WHY are used video games bad?

[StarCecil]

It's not the consumer's job to support the industry. It's the consumer's job to get as much as he can for as little as possible.

I can't afford to pay for all the games I want at full price, and if there was no used market, I probably wouldn't buy at all. However, there is a used market, and it's a legitimate industry on its own. The reason the developers hate it is because they can't get the money from it.

Wait so you're not supposed to support the industry which creates the "legitimate industry" of the used market? Yeah sure it's legitimate. It's your game, you paid for it, do whatever the fuck you want with it. But if the dev's stop making new games because everyone only buys used because they don't want to pay full price, or they'd have to cut back on how many games they buy if they paid full price, there goes your used games market. It'll stagnate, no new titles, only resale of old games, and over-entitled gamers will continue to ***** about how there are no new titles for them to play. Yeah you should look for deal prices, ways to economize your spending. But you can't expect the industry to make anything new if you won't FUCKING PAY FOR IT. (Apologies for the caps and swearing up there)

I don't have a problem with your last part about it being your property, you can do what you want. So I removed it to make the post less page-filling quotey.

You're completely missing the point. It isn't my duty as a consumer to support the developers, per se. It's my duty to get what I want, how I want it, for as little as possible. That's why used games are as popular as they are: you get what you want, how you want, for much less than any other legal avenue.

The developer's job is to make a profit. The best way to do that, is to provide the consumer with a product they find valuable enough to buy. Shoes, cars, TVs, movies and games all fall under that umbrella, with variations between the industries.

We've reached a point where the consumers are challenging the value of the product being produced at the pricing its being offered.

If the developers want to cut out used game sales, they have to increase the value of a new product. Offering free DLC is one way (though debatable), locking out certain features is another (though again, debatable).

But, at the end of the day, when I spend my money I'm not doing it to explicitly support and industry - and neither are you. I'm spending it on a product I want. Gamestop has just figured out how to provide that product in a manner I find to be preferable to the developer.

 

[boag]

It's not the consumer's job to support the industry. It's the consumer's job to get as much as he can for as little as possible.

I can't afford to pay for all the games I want at full price, and if there was no used market, I probably wouldn't buy at all. However, there is a used market, and it's a legitimate industry on its own. The reason the developers hate it is because they can't get the money from it.

Wait so you're not supposed to support the industry which creates the "legitimate industry" of the used market? Yeah sure it's legitimate. It's your game, you paid for it, do whatever the fuck you want with it. But if the dev's stop making new games because everyone only buys used because they don't want to pay full price, or they'd have to cut back on how many games they buy if they paid full price, there goes your used games market. It'll stagnate, no new titles, only resale of old games, and over-entitled gamers will continue to ***** about how there are no new titles for them to play. Yeah you should look for deal prices, ways to economize your spending. But you can't expect the industry to make anything new if you won't FUCKING PAY FOR IT. (Apologies for the caps and swearing up there)

I don't have a problem with your last part about it being your property, you can do what you want. So I removed it to make the post less page-filling quotey.

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.

Agreed, Think about it from the retailers perspective as well.

If the developers and distributors sell a shitty but overly hyper game to retailers, the retailers will tend to lose money if they are stuck with the excess stock of shitty games.

 

[Timmibal]

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.

Agreed, Think about it from the retailers perspective as well.

If the developers and distributors sell a shitty but overly hyper game to retailers, the retailers will tend to lose money if they are stuck with the excess stock of shitty games.

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.

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.

 

[Frotality]

eh...developers want more money of course, but sellers of used games do also abuse the system in ways that leave the devs with less money than they should get. the problem isnt buying used games, you buy all the used games you want; the problem is manipulative business practices regarding used games. id imagine said practices arent something that devs/publishers can do anything about directly, so they try to discourage used sells from us the rightful consumer instead.

kind of a vicious cycle thing going on.

 

[kayisking]

I think this calls for a song: <youtube=WCkOmcIl79s>

As always, it's about cold, hard cash.

 

[cryofpaine]

Oh god... So many fallacies... Let's just grab the closest one to hand.

No they don't. Let's say a developer creates 100 copies of a game, and sells it for $10 each. If they sell all 100 copies, they have $1,000, and there are 100 players playing the game.

Now, let's say that someone decides they're through with the game. They've gotten all they can out of it, and don't want to play it anymore. Now, the developer still has their $1,000, but there are only 99 people actually playing the game.

Now, let's say that that person decides to sell it to a used game store. The store now has that used copy of the game, the developer still has $1,000 and there are only 99 people playing the game.

Now, someone buys the game from the used store. The developer has their same $1,000, and there are again 100 people playing the game.

At no time did the developer lose any money, either from money being taken from them, or from more than the original number of copies being in service. In no other industry do you hear anything even remotely like this. Ford doesn't whine because someone bought one of their cars used. You don't see clothing manufacturers picketing outside Goodwill because they're selling used clothes. Virtually every item that is sold that isn't consumed or destroyed has some form of way to recycle them to let others use them once the original owners are done with them. Why should games be so special?

Except that's not what happens. The publisher ships 1 million copies of NewAwesomeGame, the development team relying on a percentage of those sales. The chain notices the title sold 100,000 units by day 2, and so places that title on a 'preferred trade' list. Promotions within the store actively ENCOURAGE customers to return the game, usually alongside other new titles for a reduced sale price of a completely unrelated title. These used copies are then sold in DIRECT COMPETITION with the remaining 900,000 units, usually at a reduced price. When the sale arc begins to slow, the retailer sends back the remaining unsold NEW units to the publisher for credit against future purchases (I would imagine whilst wearing their cheesiest trollfaces), whilst keeping the used copies in store and gradually reducing the price. So Producers ARE losing money, because they are now obligated to honor the credit against the next title released to the retailer.

