Believe it or not, the DLC for DA2 was pretty good. Nothing that was LotSB good, but Mark of the Assassin had some cool gameplay, and Legacy had some cool monster designs.
Bioware seems to have a really weird track record with their DLC. Seems like theyre either great like Shadow Broker, or wtf type stuff like that weird monster dlc for the original Dragon Age.
Did you pay the company that made the game any money for said game?
No?
They don't owe you shit.
Talk to the people you DID pay. Gamestop has a customer service department I'm sure.
Done.
That's a completely ridiculous context in which to relate to the situation.
Everything, from cars to houses to clothes to entertainment and every other form of IP, has a used market (except maybe food, diapers, and perishable stuff like that). eBay, craigslist, your local Salvation Army/Goodwill, and every garage sale/boot sale in the history of civilization sells everything ever made "used". Normal wear and tear aside, whenever you buy something used, you expect it to work properly.
My complaint is why, out of every industry, market, and society in the history of man, is the video game/computer program industry different so it's ok to make it where the product only works when purchased brand new, and god help you if it's used?
What amazes me is over in the Nintendo thread, they're talking about how they might make it so you can trade your downloaded games to someone else with the WiiU or whatever, like it's an amazing new concept that's innovative and revolutionary. Why is this unheard of?
This isn't a problem of people making exact copies of the game costing you sales or overloading online servers with illegitimate copies, it's using a perfectly legal and valid copy of the game that was purchased by someone else that is now yours.
EDIT: And this is a modern system. Video games up to just a decade ago still worked with all aspects of the game functioning properly when you bought it used. Because we have access to online verification, that makes it ok for companies to try to squeeze extra fees out of us because....why again?
It just seems to me to be a greedy as hell moneygrab. Not every game is going to sell 10 million copies and print money. That's not an excuse to try to fleece people for playing a game that has already been sold.
Yeah, but you're not the original companies customer. You didnt pay them a cent. If you have an issue with how a used car/boat/bafmodad/death laser you go to the person you bought it from.
My problem with the used game market is that none of the money goes to the developers, it's all going to the retail stores. Where does the money go from there? To expanding the retail stores, I guess. Money that goes to developers goes to more, better games, new technologies, better conditions for developers, whatever, and improves the industry generally. Gamestop is parasitic in that its used sales offer nothing new to the industry at large.
Did you pay the company that made the game any money for said game?
No?
They don't owe you shit.
Talk to the people you DID pay. Gamestop has a customer service department I'm sure.
Done.
That's a completely ridiculous context in which to relate to the situation.
Everything, from cars to houses to clothes to entertainment and every other form of IP, has a used market (except maybe food, diapers, and perishable stuff like that). eBay, craigslist, your local Salvation Army/Goodwill, and every garage sale/boot sale in the history of civilization sells everything ever made "used". Normal wear and tear aside, whenever you buy something used, you expect it to work properly.
My complaint is why, out of every industry, market, and society in the history of man, is the video game/computer program industry different so it's ok to make it where the product only works when purchased brand new, and god help you if it's used?
What amazes me is over in the Nintendo thread, they're talking about how they might make it so you can trade your downloaded games to someone else with the WiiU or whatever, like it's an amazing new concept that's innovative and revolutionary. Why is this unheard of?
This isn't a problem of people making exact copies of the game costing you sales or overloading online servers with illegitimate copies, it's using a perfectly legal and valid copy of the game that was purchased by someone else that is now yours.
EDIT: And this is a modern system. Video games up to just a decade ago still worked with all aspects of the game functioning properly when you bought it used. Because we have access to online verification, that makes it ok for companies to try to squeeze extra fees out of us because....why again?
It just seems to me to be a greedy as hell moneygrab. Not every game is going to sell 10 million copies and print money. That's not an excuse to try to fleece people for playing a game that has already been sold.
I have to agree with Astale here. If your money goes to Gamestop, the devs and publisher owe you nothing. If your money goes to the people who made it, then you get a full, functioning product. All other arguments are meaningless to me. The publishers are businesses, trying to get money. You don't give them money, they have no interest in helping you.
I'd say the difference between games and all your examples is that games generally don't deteriorate over time, used cars greatly depreciate in value, a used house might be run down, clothes might be torn and stained, but as long as the physical medium is in decent condition, a game will always be exactly as the day it was made. Digital copies even more so: if you could trade digital copies it's entirely possible (not likely, of course) that millions of people would trade one copy between themselves. As long as Steam is up and running, my copies of games there are exactly as they were on release day, and if I could trade them they would be as valuable as a new copy.
