Why is there debate about used games?

[Wargamer]

As I've said before, "used" is a very misleading word.

Too many people are grabbing the Bargin Bin and using that to defend used games. That isn't the problem. Half the time you simply won't find a 'new' copy of a game for £20 and so it's used or nothing. As such, that can be safely ignored.

The problem, as myself and others have said, is the pushing of "newly used" games. My classic example was Dragon Age - £45 brand new with a shitload of 'free' DLC in the box. The man behind the counter, who we shall call Retard, offers me a used copy for £42.99, claiming it's just as good as new.

Retard is pushing used sales, because Retard has been told to. Retard's company makes a lot more money off that sale; Retard and his company is stealing money from the publisher by doing this kind of 'newly used' sale.

In the case of Dragon Age, I was doubly pissed off because Retard was trying to steal from me as well! Those who remember what came free with Dragon Age: Origins will know it is worth a lot more than £2.01 on the PSN.

However, this is exactly the kind of reaction publishers MUST make, because companies have been allowed to make unfair business models and do well with them.

 

[everythingbeeps]

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.

Once again, this is people taking their own philosophies and applying them to EVERYONE. I don't give a toss why you buy games. But in order to win this particular line of debate, you have to suggest that ALL used gamers are the same as you, and that NONE of them would start buying new if the used market were to vanish. Of course that's absurd. Certainly some of those people would start buying new, and that's already more sales than before. As I said before, they would probably start getting more selective about games, and not go for quantity over quality like you obviously do. They'd realize that it is better to get three good new games instead of nine mediocre old ones.

As for your second point, I've already defeated that many posts ago. You buy AC used and AC2 new. But it doesn't matter, because other people are still buying AC2 used after buying AC used, and they'll buy AC:B and AC:R used, and AC3 used, because a lot of people ONLY buy used, just because they can. And there's at least as many of those as people who buy used and then go new with the next game. At best, it probably evens out in the end.

 

[Pandabearparade]

Once again, this is people taking their own philosophies and applying them to EVERYONE.

No. You made the claim that a used game bought is a sale lost, you did not qualify the statement. That's not true for me, and many others like me. Your claim has been falsified.

I don't give a toss why you buy games.

I don't recall asking you to. You made a claim, your claim is false.

But in order to win this particular line of debate, you have to suggest that ALL used gamers are the same as you, and that NONE of them would start buying new if the used market were to vanish.

Nope. Even if people like me are only a small minority, your assertion that one used sale=one new sale lost is still incorrect.

Of course that's absurd. Certainly some of those people would start buying new, and that's already more sales than before.

If buying used suddenly ceased, new sales would likely increase. I don't see what that has to do with anything I said, or why I should care. If Joe Nobody wants to trade in his legally purchased copy of Madden Rehash 2012 for a shiny nickle, and Fred Nobody (no relation) wants to pay nearly full price for it, that's not my business or my problem. It's not your business either, because it's not your property. If you want to buy new, go for it, I don't think any used game enthusiasts are going to give you problems over it.

As I said before, they would probably start getting more selective about games, and not go for quantity over quality like you obviously do. They'd realize that it is better to get three good new games instead of nine mediocre old ones.

The assumption here is that the three 'shiny new games' are somehow better, by default, than the grungy, icky nine used games. That is not so. The used games were new games a year ago, and there is no reason the nine used games can't equal the three shiny new ones in quality. In fact, the used games have had time to accumulate a reputation, so the buyer can make a far more informed decision with far less money invested.

As for your second point, I've already defeated that many posts ago. You buy AC used and AC2 new. But it doesn't matter, because other people are still buying AC2 used after buying AC used, and they'll buy AC:B and AC:R used, and AC3 used, because a lot of people ONLY buy used, just because they can. And there's at least as many of those as people who buy used and then go new with the next game. At best, it probably evens out in the end.

Each of those copies of AC:B and AC:R were bought new, and then resold. Clearly the people who bought the games didn't think they were worth keeping. Again, though I personally don't see what would motivate someone to buy a game for sixty dollars and trade it back for a third of that (they must not have places to rent games nearby), it's still their right to do so.

Perhaps the solution is to create a game with replay value that piques customer interest? Skyrim sold well, and I don't hear Todd Howard whinging like a dying howler monkey about used game sales. Just a thought.

 

[Pandabearparade]

In the case of Dragon Age, I was doubly pissed off because Retard was trying to steal from me as well! Those who remember what came free with Dragon Age: Origins will know it is worth a lot more than £2.01 on the PSN.

