WHY are used video games bad?
- Thread starter tehweave
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm sorry, but this part literally makes no sense. They don't want to sell the same game(copy) over and over again! They just want every individual player to buy a distinct copy of the game from the Publisher, so that they can earn the money they WORKED for. If you buy a used game, you give NO money to the publishers and Devs who spent a fortune MAKING this game. In other words.....it's stealing, but for some reason it isn't treated as such.tehweave said:
Seriously, can someone explain this to me? Why is it that Piracy is a universal no-no, whilst Used game sale is fine even though it's the EXACT same end result?
I thought I recognized your screen name from somewhere...Strain42 said:
http://user.drunkduck.com/Strain42
Awesome webcomic, keep up the great work!
Lets say we use psn since I'm not that familiar with buying stuff on the xbox, and all game sales are digital. Now you dl a game and you and decide to share it with a friend. To do this you need to give him one of your 5 accounts. If you give out all 5 accounts no one else can download the game, and if you lose your account for any reason, one of your friends must delete your account of their psn and give it back to you. So it's not exactly the picture you paint, not to mention that most people will still buy a game as opposed to dl it of a friend.tzimize said:
Your view is pretty correct, to the point that pirated games often have multiplayer locked much like some of EA's games, at least most pc games. That being said, to unlock multi on a preowned game you have to pay approx. $5, but to play multi on a pirated game you have to play approx $60 for a new copy of the game.cookyy2k said:
Probably foes all the way back to the public outcry against piracy by the record companies and the news stations that covered them when pirating music was just coming onto the scene.GrizzlerBorno said:
Dragonforce525 said:
Some developers are huge organisations rolling in money yes but other smaller developers are struggling. Square enix doesn't appear to be doing too well and that's a large developer. So unless we want microsoft and EA making the same thing over and over some support of the industry is needed. Also do you not picture say game, tesco or asda who all sell pre-owned games as huge organisations rolling round in money by selling something that not only did they not have to pay to make but by also giving none of that money to those who have had to invest time and money into making?
Well there are pros and cons:
1) Reselling games do not benefit the publisher in the least. The reseller gets all the money. Good for the reseller, not good for the publisher as it reduces the potential number of retail customers. Better for the customer since they pay less money over all for a single purchase.
2) A resold game is usually of poor collection quality. Manuals are missing, disks are scratched, cases are damaged or plastered with price tag stickers. You will see these all over Ebay and Amazon with the sellers blatantly lying about the condition the game comes in. Would you pay 25 dollars for a old hard to find game that comes in a paper disk jacket and is scratched to hell? Yeah me neither. Bad for the customer as it devalues the game reducing any investment value.
3) Artificially inflates the resell value of the game however as the possible capital off an individual game is expanded to... whatever the average limit of life is on a cd/dvd/blu-ray. This is bad for the end consumer as an individual game will be resold at higher price than it would be comparatively a decade ago. Do you notice in the past games used to drop in price after release significantly in the first 4-6 months? That doesn't happen anymore. Bad for the customer in the long run since they have to wait longer for price drops, also doubles the risk of waiting as production runs are limited.
4) Reduces the viable number of collectible copies. This will increase the value to and of collectors in the long run. Good for the customer who wants to make a long term investment. Bad for the customer as it reduces the viable number of playable copies of a game.
1) Reselling games do not benefit the publisher in the least. The reseller gets all the money. Good for the reseller, not good for the publisher as it reduces the potential number of retail customers. Better for the customer since they pay less money over all for a single purchase.
2) A resold game is usually of poor collection quality. Manuals are missing, disks are scratched, cases are damaged or plastered with price tag stickers. You will see these all over Ebay and Amazon with the sellers blatantly lying about the condition the game comes in. Would you pay 25 dollars for a old hard to find game that comes in a paper disk jacket and is scratched to hell? Yeah me neither. Bad for the customer as it devalues the game reducing any investment value.
