Why is there debate about used games?

[omicron1]

Games companies want to make money. Their budgets have been going up, and while their audience has been expanding (especially in the last few years) the audience for the typical game has not.

You can see them combating this in a variety of ways:
* $50->$60 price jump (extract extra money from existing customers for the same value)
* Paid DLC (extract extra money from existing customers for little additional value)
* Online passes (extract extra money from indirect customers while (indirectly) lowering the resale price of direct customers' products
* Attempts to guilt trip used customers into buying new
* Chasing the big guns - trying to build their own megahit and barge in on the truly profitable market

The one thing these groups seem unable or unwilling to do is actually cut prices, in an attempt to exchange over-the-counter income for a larger customer base. This is especially egregious in the case of Activision-Blizzard, which is still selling Diablo 2 gold (10 years old!) for $30, and whose CoD series' price decline over time approximates a straight line more than the typical curve.

Nor do I expect the change in console generations from 7 to 8 to help with this. While all signs point to the industry at least partially following the example of the Wii in expanding outwards while keeping to marginal improvements in hardware, the fact that current budgets still exceed income in a large number of cases means that nothing short of a generational regression will bring an end to this problematic situation.


It is nonetheless interesting to note that PC teams do not seem to have this problem. The 300-strong team of CD Projekt Red found commercial success with just 1 million copies (albeit with their own virtual store to back them up); Piranha Bytes' Risen did well enough to ensure a sequel; and of course there are the numerous indie success stories of late.

I do not know how or why PC games seem to cost less than their console equivalents, but it does indicate that perhaps the solution for the next generation may not be as open-and-shut as "Develop better-looking games for faster hardware, sell for more money." I just hope someone listens.

 

[Freyar]

However, I pretty much agree with you. We sell EVERYTHING else used, even other intellectual property such as books and movies. Why are video games so different?

Games are an interactive medium that requires you to participate.

that may be so (though its arguable so are books) but it still doesn't answer why this product is apparently unique in all of human history in relation to the concept of "sale" being the transfer of ownership (which as i said before in the thread is protected by law as a fundamental principal in most countries)

Books are a rail of a story. While games can have the same design, there's plenty out there that require how you deal with the pressures of a game which in turn makes the game unique to each individual player. It's like a play in which you are a member of the cast that you put on to amuse yourself. It's a VERY bad analogy, I know.. but I'm tired.

 

[fletch_talon]

Because the value of a used game does not decrease as much as other used items.

Most used books will show aging or wear.
Most used cars have seen decent use and thus show signs of wear (not to mention all the internal parts that could have been mistreated and may be worn to a greater extent than the mileage suggests).
Furniture has had somebody else's arse in it and so its value drops too.

But games?
Used games (provided they havn't been thoroughly mistreated) generally both look and work exactly the same as new ones. I've bought ten year old games in cardboard packaging that look damn near new.
So unless someone is incredibly pedantic (like myself in some cases) where is the incentive to buy new rather than old?

But having said that, I don't really know why there is a debate. The answer seems simple to me.

-People have a right to sell/buy used games.
-Publishers have a right to incentivise the purchase of new games over old, by adding content to the new or taking content from the used.

If you don't like the price of a new game, or you don't like buying a cut down used version (or paying for the cut content), then there are options for you.

a) Wait till the new game drops in price to something you're willing to pay for. thus telling the companies what you're willing to pay.
or
b) Don't buy it at all.

There are other options of course but they all pretty much boil down to "I have a god given human right to play any videogame I want and have no wish to support the people who create said games".

 

[Tiger Sora]

The developers have had years to do something to stop the sales of used games. And that they've done nothing noticeable to do something about it. Since this thread is going I assume they haven't, lol. I can't feel for them.

The solution isn't into turning yourself into the victim. Playing off peoples pity and such. It's a heavy handed brutal solution that no one would be happy with, but it'd solve the problem and eventually blow over. Now they can keep doing what they are doing now "as for as I know". And we'll never hear the end of it.

And thats why this is still an issue. Cause they have yet to resolve it themselves.

 

[willis888]

Does anyone here work at Gamestop? How many of the used games that you buy do you actually end up selling? Do you end up recycling most of them?

If there is actually a significant margin to be made in the used games market, the only real problem is lack of competition. If a 2nd B&M opened up next to Gamestop that paid more for used games, half the posts in this thread would be irrelevant.

