WHY are used video games bad?

[standokan]

They aren´t bad, it´s just that the industry doesn´t want to go make less money.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

What I really love about the "used games are just as bad as piracy" argument is that, assuming it's true, the reverse must also be true; piracy is no worse than used games. Since a healthy used market is a sign of a healthy industry, and since the first sale doctrine is such a cherished consumer right, the industry is effectively condoning piracy here.

Protip: When you quote a gigantic wall of text and don't specifically address any of the points, you're pretty much saying "I skimmed/didn't read this; I just need a strawman to which I can raise an argument I thought was pretty clever."

Because I don't think video games are necessarily as bad as piracy, in some regards. Their effect on the industry is more or less the same, but the scale of the impact makes it a gray area. The concept of used games means that there's always a fixed number of video games in circulation instead of the potentially infinite that piracy does. Its very existence is still harmful to the industry, but it's in amounts that the industry can control.

Protip: When the argument quoted comes directly from industry spin, don't get upset when the spin gets attacked. The existence of a used market is very good for the industry, they just don't want to accept it because it means that they can't get away with charging $60 a pop for games that aren't worth it. For the used games to exist in the first place, somebody had to buy them -- a whole lot of them, in the case of the mass used market we have today. Just like piracy, which was also a scapegoat because the real sales didn't match the ones in the publishers' heads, used sales are used to get consumers to look away from the real problem, which is that games are grossly overpriced. The problem is that the very people they're trying to convince are the ones who are buying used because new costs too much. Eventually, they're going to have to face the market factors just like every other industry on the planet that sells a product permanent enough to support a used market.

Edit: Further, you're still equating piracy and used games morally -- you did it directly in the response to my post. That still can be used to morally justify piracy much more easily than it can be to villanize used games, at least when logic is applied instead of the appeals to emotion that developers and publishers are so prone to when it comes to anything that threatens their fatally flawed business model.

 

[Seraj]

HELL, the last time I bought a new game was ( ' _ ' ) 3 years ago?

If the Dev's want my money, they'll have to dance for it.

As its been stated over and over in this thread, no other industry whines about it, man up, or get dancing.


You make millions in profit yet you want to wring every last penny out of us cash strapped commoners?

And then you complain that piracy is getting more popular, can't you make the connection?!

/rant

 

[TiefBlau]

Protip: When the argument quoted comes directly from industry spin, don't get upset when the spin gets attacked.

Oh, not this shit again.

Well, at least you admit you don't read my posts. That's a start.

The existence of a used market is very good for the industry, they just don't want to accept it because it means that they can't get away with charging $60 a pop for games that aren't worth it. For the used games to exist in the first place, somebody had to buy them -- a whole lot of them, in the case of the mass used market we have today.

Precisely why I don't think used games are necessarily as bad as piracy. You know, the kind of thing I've been saying over and over again.

Is this thing on?

Your keyboard isn't a fleshlight. Stop beating off into it and expecting some fantasy strawman to get offended.

As I said before, the number of games in circulation is, at worst, the equal to the total number of games that were already sold by retailers. This means the used game industry will never eclipse the publisher's success unless people start getting really, really patient for their games.

Just like piracy, which was also a scapegoat because the real sales didn't match the ones in the publishers' heads, used sales are used to get consumers to look away from the real problem, which is that games are grossly overpriced.

If anything's upsetting the supply and demand of games, it's piracy and the used games industry, for better or for worse. Granted, the publishers' response to this has been pretty messy and stupid (DRM). But that doesn't change the fact that without used games and piracy, there'd be no reason the industry wouldn't charge as much as we're willing to pay. And if that's "unfair" then I guess that's how it is with capitalism.

Is it too expensive? Well, that's completely subjective, isn't it? Perhaps to you it is. I certainly don't buy more than two new games a year. Steam seems to be helping that. Quite frankly, I don't care. I'm not here to argue subjective details and give you your own opinion. You can't seem to grasp this. You keep humping my leg, begging me to be the anti-piracy, anti-used games corporate public relations rep you need to hound and become a hero of the consumer voice or some shit like that. But that's not going to change the laws of economics, and it's certainly not going to turn me into your sick fantasies.