Also people that complain about Oz prices never seem to mention the people getting paid 15$ at mcds or the 900$ rent for a four bedroom beachside house. I know plenty of people who live there, and they get paid more and generally pay less for housing.
I have to take issue with this bit. I'm not sure where the people you know live, but I pay $1800 a month for a small one bedroom apartment, and it's one of the cheapest places anywhere near where I work in Sydney. $1600 a month will get an apartment so small my 2 seater couch would not fit anywhere. At uni I lived in a dinky little 5 bedroom apartment for $4660/month, or $930/month per person, and that was a)terrible and b)in a cheap, dirty suburb. Also, wage may be higher but income tax is ~20-30% higher.
I have to agree with Astale here. If your money goes to Gamestop, the devs and publisher owe you nothing. If your money goes to the people who made it, then you get a full, functioning product. All other arguments are meaningless to me. The publishers are businesses, trying to get money. You don't give them money, they have no interest in helping you.
Help me do what, exactly? They actually went out of their way to write code to take away part of the game from me because little Bobby bought the game and not me. I'm not asking for their help. I'm asking for the complete game, which was given to the person that initially bought the game.
Me playing costs them nothing at all more than if little Bobby was still playing the game. Why should my game be limited because I'm not little Bobby?
EDIT: Theoretically, they would save money by not having to write the extra code to lock me out and not have to print out a couple million cards with the verification code to get access to whatever.
Again, it's nothing but a greedy moneygrab. They deal with Gamestop, do business with Gamestop, have "exclusive" crap with Gamestop, but then cry because Gamestop has a business model that doesn't give the game companies free money for no additional effort, product, or material?
I'm not seeing where the logic is in these arguments besides "Gamestop is making money off products we already sold, and we want more money because other people are making money. we can't get free money from Gamestop, so we'll leech it off our customers".
If they don't like it, why don't they open their own Gamestops and resell their own games?
My problem with the used game market is that none of the money goes to the developers, it's all going to the retail stores. Where does the money go from there? To expanding the retail stores, I guess. Money that goes to developers goes to more, better games, new technologies, better conditions for developers, whatever, and improves the industry generally. Gamestop is parasitic in that its used sales offer nothing new to the industry at large.
Did you pay the company that made the game any money for said game?
No?
They don't owe you shit.
Talk to the people you DID pay. Gamestop has a customer service department I'm sure.
Done.
That's a completely ridiculous context in which to relate to the situation.
Everything, from cars to houses to clothes to entertainment and every other form of IP, has a used market (except maybe food, diapers, and perishable stuff like that). eBay, craigslist, your local Salvation Army/Goodwill, and every garage sale/boot sale in the history of civilization sells everything ever made "used". Normal wear and tear aside, whenever you buy something used, you expect it to work properly.
My complaint is why, out of every industry, market, and society in the history of man, is the video game/computer program industry different so it's ok to make it where the product only works when purchased brand new, and god help you if it's used?
What amazes me is over in the Nintendo thread, they're talking about how they might make it so you can trade your downloaded games to someone else with the WiiU or whatever, like it's an amazing new concept that's innovative and revolutionary. Why is this unheard of?
This isn't a problem of people making exact copies of the game costing you sales or overloading online servers with illegitimate copies, it's using a perfectly legal and valid copy of the game that was purchased by someone else that is now yours.
EDIT: And this is a modern system. Video games up to just a decade ago still worked with all aspects of the game functioning properly when you bought it used. Because we have access to online verification, that makes it ok for companies to try to squeeze extra fees out of us because....why again?
It just seems to me to be a greedy as hell moneygrab. Not every game is going to sell 10 million copies and print money. That's not an excuse to try to fleece people for playing a game that has already been sold.
I have to agree with Astale here. If your money goes to Gamestop, the devs and publisher owe you nothing. If your money goes to the people who made it, then you get a full, functioning product. All other arguments are meaningless to me. The publishers are businesses, trying to get money. You don't give them money, they have no interest in helping you.
I'd say the difference between games and all your examples is that games generally don't deteriorate over time, used cars greatly depreciate in value, a used house might be run down, clothes might be torn and stained, but as long as the physical medium is in decent condition, a game will always be exactly as the day it was made. Digital copies even more so: if you could trade digital copies it's entirely possible (not likely, of course) that millions of people would trade one copy between themselves. As long as Steam is up and running, my copies of games there are exactly as they were on release day, and if I could trade them they would be as valuable as a new copy.
Also people that complain about Oz prices never seem to mention the people getting paid 15$ at mcds or the 900$ rent for a four bedroom beachside house. I know plenty of people who live there, and they get paid more and generally pay less for housing.