 

[lord.jeff]

Because developers and publishers lose money from used games, so in their eyes it's a bad thing and they have a right to view them that way.

yes. im surprised Ford and GM are so into it...

actually no.

because redefining "sale" as something apart from the transfer of ownership after hundreds of thousands of years is not actually on the cards. neither is affecting the potential for resale by the then owner and thereby incurring "economic loss" on them for buying something.

in the UK both are legally protected statutory rights and have been been for a very, very long time.

and they are going to stay that way inspite of how greedy big name computer software publishers get.

a vibrant economy depends on the free movement of goods and a lack of limits placed on the transfer of ownership and if you think for a moment that the majority of that trade is in "new" goods sold directly from manufacturer to customer...well you are just plain wrong.

the big games publishers are "coming the c*nt" and pushing it and they know it.

no other comparible industry has even attempted the line they are taking (and yet still they survive and prosper) because ultimately in the face of economic reality its utterly inane.

For your Ford, GM example, Ford sells parts to fix cars when they breakdown, so there still making money off old vehicles, also there has been fights against used sales outside of video games, the music industry for one. But that's not really part of my point, I don't agree with limiting used sales myself but when someone isn't making money off half of the sales of there product, they should be upset and should try to find a way to fix the problem.

 

[Berenzen]

Honestly, I think that used games should be sold in used game shops only. Selling a $55 copy of used game, with the new version costing $60 right beside it is just skeezy, and people will go for the $55 copy, because it's cheaper.

Essentially, I believe that retailers that get the shipped game should not be able to sell used copies of the game. People can still transfer ownership, sure, but it's done outside of major game retailers. If you want to go purchase a used game, you go to a used game store. You want a new game? Go to a new game retailer.

I do not know how or why PC games seem to cost less than their console equivalents, but it does indicate that perhaps the solution for the next generation may not be as open-and-shut as "Develop better-looking games for faster hardware, sell for more money." I just hope someone listens.

PC games typically require you to sign an EULA, which says that you cannot redistribute the game. It was more or less done to make them able to sue you if you pirate the game. But it's catch-all phrasing disallows the selling of used PC games. Because of this, PC exclusives can be sold for less money than others. The reason why they aren't lowered for non-exclusives is because of MSRPs, the MSRPs of games on X360 and PS3 is typically around $60.

 

[Freyar]

anyway we are going OT, you are tired and did not actually answer the question so i'll leave it at that and you can get some kip

I don't really get to leave work for another three hours.

The argument about wear is correct, and the same question could potentially be raised for E-books. Are E-books transferable?

 

[jp201]

The main issue I have with used games is the push by companies to get you to buy them. Employees at gamestop are obligated to ask if they would rather have the used version of a new game. Just yesterday at gamestop, I see someone buying a $60 game then the employee asks them if they want used version for $55 and they end up getting the used game. That is a sale directly taken away from that company by gamestop.

 

[Rednog]

Does anyone here work at Gamestop? How many of the used games that you buy do you actually end up selling? Do you end up recycling most of them?

If there is actually a significant margin to be made in the used games market, the only real problem is lack of competition. If a 2nd B&M opened up next to Gamestop that paid more for used games, half the posts in this thread would be irrelevant.

I worked in gamestop about 5-6 years ago, I can only testify as to how things worked then and not now.
As for how many games we take in vs how many we shell out, it is kind of hard to say unless you're a manager or someone who is actually keeping track of things like that. At the time we had a rotation of people so I don't really know how many came in vs out.
But from my own personal view when I worked the most recent generation of consoles had come out and we still had a significant portion of the store dedicated to the last generation and those copies of games would eventually sell one day or another.
And since at that time we were "encouraged" to push used games hardcore (because if you sold more used you got more hours to work) and while the day to day varied, I'd more often than not push more used games then new.


In terms of excess games, they kind of kept a cap on it. Like if we were getting a bajillion copies of crappy game X we'd pretty much offer damn near nothing for it, even if it was a newer game. I honestly don't know what happened to games we eventually pulled from shelves, we would pack them in boxes and send them back to corporate.

And yes there is a large market in used games, gamestop makes millions in profit from used games each year.

 

[Joccaren]

Why do people argue about used game sales?
Because people like you bring it up.

Yes, it is perfectly within a users rights to resell a game and give no money to the developers. It is also perfectly within the developer's rights to add incentive to buy from them. Whenever someone complains about that sort of stuff, these arguments start.
Basically I see it as 'I'm entitled to save money by buying used, and make money by selling my used games, but developers aren't entitled to try and make more money through enticing people to buy from them'. Or, in short: 'I'm entitled to save and earn money, but developers are not entitled to earn money'. That is the whole DLC argument. Yes, you're getting ripped off. So what. By buying used, the developer is getting ripped off. Both of you are perfectly within your rights, so both should stop complaining.