I'm not the type to buy a game used if it's only three dollars less, but if someone else is, that's their business. It's certainly not a reason that used games as a whole should disappear. There are good examples and bad examples, that's just capitalism.

Edit: Though the DLC in DAO is so terrible that it might be worth saving the three dollars, as an aside. Unless the package includes Awakening.

 

[Pandabearparade]

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

Skyrim = awesome, take my money

Agreed. I want more! MORE! Expansions! DLC! Then more DLC! TAKE MY MONEY, BETHESDA! Don't make me fire wads of cash at you via Howitzer to get your attention!

And hurry up on Fallout 4!!!

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

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.

Because companies have cultivated fanboyism over the years, and they started claiming it as akin to piracy. Naturally, fanboys will parrot this.

It is disrupting the balance of things. Producer looks out for its own interests, consumer looks out for its own interests. Both sides hold each other in check. But when the consumer starts siding with the producer, the producer can start to fuck the consumer six ways to Sunday.

 

[b3nn3tt]

People can obviously feel however they like about used game sales, but nobody has any right to try and force others to share that viewpoint. The used market is a perfectly legal business, so there is no argument to be had there. The only debate to be had is over the 'ethics' of buying something used, which is an entirely subjective argument, so there is no right or wrong answer.

Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with buying games used. I don't understand the people that argue that video games should somehow work differently to every other product which also have used markets attached. True, the developers get no money from the used sale, but that is also true of used DVD sales, used CD sales, used car sales, used washing machine sales, anything that is sold second hand. I have not heard one argument that has ever convinced me that video game developers should have special treatment. I like to consider myself fairly open-minded though, so feel free to combat my views.

The area where I can see where people are coming from with regards to used sales is when shops are selling games for only a few pounds (or dollars, or whatever currency your country happens to use) less than the new price. I can understand that this is an underhanded tactic, as the shop is making a massive profit from that. However, I would counter-argue that it is a perfectly legitimate tactic, and that I see no reason why shops shouldn't be allowed to do that. Similarly, I see now reason why publishers shouldn't be able to withhold multiplayer from used games; again, a perfectly legitimate, if underhanded tactic.

 

[Something Amyss]

No, it really doesn't. Buying a used game and piracy are not equivalent.

I agree. So why were you agreeing with the opposite in the post I quoted?

 

[Dafttechno]

Buying a used video game is no different than buying anything else second hand. My car was used when I got it, the manufacturer (and all the designers/engineers/suppliers/etc.) didn't receive any money from that sale yet I've never heard anyone say that the used car industry is a bad thing. The whole deal about used video games is just publisher greed, nothing else.

 

[Something Amyss]

It is disrupting the balance of things. Producer looks out for its own interests, consumer looks out for its own interests. Both sides hold each other in check. But when the consumer starts siding with the producer, the producer can start to fuck the consumer six ways to Sunday.

And that's EXACTLY where we're at.

You look at responses from this site alone, or the web in general, and these days it's slanted incredibly towards the corporate side. "Of course corporations are supposed to want money!"

Yes, but that's only half of it, as you just said. They're supposed to want money. We're supposed to not want to spend money. Or, at least, more money than we have to.

I'm also amazed by the related "so what, I can afford it" argument, when American spending power is pretty low right now. I have trouble believing that all the people who say they can afford it are high enough on the fiscal food chain to actually merit that, which leads me to believe that they're likely fiscally ignorant. Which is another problem in the factor here. I think people wouldn't be so quick to apologise for the games industry if they had any economic edumacashun.

 

[Vivi22]

If there were no used game sales, more people would have paid that money directly to the developer to play the game.

More, yes. Substantially more? Who knows. Here's the thing that people such as yourself miss; a lot of people buying used are doing so because they consider $60 too much to pay for a game. Now some people may buy a game used shortly after release and save $5, because why not? But a lot of people aren't going to see $5 as a big enough savings to warrant buying a copy of unknown quality. Moreover, people who are buying used because they want to save a substantial amount aren't going to buy near release when they'll only save $5. They'll buy in a few months or a year when they can save $20-30 or more.

They're looking for substantially more savings than what they'd get from buying it at release. And here's the best part; the majority of games make the majority of their sales in the first 3 months or so. Yet prices will not drop more than $10 for most titles in that period. In other words, developers and publishers aren't doing anything to entice people looking for a lower price to buy used, even after they've made the majority of their sales. Used prices typically fall faster though, so why would a person looking for a deal not buy used?