3) Artificially inflates the resell value of the game however as the possible capital off an individual game is expanded to... whatever the average limit of life is on a cd/dvd/blu-ray. This is bad for the end consumer as an individual game will be resold at higher price than it would be comparatively a decade ago. Do you notice in the past games used to drop in price after release significantly in the first 4-6 months? That doesn't happen anymore. Bad for the customer in the long run since they have to wait longer for price drops, also doubles the risk of waiting as production runs are limited.
4) Reduces the viable number of collectible copies. This will increase the value to and of collectors in the long run. Good for the customer who wants to make a long term investment. Bad for the customer as it reduces the viable number of playable copies of a game.
It isn't greedy at all. Developers and publishers get no money from used game sales. They put a lot of time, effort and money into these products and deserve to get paid in return.
It is a money thing, but it's for a good reason. If every single person in the world bought used except for one person, then the developers would only get one sale ever. Once it's sold new once, it's out of their hands for good, so if people keep buying used over and over again it's literally another sale that they would have made but didn't.tehweave said:
If you made a game that was really successful but you went bankrupt because half the copies sold were used copies, you'd be pissed too.
In all actuality, yes, it is a money thing. But see, I dislike saying that the developers are "greedy". Is it "greedy" to try and secure some extra cash so that you don't have to sell 1 million copies just to break even? Is it "greedy" to desperately try and squeeze out some cents to fund your next project? In some situations, sure, but I don't think that is the the case for the majority of developers/tehweave said:
I blame the fact that games cost so much to produce and how the whole system in terms of management, budget, and development is pretty screwed up compared to other mediums. I would not be surprised if developers would not care about used game sales if they didn't need those precious dollars and cents (as only a percentage of the $60 actually goes to the developer), but with even standard AA or A games needing enormous budgets just to produce the game it's not hard to see why some developers are desperate for cash. Because games take from so many different mediums and attempt to smash them together, they cost way more than producing movies. Hell, you could probably make 3 blockbuster movies out of the budget of one AAA game.
All I'm saying is, try to keep it in perspective. While the used game market will probably never die, it's not that hard to understand why some developers are hostile to the idea. In the end, yeah, it's a money thing as difficult as it is to admit it.
Now that I think about it, isn't that what Valve is kinda doing with Steam? Not reselling their own used games, but making a game store of their own. That's what car companies do. Maybe if the big name studios just make their own game stores and sell only the games they make (and any indie titles that are willing to share some of their profits).PattyG said:
Captcha says "Hence, ereventi". I dunno. That might just be a good word for this kind of setup!
I think calling them greedy for wanting money, when you buy used and trade games in for the same reason, is hypocritical. I buy used games when they aren't sold new anymore, but buying a new release used seems like an insult to the developers. Comparing a used game to a used car doesn't make sense. You're selling an experience with a game, not a tool.
DEVELOPERS and PUBLISHERS are greedy? As opposed to the retailers who put used games on a shelf and rake in all the profit without making a single thing? Id rather give my money to people making the game. If I do that, they won't have to increase prices, and will be more willing to try a new and unique IP instead of hashing out a safe, generic shooter that we have basically already played a million times before.
The whole "Used Games and Piracy" thing is interesting because there are people who support used games and condemn piracy, but can't really think of an argument to separate them morally. I think this is a good example of lots of people accepting something as right because of a cultural norm, not because they have an argument for it being morally justified.
The only logic I see for used games is that the ability and market to resell games creates extra value in games, thus the price the developers sell to the store can be high because they could get 3-4 resales out of, for example. However, this makes the "I'll buy them new when they give them reasonable prices" statement into a "I'll never buy them new." Stores are willing to buy at high price because they know that a copy of a game is worth more than the first sale. If people didn't buy used at all, then the store would demand lower prices from the developers, because the product isn't worth as much.
The only logic I see for used games is that the ability and market to resell games creates extra value in games, thus the price the developers sell to the store can be high because they could get 3-4 resales out of, for example. However, this makes the "I'll buy them new when they give them reasonable prices" statement into a "I'll never buy them new." Stores are willing to buy at high price because they know that a copy of a game is worth more than the first sale. If people didn't buy used at all, then the store would demand lower prices from the developers, because the product isn't worth as much.