I have to take issue with this bit. I'm not sure where the people you know live, but I pay $1800 a month for a small one bedroom apartment, and it's one of the cheapest places anywhere near where I work in Sydney. $1600 a month will get an apartment so small my 2 seater couch would not fit anywhere. At uni I lived in a dinky little 5 bedroom apartment for $4660/month, or $930/month per person, and that was a)terrible and b)in a cheap, dirty suburb. Also, wage may be higher but income tax is ~20-30% higher.
@AnteCantelope
Well, I disagree with two of your premises.
First,
My problem with the used game market is that none of the money goes to the developers, it's all going to the retail stores.
So what? Isn't this the same for other used markets? Some used markets have even worked with the system so some of the money does go to them(!) (hello car manufacturers) instead of trying to obliterate it. Why do videogame developers get to double dip? Perhaps this point leans on your second.
Second,
I'd say the difference between games and all your examples is that games generally don't deteriorate over time, used cars greatly depreciate in value, a used house might be run down, clothes might be torn and stained, but as long as the physical medium is in decent condition, a game will always be exactly as the day it was made.
Yes, I'm sorry, but DVDs are not made out of imaginaterium which doesn't deteriorate or suffer the affects of use. It's also a bit of a weird argument you make here, saying as long as it stays in tact it will remain in tact. Okay? Maybe here you meant to argue that DVDs have a longer shelf life without upkeep than a house, typically. So? And what point does this matter? If a product can go 6 months without deterioriation than it shouldn't be sold as used? 1 year? 3 years? 10? Where, why, how, and who draws that line?
Because I have a bunch of cards, comics, and books that don't look used at all and some are over 2 decades old. Maybe I can't sell these products as used because they look new?
I'm not seeing where the logic is in these arguments besides "Gamestop is making money off products we already sold, and we want more money because other people are making money. we can't get free money from Gamestop, so we'll leech it off our customers".
You're entire argument falls flat right their. There's something to be said about having day one DLC thats required for plot or is integral to the game(especially if you did buy the game new.)
The problem is when you assume they have a responsibility to you to by proxy provide you with a full product.(They dont. They dont have to shit for you, because you bought used.) For the last time, they owe you nothing. You didnt buy it from them.
And getting money from used sales, instead of selling their own used games, is exactly what theyre doing with online passes.
edit: ok, that was a little harsh. I should clarify that I do have an issue with them completely locking out used games all together. I think the online pass thing is a decent middleground to the argument. And if gamestop puts their used game prices down as a result-which some people have said theyre doing (so you can buy the game/online pass for the same amount as the game would be used if it didnt have the online pass) then that seems to be a nonissue to me.
As I said in another thread. when you buy new from a shop not one penny is going from you to the Developer/Publisher. It is all going to the shop. This isn't like a movie theatre where a percentage share is going to the theatre and a percentage share going to the distributor. This is like any other shop where the good has already been paid for by the shop. And depending on the distribution network the shop might have bought it from a distributor who bought it from the publisher. So there's already many, many layers between "you" and "paying the developer".
As I said in another thread. when you buy new from a shop not one penny is going from you to the Developer/Publisher. It is all going to the shop. This isn't like a movie theatre where a percentage share is going to the theatre and a percentage share going to the distributor. This is like any other shop where the good has already been paid for by the shop. And depending on the distribution network the shop might have bought it from a distributor who bought it from the publisher. So there's already many, many layers between "you" and "paying the developer".
All buying used does is add one more layer.
Except thats false.
Shop buys only whats preordered (This is, in the end, /exactly what gamestop does) and simply cycles out those same copies as they are bought/resold as used.
Wherein before shops had to order more than preordered to accomodate for other buyers coming in later. (Which is why some games are so hard to find.)
Lets take for example Atelier Rorona. A very niche title, but quite good. My local gamestop got exactly one copy. The one I ordered. They have not had it since. The one in the plaza up the road got in two copies, also preorders, and one got sold back. So they then sold this used copy to another person. Who then also sold it back, and was then picked up by a third person. All because the shop /didn't have anything but the used copy/ because Gamestop orders nothing but preorders unless its a 'guaranteed' sell (CoD.)
There is no 'additional layers', this is simply gamestop fucking over niche titles and non-juggernauts.
Guess what? Had they ordered 4 copies they would have sold all four, at a profit to the publishers/devs, instead they only sold 2 new and got to resell another one a couple times. Meaning they got the 30$ flat profit off the game being rebought.
If publishers don't want people to buy used, maybe they shouldn't charge 60 dollars for a 3 hour game.
Edit: PC games are harder to get used, but older PC games are dirt cheap compared to console games. Say, a 4 year old new PC game for 5 bucks instead of the 20 or so it'd be for console. Like the Civ V copies I saw last time I went into half price books. Though that might just be because no one liked that game.