This is where the retail market fails but Steam succeeds. Despite Steam not allowing for a real used market (there's game trading now though I believe so hey, steps in the right direction), their frequent use of sales, even for fairly recent games, allows the companies making the games to benefit from sales to customers who wouldn't normally buy a game that early because the price is too high.

If companies are actually losing substantial sales to used games then it's because they aren't doing anything to entice people who would buy used to buy new instead, whether that means including extras, or running sales or whatever else it doesn't matter. It's their responsibility to convince users to buy new, not gamers responsibility to buy new because used games are somehow immoral.

Sure, you can give a jacket to a thrift shop and they can sell it, but video games are a completely different product. The quantity of games sold is massive, so this is a large chunk of business that is lost.

Bullshit they're different. Every industry in which a used market exists is going to feel the same sting from people buying alternatives such as used products. Games are no different simply because they sell a lot. Movies also sell a lot, as do cars, clothes and just about every other product with a used market. The number of sales involved does not make games a special case.

 

[Don't taze me bro]

I worked for EB Games for 5 years. One of the many things that really irked me, was their used game system. I mean, I could sympathise with the guy, who hands me his game and I have to tell him his game is only worth $5, yet we would re-sell that game for $50. Or, that we had to offer the used version of a game to the customer first, even if it was only $5 cheaper than a brand new version.

I don't buy pre-owned games for the same reason I don't pirate games anymore. Firstly, I don't need to. I work fulltime. Secondly, I would like the profits to go back to the companies that make the games I buy.

 

[R3dF41c0n]

I see both sides of the argument and they all have some good points.

Personally I buy 3 to 4 brand new AAA titles a year and the rest of the time I buy games on sale through Steam. I really only buy used for console (I have no choice since there is no used game market on PC).

I see the console market moving to a digital service like Steam in the next console generation. As long as they have awesome deals like Steam I foresee the used game market disappearing (at least for the current generation of the future).

 

[Pandabearparade]

I see the console market moving to a digital service like Steam in the next console generation. As long as they have awesome deals like Steam I foresee the used game market disappearing (at least for the current generation of the future).

Consoles won't have something like Steam. They'll have something like EA's fail-steam. If they ever do eventually purge used games, I'll stop using consoles entirely and simply use Steam sales.

 

[spartan231490]

No, it really doesn't. Buying a used game and piracy are not equivalent.

I agree. So why were you agreeing with the opposite in the post I quoted?

I wasn't. I was saying that people would feel guilty. I never said anything about being guilty.

 

[Vivi22]

If you'd read the thread, you'd have noticed:

Look, I don't really care if you like used games or not. I buy them, too. OP asked why, so I put together a statement of why. I didn't say I agree with it.

Was I wrong, or is that pretty close to where the argument stems? Notice, I never took a side pal.

Forgive me for not reading all five pages in detail to see if you made a later post. Your initial post did give me the indication that you were taking a side against used sales, so if I jumped the gun and assumed too much then I apologize.

As far as this question - There is the same ongoing debate over movies, thus the butthurt from creators over piracy of movies and games.

People are butt hurt over piracy because they don't like people enjoying their product without them receiving any money. Which is a fair enough point, but not the same as used sales, nor is the scale of the piracy problem what publishers and movie companies make it out to be anyway. They're quick to assume that every pirated copy is a lost sale in order to garner sympathy from the consumer, though to say that that every pirated copy or used sale is a lost new sale is exaggeration to say the least. Many will simply go without if they can't get it for the price they want or pirate it.

Yes, the number of sales does make a difference since the amount of money and time put into a game creates a certain number of new copies sold to get a developer out of the red after releasing a game.

It makes a difference to the developer and publishers bottom line. But with regards to a discussion on whether or not used sales are ethical it has no bearing. The company is not entitled to make a cut of every copy sold in a state where people possess the right to sell things they freely purchased and own. What companies do have is the right to try and entice consumers into buying new, releasing DLC, or whatever else to bring in more revenue. The problem they're facing isn't that used sales are drastically cutting into their revenue, it's their unwillingness, and in the case of the brick and mortar retail stores, their inability, to react quickly to attract consumers at different price levels.