What they don't seem to consider is that when I buy a brand new game for $110-$130 (for that is the price in my country - sometimes as high as $150), I factor in the possibility that I can resell it for $40-50 once I've finished it.
But if I cannot do that, then I cannot afford to buy many games. Hence the amount of new games I've bought lately is rapidly falling. So if they drop the price of games to reflect the fact they're now getting all the money from every copy sold, then I could afford to start buying again. If not, I'll be permanently waiting for 'platinum' deals and carefully reading every single review before I make a purchase, so they better make DAMN SURE - and I'm looking at you Command & Conquer 4 - that their game is worth paying full price for.
But if I cannot do that, then I cannot afford to buy many games. Hence the amount of new games I've bought lately is rapidly falling. So if they drop the price of games to reflect the fact they're now getting all the money from every copy sold, then I could afford to start buying again. If not, I'll be permanently waiting for 'platinum' deals and carefully reading every single review before I make a purchase, so they better make DAMN SURE - and I'm looking at you Command & Conquer 4 - that their game is worth paying full price for.
A game developer wanting to make money from their products really shouldn't be that outlandish an expectation. Unless you're talking about the absolute top selling and popular AAA franchises, most video games do not even break even in profits. The ability of many developers to stay operational is determined title to title, so in the majority of cases I would hardly call it "greed" that drives the need for profits going to the game's creators.Sir Neox said:
Big games like Call of Duty have a long "tail" of sales that continue on long after the initial release, but most games also rely on sales in the beginning of the product's life cycle, and it's more like weeks or months before profits reduce to a trickle. I'm not really opposed to used game sales, especially of older and hard-to-find games. Used and discounted games are the only way some people can afford to enjoy this hobby, so it's important that they're affordable, but I'd never buy a used game the day after release for $5 off the retail price. If anyone is greedy in this picture, I'd blame the used game retailers and their sales tactics.
An EEDAR study was published in 2008 that revealed that only 20% of games that reach the market are actually profitable (and that figure is only 4% if you count games that are canceled or otherwise not finished).
Just saying.
This can pretty much all be summed up by the project 10 dollar episode of extra credits, but the fact being is that games are expensive to make, and with the purchase of a used game the developer gets no money, and the retailer gets it all. As games get more and more expensive to make developers will either have to charge more for new games, impliment these "project ten dollars", or take absolutely no risk when developing a game so that they know that it will sell. In my opinion the project ten dollar is the best option.
Ok, think about it: You trade in a game to gamestop for like 10% of what you paid (and though that is a big issue, its not the focus of the topic so I will avoid that debate), and then with this paltry amount of money you are SO much more likely to buy a used version of the game. In fact, you are much more likely to buy the used version if available because its practically just as good as a new copy, except in special cases of damage.
Now, why would you EVER pay full price for a game unless you want it release day. Simply wait a week and then some sucker has bought it, traded it in, and gamestop pockets not only the difference but what you put up to buy it. In an ideal situation a game is paid for nearly $100 and gamestop ends up only paying nearly $20 to get it back.
Needless to say, a developer works hard on a game, and dont you think they deserve to get their money's worth for the quality in the game they make? I know Im being the devils advocate, but its not free to make a game, and the more money you pay a developer, the more they will put out quality games
Now, why would you EVER pay full price for a game unless you want it release day. Simply wait a week and then some sucker has bought it, traded it in, and gamestop pockets not only the difference but what you put up to buy it. In an ideal situation a game is paid for nearly $100 and gamestop ends up only paying nearly $20 to get it back.
Needless to say, a developer works hard on a game, and dont you think they deserve to get their money's worth for the quality in the game they make? I know Im being the devils advocate, but its not free to make a game, and the more money you pay a developer, the more they will put out quality games
Because it is just hte money thing. developers are corporations, and they want the all mighty dollar.