollars. But they're still buying the game!
Piracy is when someone buys an illegal, unauthorized copy of a game. But used games are perfectly legal, they were given to us by the developers themselves and they already got their share of their money. If I was a developer, I would prefer 50 people to buy my game used than have just one guy buy a single copy new. I know developers are not working just for the love of art; we all want the almighty dollar. But again, they already got their share. Where do you think used games come from? Not only that but it keeps the franchise afloat. You're still using their servers, you're still in love with the game, so you're still their customer.
Oh, and sometimes, it's the only way to find a game at a brick and mortar store. Go ahead and try to find Halo 3 brand new, factory sealed at a store. Or maybe Ico. You're gonna have a hard time.
I could go on but truly, there's no problem. At the end, it all comes down to the developers wanting a share of what the store makes for selling the game used. It's understandable that they want more money; that doesn't make them evil. And of course the brick and mortal stores also want a bigger share. If you ask me, I see no problem here but that's something that's never gonna be settled with words, only with money. Not aiming for a pseudo-philosophical bull here, but that's that I think.
Piracy is when someone buys an illegal, unauthorized copy of a game. But used games are perfectly legal, they were given to us by the developers themselves and they already got their share of their money. If I was a developer, I would prefer 50 people to buy my game used than have just one guy buy a single copy new. I know developers are not working just for the love of art; we all want the almighty dollar. But again, they already got their share. Where do you think used games come from? Not only that but it keeps the franchise afloat. You're still using their servers, you're still in love with the game, so you're still their customer.
Oh, and sometimes, it's the only way to find a game at a brick and mortar store. Go ahead and try to find Halo 3 brand new, factory sealed at a store. Or maybe Ico. You're gonna have a hard time.
I could go on but truly, there's no problem. At the end, it all comes down to the developers wanting a share of what the store makes for selling the game used. It's understandable that they want more money; that doesn't make them evil. And of course the brick and mortal stores also want a bigger share. If you ask me, I see no problem here but that's something that's never gonna be settled with words, only with money. Not aiming for a pseudo-philosophical bull here, but that's that I think.
Ahaha! No.Beautiful End said:
Let's explain this one more time:
1. the price of a new game is the publisher trying to recoup development costs and retail taking a big cut
2. the game and the disc it's printed on is worth cent
3. thus any copy of game, legal or otherwise, is almost worthless, not worth $50 used
4. the game can always be had for free, if the gamer chooses so.
Conclusion:
People who buy the game new are a minority of useful fools who carry the who game industry on their backs. They pay for the development of new games, for everyone to enjoy.
Pirates and people who buy used, are both cheap and contribute nothing, but the pirates are atleast being sensible about it.
Trading games for games with other gamers is a perfect legal alternative. No money needs to change hands.
Same as with piracy, the publishers don't gain here, but atleast no money gets flushed down the toilet (gamer budget been spent on supporting a developer they like).
From best to worst:
buying new >> trading 1:1 > piracy >> buying used at a store
That is a shockingly ignorant summation of what its all about. Developing video games is no longer something hobbyists do frequently, to make even mediocre AAA games (a la Halo: Reach), developers need an ass-ton of writers, artists, engineers, programmers, and administrative level services to get a product out the door. Not to mention the fact that nearly 100 percent of this work has to be done on computers, so that jacks the cost up more. On top of that, the developers have to find money to pay for hosting multiplayer servers so that you can play online whenever you want.tehweave said:
The notion of "companies being greedy" may have been true if game developers behaved this way in the 1990s (when games were frequently made by 10 guys when they got off their day jobs), but now games take a colossal amount of capital to even start.
There is a reason publishers keep having to shut down game studios- manpower is expensive, and if they don't behave in a way that is profitable, there won't be games.
Be less of an entitled little shit. Wanting to be able to pay the bills at the end of the day isn't greedy, it's common fucking sense.
Edit: This may sound unduly harsh, but accusing someone of being greedy for trying to have enough money so their employees can, you know, eat, deserves it.
Libraries are Theft! LOL!
Anyway I buy used games ALL the time! I've bought less than 50 used games out of the hundreds I have!
Anyway I buy used games ALL the time! I've bought less than 50 used games out of the hundreds I have!
As anyone with two cells to rub together should be able to realise: considering the responses I take it that many of those here are not exactly intellectuals so I'll put it into the simplest arguement possible: Reducto ad Absurdium: taking it to an extreme.
Say I am a development studio and I make a game. It costs me over several hundred thousand dollars to make. Say you buy it, being a good person. I get a share of your $60 USD, the rest goes to the publisher and the retailer. Now, no-one else buys the game new. I have my money, a total of $60 USD, which means I have less money than I need, I am not happy. Then you finish your game, and quite reasonably sell it back to the retailer. Then they sell it on again, for more than they bought it from you for, and close to retail brand new, undercutting the new game sales and encouraging their used sales. The game is only ever bought used from the store, one copy circulating around. I get no portion of this money, despite the fact that the distributor, a retailer like GameStop or GAME, did not have to put up the several hundred thousand aforementioned. Hence, they get money, and I do not. Thus, I cannot make games, and everyone loses.
Back to the real world: The same thing happens to a lesser extent: the only people who profit from used game sales are retailers.
The complaint is not aimed at the retail of games which are 2 or 3 years old, hard to find titles and the like. It is at the return policy of stores where new releases can be sold back for small amount of the cost of the game, and are then sold at near new prices. Projects like EA's Project 10 dollar are aimed at destabilising an unfair and illogical industry, and at the very least, paying the developer for the content they made.
Remember: All business is about making money. Money makes things happen. When I want my noodles, or I need to help chip in for fuel for my carpool, I need money. People deserve to be paid for their work, and since the aim is not to hurt you, but hurt the people scamming both you and the developers, try to think a little logically for once.
Say I am a development studio and I make a game. It costs me over several hundred thousand dollars to make. Say you buy it, being a good person. I get a share of your $60 USD, the rest goes to the publisher and the retailer. Now, no-one else buys the game new. I have my money, a total of $60 USD, which means I have less money than I need, I am not happy. Then you finish your game, and quite reasonably sell it back to the retailer. Then they sell it on again, for more than they bought it from you for, and close to retail brand new, undercutting the new game sales and encouraging their used sales. The game is only ever bought used from the store, one copy circulating around. I get no portion of this money, despite the fact that the distributor, a retailer like GameStop or GAME, did not have to put up the several hundred thousand aforementioned. Hence, they get money, and I do not. Thus, I cannot make games, and everyone loses.
Back to the real world: The same thing happens to a lesser extent: the only people who profit from used game sales are retailers.
The complaint is not aimed at the retail of games which are 2 or 3 years old, hard to find titles and the like. It is at the return policy of stores where new releases can be sold back for small amount of the cost of the game, and are then sold at near new prices. Projects like EA's Project 10 dollar are aimed at destabilising an unfair and illogical industry, and at the very least, paying the developer for the content they made.
Remember: All business is about making money. Money makes things happen. When I want my noodles, or I need to help chip in for fuel for my carpool, I need money. People deserve to be paid for their work, and since the aim is not to hurt you, but hurt the people scamming both you and the developers, try to think a little logically for once.