Yeah, I also think that the high price of games vs play time contributes directly to used sales. I have a console gamer friend who cycles (reads: sells games back to shops after finishing them) a lot, and he doesn't sell games that took a fuckload of time/effort to complete. Needless to say, his jrpg/rpg collection keeps on growing while his shooter/action games get finished in a few days and then turned in for new games.
The trend of goty/ultimate editions also contributes to this: often I don't want to wait for that edition before playing a game, so I buy it on release, finish it, sell it back as 2nd hand. Then I rebuy the 'final' edition when it surfaces a year later with all the DLC and xpacs included.
As I said in another thread. when you buy new from a shop not one penny is going from you to the Developer/Publisher. It is all going to the shop. This isn't like a movie theatre where a percentage share is going to the theatre and a percentage share going to the distributor. This is like any other shop where the good has already been paid for by the shop. And depending on the distribution network the shop might have bought it from a distributor who bought it from the publisher. So there's already many, many layers between "you" and "paying the developer".
All buying used does is add one more layer.
Except thats false.
Shop buys only whats preordered (This is, in the end, /exactly what gamestop does) and simply cycles out those same copies as they are bought/resold as used.
Wherein before shops had to order more than preordered to accomodate for other buyers coming in later. (Which is why some games are so hard to find.)
Lets take for example Atelier Rorona. A very niche title, but quite good. My local gamestop got exactly one copy. The one I ordered. They have not had it since. The one in the plaza up the road got in two copies, also preorders, and one got sold back. So they then sold this used copy to another person. Who then also sold it back, and was then picked up by a third person. All because the shop /didn't have anything but the used copy/ because Gamestop orders nothing but preorders unless its a 'guaranteed' sell (CoD.)
There is no 'additional layers', this is simply gamestop fucking over niche titles and non-juggernauts.
Guess what? Had they ordered 4 copies they would have sold all four, at a profit to the publishers/devs, instead they only sold 2 new and got to resell another one a couple times. Meaning they got the 30$ flat profit off the game being rebought.
Ordering just enough copies of niche titles simply minimizes their risk. The longer a new game (or used, for that matter) sits on the shelf the more money they lose on it. It makes sense to only buy what you know you are going to sell.
Gamestop is a business like any other, making money by filling the market's demand. If people didn't buy used game, they wouldn't sell them, and consequently would not exist because there is not enough profit in new game sales to keep a specialty retailer afloat.
As I said in another thread. when you buy new from a shop not one penny is going from you to the Developer/Publisher. It is all going to the shop. This isn't like a movie theatre where a percentage share is going to the theatre and a percentage share going to the distributor. This is like any other shop where the good has already been paid for by the shop. And depending on the distribution network the shop might have bought it from a distributor who bought it from the publisher. So there's already many, many layers between "you" and "paying the developer".
All buying used does is add one more layer.
Except thats false.
Shop buys only whats preordered (This is, in the end, /exactly what gamestop does) and simply cycles out those same copies as they are bought/resold as used.
Wherein before shops had to order more than preordered to accomodate for other buyers coming in later. (Which is why some games are so hard to find.)
Lets take for example Atelier Rorona. A very niche title, but quite good. My local gamestop got exactly one copy. The one I ordered. They have not had it since. The one in the plaza up the road got in two copies, also preorders, and one got sold back. So they then sold this used copy to another person. Who then also sold it back, and was then picked up by a third person. All because the shop /didn't have anything but the used copy/ because Gamestop orders nothing but preorders unless its a 'guaranteed' sell (CoD.)
There is no 'additional layers', this is simply gamestop fucking over niche titles and non-juggernauts.
Guess what? Had they ordered 4 copies they would have sold all four, at a profit to the publishers/devs, instead they only sold 2 new and got to resell another one a couple times. Meaning they got the 30$ flat profit off the game being rebought.
Ordering just enough copies of niche titles simply minimizes their risk. The longer a new game (or used, for that matter) sits on the shelf the more money they lose on it. It makes sense to only buy what you know you are going to sell.
Gamestop is a business like any other, making money by filling the market's demand. If people didn't buy used game, they wouldn't sell them, and consequently would not exist because there is not enough profit in new game sales to keep a specialty retailer afloat.
Actually other businesses subsisted on it just fine. Gamestop just made enough money to buy them all out so it has no competition.
Buying only what people preorder is well and dandy, but its exactly why publishers/developers do all this preorder/day 1 DLC shit people whine about. Because they need people to preorder or gamestop won't order any. Obvious.