 

[Sylveria]

Used games are inherently fine and dandy. As long as you aren't copying the data on the disc before returning it there is no (or should be no) grey area on the matter. Anyone who says otherwise is a dumby mcdumbface. Or is a creator and feels the sting of a used market.

If you don't mind (or even if you do ) I'ma just repost what I said last time, cuz I'm tired.

I said this last (and recent) Used game thread, but how but in brief list form this time?


No, Used game is not the same thing as piracy. Anyone who says so is dumb
Yes, people should be able to buy/sell their used games as they want
Yes, used games are a cause for concern for developers/publishers

Gamestop gets to sell games for decent profit several times over due to generally little decrease in value per trade in, something most used markets have differently


Yes, they care about money. That's how business works. They should want to make money by making quality products though, not by ransoming content.


There, that sums up my feelings on this debate. I'd like to think that's a pretty solid stance.

Very well put Boshi

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

I don't think that's the issue, I think the issue is places like EB Games and GameStop, who are selling used games at 90% profit. If you buy a game from some guy for $3 only to resell it a day later for $30, you are an asshole. That's the problem. Primarily because of the volume, which takes away massive profits from the game companies, and the fact that they are typically selling the games at almost the same price as the new games.

If you buy a game used, you are getting only a slight benefit, the retailer gets 100% profit, and the publisher gets screwed.

Won't argue with you there, they really do have some very dirty business practices. I still like the rants that are floating out there which lays all the internal dirty laundry to bear. Please forgive me if I am remembering incorrectly but I really like the story about the one kid who walked in with a unopened version of a game he got but didn't want, received a pittance of in-store credit for it, and before he was even out the door they sold the very same copy for many times what they gave the kid... of real money.

However, while I do agree it is a terrible practice it does not eliminate any of the arguments for used games sale. It just shows that online trading, as pointed out in the rant, is the way to go if your looking for used games. There are online trading sites for the city you are in, so you can even look at the good before you purchase and make sure they work. Look into them if you are going to purchase used games.

In the end the seller will have more money in their pocket, real money not in-store-credit, and the buyer will save even more money then going to a Game stop.

 

[Samus Aran but a man]

Escapists, please help me understand something: why are people arguing that used games are bad? like any other product, you pay money for them, then they are yours, and you can do what you want with them.

By what jump in space-logic does anyone think there is justification for trying to stop you from excercising your ownership of a game?

I understand the companies, at least: they are just fishing for bigger profits. But why do people accept this blatant thievery on the part of publishers? Why are people so accepting of getting ripped off? it just does not make sense to me.

My thoughts exactly, man. One game is bought, one game is played.

 

[the_green_dragon]

I hear alot of people screaming "GO CAPITALISM! CAPITALISM ROCKS" even tho the corporations are ripping people off, some people seem to still think that capitalism is the best thing ever and support to corporations even if they themselves lose out.

 

[the_green_dragon]

I'm all for supporting the companies if they make good worthwhile products.

Skyrim = awesome, take my money

 

[thespyisdead]

my opinion: less used games, more piracy, simple as that

 

[Freyar]

I hear alot of people screaming "GO CAPITALISM! CAPITALISM ROCKS" even tho the corporations are ripping people off, some people seem to still think that capitalism is the best thing ever and support to corporations even if they themselves lose out.

The problem is in the expectation that more money in means more money for the actual developers, and not the company as an entity.

 

[Sharalon]

In my opinion, buying used games is just as bad as pirating, because the only reason I don't pirate games is that I want to support the developer, and I don't give a fuck about Gamestop.
If you feel like you have done your share in supporting the people who made the game by simply giving gamestop a few bucks that's up to you.

 

[Pandabearparade]

It's not debatable. It's simple fact.

I have a golden toilet seat. That's a simple fact.

*Checks bathroom*

Dammit. It turns out that asserting something doesn't make it true!

That's a lost sale. How is this shit so complicated for some people?

Oh, it isn't complicated, you're just wrong. I've bought lots of games that hit the bargain bin used just because I'd rather buy three old titles than one new one for the same price. If those games hadn't been cheap and used I wouldn't have even considered buying them in the first place. Thus they didn't lose a sale.

If the used game is good, the odds are I'll buy the sequel new.

To give a few examples of titles I've gotten a sequel for after buying a title used:
-Assassin's Creed.
-Infamous.
-Fallout 3.
-Oblivion.
-Batman: Arkham Asylum.

I'm sure there are more, but those are the ones that come immediately to mind.

Edit: Oh, and Prototype.