I don't buy for one second that used sales are hurting the bottom line so much that companies can't compete BECAUSE of used sales. The reason companies are finding it harder to compete is because development costs have been ballooning at a rate that's outpacing growth in the market, while the massive hits like COD and Mass Effect are relatively rare. It's not the fault of consumers that many developers target a market which they can't afford to compete in with companies like EA or Activision. That's their decision and they have to live with the consequences of making business and development decisions. Good or bad.

Companies like Nike can make a larger profit, since the product they're selling is made for $2 and sold for $60 or whatever it may be. Notice again, I'm not taking a side. Lrn2commonsense.

Again, this has nothing to do with discussing whether or not consumers should have the right to re-sell things they have legally purchased and rightfully own. If used sales really are causing such massive losses for an industry that they an't stay afloat (which is clearly not happening with the ever growing games industry) then they need to change their business model, or lose the race to those who do adapt to a changing market. End of story.

I'll say that again; consumers have the right to re-sell products they legally own, and it is not their responsibility to make sure a company remains profitable.

By all means, people can support the companies they like in whatever way they see fit, and I do that myself as well, often buying new over used for the games I want. But that doesn't mean there is anything unethical about buying used. If company's are doing nothing to entice customers who would typically wait for cheaper used titles either by lowering prices after the first few months, making better games, offering extras, or whatever else then that's their problem, and one they have to deal with.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Buying a used video game is no different than buying anything else second hand. My car was used when I got it, the manufacturer (and all the designers/engineers/suppliers/etc.) didn't receive any money from that sale yet I've never heard anyone say that the used car industry is a bad thing. The whole deal about used video games is just publisher greed, nothing else.

I see. So your used car was pretty much exactly the same as a new car (full warranty, no mileage, less value depreciation, etc.) and cost only a few percentage points less than a new car?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Buying a used video game is no different than buying anything else second hand. My car was used when I got it, the manufacturer (and all the designers/engineers/suppliers/etc.) didn't receive any money from that sale yet I've never heard anyone say that the used car industry is a bad thing. The whole deal about used video games is just publisher greed, nothing else.

I see. So your used car was pretty much exactly the same as a new car (full warranty, no mileage, less value depreciation, etc.) and cost only a few percentage points less than a new car?

He shoots and he misses. I bought an used copy of Nocturne recently. It cost me 14$. The cost for a new copy has fluctuated between 25$-70$. In other words, I saved quite a bit of money. The disc isn't in the greatest shape, however. It seems to be a fair comparison to me.

 

[Scorekeeper]

Am I the only one who's perfectly fine with online passes and game content being used as free DLC for purchasers of new games? Under this model, the publisher will (probably) make some money off the sale of used games.

Game: A
Online pass: B
Publisher: EA
Retailer: EB
Customer: ME
Price of game (new): X
Price of game (used): X/2
Price of DLC: X/4

For instance, let's say game A costs X dollars new and X/2 dollars used. EB sells a new copy of A for X dollars, so both EA and EB make a profit on this sale.

Now, EB sells a used copy of A for X/2 dollars. On this transaction, EB makes a very nice profit but EA makes nothing. This is fair, since someone had to buy A new at some point. However, since games are costly to make and can easily lose EA money, there must be some way of giving EA a slice of the Used Sales Pie. Their slice will be smaller than it would've been if A had been bought new, but something is better than nothing.

So, EA makes sure some part of A's content is removed. Let's call this content 'B'. B comes free with every new purchase, so those who buy new copies of A are unaffected. As a standalone purchase, B costs X/4 dollars. If ME wants B, ME must get it from EA directly, thereby giving EA a slice of the oh-so-tasty Used Sales Pie. Everyone wins in this situation: EA makes a small profit on the sale, EB makes a large profit, and ME gets a copy of A+B for 3X/4.

One reason why I rarely buy used is because the games I usually want to buy are recent releases. To use Castlevania: Lords of Shadow as an example, used copies from GameStop are only ~$5 cheaper than new ones. I'd rather spend the extra $5 and have the publisher make a profit. If I want more games like that made, there's only one way to express my desire: money. This is why I buy music rather than pirate it, why I buy games new rather than used.

Of course, one cannot always be expected to buy new. After all, if one wants to buy a copy of a game from an older generation of console, one will likely fail to find new copies for sale. My example of this is my attempt to find a copies of Fire Emblem for the GBA and GC. The only copies I could find were used.

TL;DR: online passes are reasonable

 

[Something Amyss]

I wasn't. I was saying that people would feel guilty. I never said anything about being guilty.

Right. You just implied people would deny a false link due to an imagined sensation of guilt that really shouldn't exist. That's SO much better.