As I said in another thread. when you buy new from a shop not one penny is going from you to the Developer/Publisher. It is all going to the shop. This isn't like a movie theatre where a percentage share is going to the theatre and a percentage share going to the distributor. This is like any other shop where the good has already been paid for by the shop. And depending on the distribution network the shop might have bought it from a distributor who bought it from the publisher. So there's already many, many layers between "you" and "paying the developer".
All buying used does is add one more layer.
Except thats false.
Shop buys only whats preordered (This is, in the end, /exactly what gamestop does) and simply cycles out those same copies as they are bought/resold as used.
Wherein before shops had to order more than preordered to accomodate for other buyers coming in later. (Which is why some games are so hard to find.)
Lets take for example Atelier Rorona. A very niche title, but quite good. My local gamestop got exactly one copy. The one I ordered. They have not had it since. The one in the plaza up the road got in two copies, also preorders, and one got sold back. So they then sold this used copy to another person. Who then also sold it back, and was then picked up by a third person. All because the shop /didn't have anything but the used copy/ because Gamestop orders nothing but preorders unless its a 'guaranteed' sell (CoD.)
There is no 'additional layers', this is simply gamestop fucking over niche titles and non-juggernauts.
Guess what? Had they ordered 4 copies they would have sold all four, at a profit to the publishers/devs, instead they only sold 2 new and got to resell another one a couple times. Meaning they got the 30$ flat profit off the game being rebought.
Ordering just enough copies of niche titles simply minimizes their risk. The longer a new game (or used, for that matter) sits on the shelf the more money they lose on it. It makes sense to only buy what you know you are going to sell.
Gamestop is a business like any other, making money by filling the market's demand. If people didn't buy used game, they wouldn't sell them, and consequently would not exist because there is not enough profit in new game sales to keep a specialty retailer afloat.
Actually other businesses subsisted on it just fine. Gamestop just made enough money to buy them all out so it has no competition.
Buying only what people preorder is well and dandy, but its exactly why publishers/developers do all this preorder/day 1 DLC shit people whine about. Because they need people to preorder or gamestop won't order any. Obvious.
Actually, they didn't. Gamestop exists because it was big enough to buy out Software Etc and Electronics Boutique, and it had the cash to do so because of used sales. If Gamestop sold nothing but new hardware (0 margin) and new games (varies, but around $5 to $10) it would not be the corporation that it is today. Best Buy and Walmart succeed, albeit to a lesser extent, because they sell other things with a much higher margin.
Gamestop is not ruining the gaming market, is is just the biggest player so the publishers need to play by their rules, and will be until consoles stop running on physical media. Smaller developers will be the first to jump the disc based ship. This is already happening thanks to XBLA, Sony's marketplace, and steam. Gamestop is sitting on a gold mine, but the gold will run out eventually, at which point they will adapt or cease to exist.
I see none of this as either good or bad, it just is, and it will change with time, at which point people will complain about that as well.
Money that goes to developers goes to more, better games, new technologies, better conditions for developers, whatever, and improves the industry generally. Gamestop is parasitic in that its used sales offer nothing new to the industry at large.
This seems to be at the heart of the sentiments of people who are 'against' used sales. The idea seems to be that if game revenue were to increase by some percentage as a result of fewer used sales, that money would somehow wind up in the developer's pocket, instead of just being captured by the publisher. But I'm not sure why that would actually be the case, especially when so many studios operate as direct subsidiaries (also, there is substantial reason to believe that the 'cost' of used sales is baked into the sticker price of console games anyway.)
I also object to the idea that used sales are parasitic. Hardly anyone would consider a used bookseller (or a library) a 'parasite'; the idea of first sale is part of copyright law because it increases access, which should be the policy goal in the first place.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The way I see it is that game publishers don't owe anyone a damn thing. They can do whatever the fuck they want and if somebody doesn't like it (such as penalties for not buying new) then they can just deal with it. I've dealt with companies doing things I don't agree with several times, one of the most recent examples is me not buying Battlefield 3 because EA isn't releasing it on Steam while releasing it on several other DD services. They don't owe me shit and don't have to put it on Steam and that's fine, it's their prerogative. I don't happen to use any of the other DD services, nor do I wish to use them, so I didn't buy it. No big deal. I apply the same thinking when it comes to companies that offer day-1 DLC or multiplayer codes for new games, etc. (I happen to only buy games new and when I buy them digitally I try to buy them straight from the devs, or at least at full price on Steam)
Darmak on
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited January 2012
Yeah, this whole thing with day-one DLC and multiplayer codes is a result of Gamestop's practices happens because people let it happen. But since the game market in general has zero self-discipline, people buy the stuff anyone and thus encourage the practice. I don't hold it against the developers because that stuff is a good idea from their viewpoint; with Gamestop actively set to accelerate used game trade-ins/sales, I'd be pissed off too and want to try and find a way to make something off of what is pure profit for a nasty company.