As has been reiterated ad-nauseum, the PRIMARY difference is this ACTIVE pursuit by the retailer to regain used stock. You can return CDs and DVDs to the retailer, but when was the last time you saw a music store encourage you to do so, let alone LET you do so without a whole mess of T&Cs? Used CD and DVD stores exist, but isn't their primary market niche imports and out of stock products?

And books are a blatant falliacy. The author is usually given an advance against the first printing of future sales of his/her book. They've made their money before the books even hit the shelves. The risk is entirely on the shoulders of the publishing house.

(NB. Obviously the figures are exaggerated for effect. Don't be a dick on the maths.)

I'll grant you that. However, there's nothing that refutes my earlier point. Whether they sold their 1000000 copies because there was an active used game market, or because prople thought it was too expensive, there are still 1000000 copies currently being used, and they were paid for every one of them. Sure, maybe without the encouragment, fewer people would have traded it back, and more people would have bought it new. But i doubt it's a significant figure. How many people do you know that turn a game in after only a couple weeks? Unless the game was bad. But good luck trying to find a used Portal 2 right now. People usually keep their good games long enough that anyone who would have bought it at full price has already done so. And if competitively priced, a person will always go for new vs. used. No worries about scratches, missing instructions, etc. It's basic supply and demand. The stores can nudge it in their favor a little, but not much. You have four groups: those that are always willing to pay full price, those that will pay full price if there aren't better deals, those that only pay full price if there's no better offers, and those that never pay full price. 1 and 4 aren't impacted no matter what you do, and 2, 3, and 4 are restricted by the supply of used games. If there's enough people giving up their games that makes a big impact, it says they weren't good in the 1st place.

 

[Zac Smith]

Catch 22, Companys want your money, you want the game for as cheap as possible. The game developers and publishers don't recieve any money for the sale of used games, that goes to the retailers. Movie Bob did a whole episode on this in his Game Overthinker show, people should go check it out, quite insightfull.

 

[MasaVK]

I mean if someone buys something of mine it's then theirs
so i wouldn't care if they then sold it on, its now their
property and they can sell it too whoever and for whatever price.

Game companies are really greedy these days, i mean look at DLC.

 

[Traun]

I buy a lot of my games used other wise its a rental, I am sorry to developers for not paying your due, but your due isn't worth a dime to me.

I'm sorry if business models dictate you have your way with customers wallets and do everything in your power to be money grubbing douches, but that isn't my problem is it.

Then why don't you just pirate, it'll save you even more cash?

 

[dancinginfernal]

Greedy?

If people were using my product, of course I would hope that I actually saw the money from each person using it. That's not greedy, that's called wanting to be paid what you are owed.

My thoughts exactly. Seriously people, is there no sympathy in this age?

 

[Sandytimeman]

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.

 

[Smiles]

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.

 

[Timmibal]

Nothing at all. The only reason devs are pissy about it is greed. They don't make money off that second-hand sale, yet mistakenly believe they are deserving of such. IMO, they are not. They had their chance to make money on that copy when it sold new. They got paid for the effort that went into producing that copy. They've gotten their fair share, time to move on.

I so mad right now...

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.

Snippetty

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.

If I could reach through the interwebs I would slap your shit, and the shit of every other clueless ************... What the fuck is wrong with you corporate cock-slurping sycophants... and now you mindless consumer whores are gobbling up corporate cocks...

Your internet tough guy is showing, sunshine.

What dumb corporate cockslobber are you going to come up with next? STEAM is ruining the industry because they sell games cheaply, thus keeping people from paying full retail for a box? Therefore STEAM is theft, too?

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.

 

[Timmibal]

So I guess if I buy a copy of, say, Duke Nukem Forever, play it, get bored, and sell it on eBay, I just ripped off Gearbox?

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.

Brilliant logic. While you're at it, go throw a shit fit at a used car dealer. Or an appliance store that deals with used gear. And while you're at it, sue the hell out of eBay and Craigslist, because according to your logic they've been ripping people off in droves.

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.

Once the first sale is completed the people behind the game have no more right to any income from that exact copy of the game.

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.

 

[boag]

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.

Agreed, Think about it from the retailers perspective as well.

If the developers and distributors sell a shitty but overly hyper game to retailers, the retailers will tend to lose money if they are stuck with the excess stock of shitty games.

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.

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.

I did not know this, thank for sharing, I really thought Retailers kept bulk stock taht wasnt sold.

 

[cryofpaine]

Nothing at all. The only reason devs are pissy about it is greed. They don't make money off that second-hand sale, yet mistakenly believe they are deserving of such. IMO, they are not. They had their chance to make money on that copy when it sold new. They got paid for the effort that went into producing that copy. They've gotten their fair share, time to move on.

I so mad right now...

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.

Snippetty

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.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6wnow_zero-originality-episode-1_videogames
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".

 

[Nvv]

The simple problem the developers/publishers have is that every time one of thier games is preowned and bought again, they lose money because they dont get paid for the game being preowned, and the guy who bought it preowned now isnt going to buy a fresh one.

So yes, it is a money thing.

Good to know that all it is is companies being greedy. Thanks!

People might have said this but I'll do it as well.

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.

 

[Timmibal]

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.

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.

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.

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.