The problem is that the very people they're trying to convince are the ones who are buying used because new costs too much. Eventually, they're going to have to face the market factors just like every other industry on the planet that sells a product permanent enough to support a used market.

When I sell my car away, I lose something. I lose the ability to drive a car. When I sell my house, I can't live there anymore, so I still need a house if I want to live under a roof.

When I sell a game, chances are, I've already played it through. The value that game will hold should I hold onto it is negligible. I don't lose anything by selling that game. That game has no value to me.

The only way the industry can make a product "permanent" enough such that the used market will have no effect on them is to make every game multiplayer.

Edit: Further, you're still equating piracy and used games morally -- you did it directly in the response to my post. That still can be used to morally justify piracy much more easily than it can be to villanize used games at least when logic is applied instead of the appeals to emotion that developers and publishers are so prone to when it comes to anything that threatens their fatally flawed business model.

Oh hamburgers. I think I broke him.

"Going through labor is as painful as being kicked in the balls." "Oh, well people have gotten past pregnancy perfectly fine, and the ability to have kids is a sign of a healthy individual, so I guess your statement justifies being kicked in the balls more than it condemns pregnancy. Just leave the Nobel Prize on my desk, I'll be out of town this week."

They're both pretty painful harmful to the industry.

Also, "morality" has nothing to do with it. You might think that the industry is too big, and could afford to be harmed a little, in the same way you might think Walmart is too big, and could afford a good boycott. That's fine. For the third time, I'm not arguing that. But facts are facts; the used games industry, along with piracy, mean developers, regardless of size, won't earn as much money. Whether you think they deserve that money is a can of worms I'm not going to let you force-feed me.

 

[Dodgeboyuk]

i buy used games but mostly because the game is no longer produced
does that make me a bad customer because they wont make new copies of old games anymore?

i would rather get my hands on brand new copies of games that are old titles rather
than used but most copies of the game that exist in this state are owned by collectors

i still try to buy new when i can but i will sure as hell make sure i save money when i do
i no longer buy a game at its release price i will wait for that price to drop because i dont aggree with that pricing and DLC costs

my further justifcation for this is buying new hardware is not cheap
and that the money you save by not buying at realese can go to your future hardware fund or towards the DLC for that game


playing games on the release date with the recomended hardware and all the DLC is only for the rich and spoilt

game publishers and devlopers need to recognise that pumping out title after title at the current pricing will only have their titles ignored by a large portian of gamers and at best ignored for a few months or years or that people will only buy used or download pirate

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Protip: When the argument quoted comes directly from industry spin, don't get upset when the spin gets attacked.

Oh, not this shit again.

Well, at least you admit you don't read my posts. That's a start.

The existence of a used market is very good for the industry, they just don't want to accept it because it means that they can't get away with charging $60 a pop for games that aren't worth it. For the used games to exist in the first place, somebody had to buy them -- a whole lot of them, in the case of the mass used market we have today.

Precisely why I don't think used games are necessarily as bad as piracy. You know, the kind of thing I've been saying over and over again.

Is this thing on?

Your keyboard isn't a fleshlight. Stop beating off into it and expecting some fantasy strawman to get offended.

As I said before, the number of games in circulation is, at worst, the equal to the total number of games that were already sold by retailers. This means the used game industry will never eclipse the publisher's success unless people start getting really, really patient for their games.

Just like piracy, which was also a scapegoat because the real sales didn't match the ones in the publishers' heads, used sales are used to get consumers to look away from the real problem, which is that games are grossly overpriced.

If anything's upsetting the supply and demand of games, it's piracy and the used games industry, for better or for worse. Granted, the publishers' response to this has been pretty messy and stupid (DRM).