On top of that, those practices didn't come about because of used games in general, they came about because of Gamestop's destructive use of the used game market. Companies couldn't do anything about Gamestop taking physical copies of games, giving people a pittance on trade-in, and then giving people a marginal discount, so they had to find a way to make something off of those used game sales themselves. There's a world of difference between Gamestop's practices and those of the mom-and-pop stores where you could get actual deals on trade-ins and used purchases.
So I would say that yeah, used game sales are not necessarily parasitic. However, I would add that Gamestop's approach to used game sales is absolutely parasitic and is basically a cancer on the entire industry. It's also kind of funny that libraries are mentioned; when public libraries were being instituted in the USA, the booksellers and publishing houses screamed about how it would destroy the market which obviously never happened. But again, there's a lot of difference between libraries and a company which is built around taking in used books for practically nothing and then selling them back at slightly less than a new copy, thus cutting the publishers out of the loop and making even more profit from the same product.
I don't understand why selling used games near the new-sale price is parasitic, but selling them drastically cheaper (or giving them away, in the case of a library) is better. I mean obviously cheaper is better from the standpoint of the consumer, but if you're a publisher it seems like you'd want used stuff being sold as near the new price as possible, since consumers are more likely to opt for the new product that way.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm fully convinced that further attempts to cut out the used market will simply hurt developers even more... unless they drastically reduce the prices of their games.
I'm a budget gamer. I almost never buy games new, and never buy games at release price. The way I see it, why pay 60-70 dollars on a new game when I could spend 30 and get 3 old games I haven't played yet? If the used game market on consoles goes, I don't expect I'd be buying any more consoles.
Someone mentioned the possibility of tradable games on the WiiU. I'm surprised this hasn't already happened on Steam. I think there's potential for a market that allows people to buy tickets which allow them to trade games that qualify under certain rules. If I decided to buy one of those tickets for a buck, and trade Mass Effect to a friend since I probably won't play it again, there's potential that the developer would gain two sales with the sequel if both of us enjoyed it. I just think we all have games in our libraries that are just sitting there now, which could potentially be profitable for Valve both as a source of trade income, and as advertisements.
people keeping calling out gamestop over and over, but if they didn't exist another just like them would! the used market wouldn't magically go away. customers still want these expensive games at cheaper prices; if the devs and publishers see it as a big issue maybe the should start else where, like downsizing their massive budgets, their huge teams, and overall just stop wasting money. THQ dug themselves into a huge whole, and it was NOT the fault of the used game industry but because they throw money at anything and made very little back.
companies can bemoan lost sales to used games but until they make games more affordable people will seek out ways to buy used. the limitations they place on used buyers often aren't enough to deter them from buying used, so it's a stupid system that treats the offline customer who buys NEW like they are buying used.
it's fucked up
I don't understand why selling used games near the new-sale price is parasitic, but selling them drastically cheaper (or giving them away, in the case of a library) is better. I mean obviously cheaper is better from the standpoint of the consumer, but if you're a publisher it seems like you'd want used stuff being sold as near the new price as possible, since consumers are more likely to opt for the new product that way.
As I said in another thread. when you buy new from a shop not one penny is going from you to the Developer/Publisher. It is all going to the shop. This isn't like a movie theatre where a percentage share is going to the theatre and a percentage share going to the distributor. This is like any other shop where the good has already been paid for by the shop. And depending on the distribution network the shop might have bought it from a distributor who bought it from the publisher. So there's already many, many layers between "you" and "paying the developer".
All buying used does is add one more layer.
Except thats false.
Shop buys only whats preordered (This is, in the end, /exactly what gamestop does) and simply cycles out those same copies as they are bought/resold as used.
Wherein before shops had to order more than preordered to accomodate for other buyers coming in later. (Which is why some games are so hard to find.)
Lets take for example Atelier Rorona. A very niche title, but quite good. My local gamestop got exactly one copy. The one I ordered. They have not had it since. The one in the plaza up the road got in two copies, also preorders, and one got sold back. So they then sold this used copy to another person. Who then also sold it back, and was then picked up by a third person. All because the shop /didn't have anything but the used copy/ because Gamestop orders nothing but preorders unless its a 'guaranteed' sell (CoD.)
There is no 'additional layers', this is simply gamestop fucking over niche titles and non-juggernauts.
Guess what? Had they ordered 4 copies they would have sold all four, at a profit to the publishers/devs, instead they only sold 2 new and got to resell another one a couple times. Meaning they got the 30$ flat profit off the game being rebought.
Then isn't the problem just Gamestop? Buy your new games at Best Buy or wherever else, and the problem's solved? Or is your design somewhat larger?
0
Options
Garret Dorigan"Why can't I be DLC for UMvC3?"Registered Userregular
As I said in another thread. when you buy new from a shop not one penny is going from you to the Developer/Publisher. It is all going to the shop. This isn't like a movie theatre where a percentage share is going to the theatre and a percentage share going to the distributor. This is like any other shop where the good has already been paid for by the shop. And depending on the distribution network the shop might have bought it from a distributor who bought it from the publisher. So there's already many, many layers between "you" and "paying the developer".
All buying used does is add one more layer.
Except thats false.
Shop buys only whats preordered (This is, in the end, /exactly what gamestop does) and simply cycles out those same copies as they are bought/resold as used.
Wherein before shops had to order more than preordered to accomodate for other buyers coming in later. (Which is why some games are so hard to find.)
Lets take for example Atelier Rorona. A very niche title, but quite good. My local gamestop got exactly one copy. The one I ordered. They have not had it since. The one in the plaza up the road got in two copies, also preorders, and one got sold back. So they then sold this used copy to another person. Who then also sold it back, and was then picked up by a third person. All because the shop /didn't have anything but the used copy/ because Gamestop orders nothing but preorders unless its a 'guaranteed' sell (CoD.)
There is no 'additional layers', this is simply gamestop fucking over niche titles and non-juggernauts.
Guess what? Had they ordered 4 copies they would have sold all four, at a profit to the publishers/devs, instead they only sold 2 new and got to resell another one a couple times. Meaning they got the 30$ flat profit off the game being rebought.
Then isn't the problem just Gamestop? Buy your new games at Best Buy or wherever else, and the problem's solved? Or is your design somewhat larger?
Sigh...
Choc, that is false. Any shop that uses a preorder system, Gamestop predominantly, uses preorder numbers from across the country to figure out the relative hype for a certain title. Obviously there are many other factors in this but that is the part that preorders play. Then they do all the math with the consideration figures and order a ton of copies.
Gamestop, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Target, etc. all practice a Warestocking system. They will order from the developer a number of copies based on the consideration figures mentioned before, which (usually) greatly over-encompasses the relative first-time demand. A percentage of this initial purchase is sent out to stores to cover both preorders and walk in purchases. The rest of the games go into their central inventory processing unit to be delivered to stores as per store demand. If, at any time, the number of new copies in the warehouse reaches a certain low amount, they order more from the developer, up to a certain threshold.
Now, in terms of the consideration numbers and preorders (basically a Gamestop only problem), if a certain store does not have a lot of preorders then CIPU thinks there isn't a lot of demand in those locations, so they don't ship out a large number of copies there, even if those preorders are not indicitive of the relative demand at that location. When a store location indicates that demand is higher than consideration would imply, new shipments are sent to cover demand. Understandably (From a profit example) they factor in for used game sales with this shipment. Is this a bad system for the consumer? Kinda, but it also saves them money, so... yeah, I see where they are coming from in doing it. Don't agree, but, meh.
Money that goes to developers goes to more, better games, new technologies, better conditions for developers, whatever, and improves the industry generally. Gamestop is parasitic in that its used sales offer nothing new to the industry at large.
This seems to be at the heart of the sentiments of people who are 'against' used sales. The idea seems to be that if game revenue were to increase by some percentage as a result of fewer used sales, that money would somehow wind up in the developer's pocket, instead of just being captured by the publisher. But I'm not sure why that would actually be the case, especially when so many studios operate as direct subsidiaries (also, there is substantial reason to believe that the 'cost' of used sales is baked into the sticker price of console games anyway.)
I also object to the idea that used sales are parasitic. Hardly anyone would consider a used bookseller (or a library) a 'parasite'; the idea of first sale is part of copyright law because it increases access, which should be the policy goal in the first place.
It doesn't need to go back to the dev, it can all stay with the publisher. Then the publisher, as the company that bankrolls future games, can afford to bankroll more games, and perhaps can afford to take more risks with slightly different games. Even if all the money stays with the publisher, that helps the industry.
My problem with the used game market is that none of the money goes to the developers, it's all going to the retail stores.
So what? Isn't this the same for other used markets? Some used markets have even worked with the system so some of the money does go to them(!) (hello car manufacturers) instead of trying to obliterate it. Why do videogame developers get to double dip? Perhaps this point leans on your second.
Second,
I'd say the difference between games and all your examples is that games generally don't deteriorate over time, used cars greatly depreciate in value, a used house might be run down, clothes might be torn and stained, but as long as the physical medium is in decent condition, a game will always be exactly as the day it was made.