Is it too expensive? Well, that's completely subjective, isn't it? Perhaps to you it is. I certainly don't buy more than two new games a year. Steam seems to be helping that. Quite frankly, I don't care. I'm not here to argue subjective details and give you your own opinion. You can't seem to grasp this. You keep humping my leg, begging me to be the anti-piracy, anti-used games corporate public relations rep you need to hound and become a hero of the consumer voice or some shit like that. But that's not going to change the laws of economics, and it's certainly not going to turn me into your sick fantasies.

The problem is that the very people they're trying to convince are the ones who are buying used because new costs too much. Eventually, they're going to have to face the market factors just like every other industry on the planet that sells a product permanent enough to support a used market.

When I sell my car away, I lose something. I lose the ability to drive a car. When I sell my house, I can't live there anymore, so I still need a house if I want to live under a roof.

When I sell a game, chances are, I've already played it through. The value that game will hold should I hold onto it is negligible. I don't lose anything by selling that game. That game has no value to me.

The only way the industry can make a product "permanent" enough such that the used market will have no effect on them is to make every game multiplayer.

Edit: Further, you're still equating piracy and used games morally -- you did it directly in the response to my post. That still can be used to morally justify piracy much more easily than it can be to villanize used games at least when logic is applied instead of the appeals to emotion that developers and publishers are so prone to when it comes to anything that threatens their fatally flawed business model.

Oh hamburgers. I think I broke him.

"Going through labor is as painful as being kicked in the balls." "Oh, well people have gotten past pregnancy perfectly fine, and the ability to have kids is a sign of a healthy individual, so I guess your statement justifies being kicked in the balls more than it condemns pregnancy. Just leave the Nobel Prize on my desk, I'll be out of town this week."

They're both pretty painful harmful to the industry.

Also, "morality" has nothing to do with it. You might think that the industry is too big, and could afford to be harmed a little, in the same way you might think Walmart is too big, and could afford a good boycott. That's fine. For the third time, I'm not arguing that. But facts are facts; the used games industry, along with piracy, mean developers, regardless of size, won't earn as much money. Whether you think they deserve that money is a can of worms I'm not going to let you force-feed me.

Here's the thing; I'm not the one ignoring market factors. The industry is. The price is too high because a large portion of consumers are going to their competition, in this case pirated and used games. Rather than try to compete -- and yes, you can compete with free if you get the price low enough and incentivise the sales properly, let alone with merely "cheap" -- they ignore the market factors telling them they have too high of a price point, and instead try to fix prices -- something that goes against the spirit of the anti-trust laws, if not the letter of them.

As for the piracy thing, piracy has always been more of a scapegoat than a real problem. The real problem is that games are priced higher than the market will bear, but the publishers don't want to hear that, so they seek out scape goats. As for your analogy, it's just wrong. A better way of putting it would be if someone started arguing that a massage was worse for the body than a kick in the balls. Since a massage is actually pretty good for the body, the only logical conclusion is that a kick in the balls is really good for the body. If that doesn't make sense, it's because the initial claim was BS, not because the logical conclusion was bad.

*edit*To use your analogy, "Going through labor is as painful as being kicked in the balls," the answer wouldn't be that getting kicked in the balls is a good thing, it would be that they're both equally painful -- pregnancy is a good thing, but labor can be excruciatingly painful. The pain isn't a good thing in itself, and is the main reason we have things like, you know, epidurals. Formal logic fail. It would only be an equivalent analogy if you said "pregnancy is no better for society than getting kicked in the balls," in which case the logical conclusion would be that either getting kicked in the balls is a really good thing, or the person who made the initial statement was off their rocker.*/edit*

And no, I'm not arguing a straw man. Maybe I quoted the wrong person, but the argument, as stated by Cliffy B, Penny Arcade, and numerous other industry figures, is that used games are as bad as or worse than pirated games. I highly doubt I quoted the wrong person, though, because you're still arguing that used games are bad for the industry. It's not -- every other industry has to deal with it, and it actually has a positive effect on most other industries. The games industry just likes to whine because $60 isn't a competitive price, and they like their overly inflated profit margin. As people have said throughout this thread, they can deal -- and if they can't, they deserve whatever industry crash they get for ignoring the basic principles of capitalism.