Yes, I'm sorry, but DVDs are not made out of imaginaterium which doesn't deteriorate or suffer the affects of use. It's also a bit of a weird argument you make here, saying as long as it stays in tact it will remain in tact. Okay? Maybe here you meant to argue that DVDs have a longer shelf life without upkeep than a house, typically. So? And what point does this matter? If a product can go 6 months without deterioriation than it shouldn't be sold as used? 1 year? 3 years? 10? Where, why, how, and who draws that line?
Because I have a bunch of cards, comics, and books that don't look used at all and some are over 2 decades old. Maybe I can't sell these products as used because they look new?
I'd say that one difference is that used sales make up such a significant part of the market. In any other market, garage sales and second hand stores are pretty tiny. I don't think I've actually seen a second-hand book or dvd for sale in years. But when the largest game retailer makes most of its money from used sales, games are clearly a different case.
I guess I didn't make my second point very clear. There are two things: the game, and the medium it's on. The medium might deteriorate, but the game never will. As long as the medium is good enough, the game itself remains pristine, as good as the day it was made. In the case of digital distribution there's no medium to deteriorate, so the product remains in perfect condition forever.
Why not a publisher have a small tax attached to used games? Have like a used game, and then a 20 cent, or 80 cent tax attached. That way, they still get a share of the used game, everytime it's bought (and rebought).
Or would that just be dumb?
Why not a publisher have a small tax attached to used games? Have like a used game, and then a 20 cent, or 80 cent tax attached. That way, they still get a share of the used game, everytime it's bought (and rebought).
Or would that just be dumb?
Well, that's basically what online passes and DLC that's free for new purchases is.
Don't worry, eventually publishers and developers will do some serious moral accounting and determine that everybody who doesn't already have broadband deserves to be left behind in the silicon ghetto.
Then, the publishers will die, leaving only consoles and Steam behind to do what they formerly did, but in a sleeker, shinier manner that doesn't entail people discovering that the money their patrons gave them were advances on future profits and that they owe millions of dollars to those nice men.
Money that goes to developers goes to more, better games, new technologies, better conditions for developers, whatever, and improves the industry generally. Gamestop is parasitic in that its used sales offer nothing new to the industry at large.
This seems to be at the heart of the sentiments of people who are 'against' used sales. The idea seems to be that if game revenue were to increase by some percentage as a result of fewer used sales, that money would somehow wind up in the developer's pocket, instead of just being captured by the publisher. But I'm not sure why that would actually be the case, especially when so many studios operate as direct subsidiaries (also, there is substantial reason to believe that the 'cost' of used sales is baked into the sticker price of console games anyway.)
I also object to the idea that used sales are parasitic. Hardly anyone would consider a used bookseller (or a library) a 'parasite'; the idea of first sale is part of copyright law because it increases access, which should be the policy goal in the first place.
It doesn't need to go back to the dev, it can all stay with the publisher. Then the publisher, as the company that bankrolls future games, can afford to bankroll more games, and perhaps can afford to take more risks with slightly different games. Even if all the money stays with the publisher, that helps the industry.
My problem with the used game market is that none of the money goes to the developers, it's all going to the retail stores.
So what? Isn't this the same for other used markets? Some used markets have even worked with the system so some of the money does go to them(!) (hello car manufacturers) instead of trying to obliterate it. Why do videogame developers get to double dip? Perhaps this point leans on your second.
Second,
I'd say the difference between games and all your examples is that games generally don't deteriorate over time, used cars greatly depreciate in value, a used house might be run down, clothes might be torn and stained, but as long as the physical medium is in decent condition, a game will always be exactly as the day it was made.
Yes, I'm sorry, but DVDs are not made out of imaginaterium which doesn't deteriorate or suffer the affects of use. It's also a bit of a weird argument you make here, saying as long as it stays in tact it will remain in tact. Okay? Maybe here you meant to argue that DVDs have a longer shelf life without upkeep than a house, typically. So? And what point does this matter? If a product can go 6 months without deterioriation than it shouldn't be sold as used? 1 year? 3 years? 10? Where, why, how, and who draws that line?
Because I have a bunch of cards, comics, and books that don't look used at all and some are over 2 decades old. Maybe I can't sell these products as used because they look new?
I'd say that one difference is that used sales make up such a significant part of the market. In any other market, garage sales and second hand stores are pretty tiny. I don't think I've actually seen a second-hand book or dvd for sale in years. But when the largest game retailer makes most of its money from used sales, games are clearly a different case.
I guess I didn't make my second point very clear. There are two things: the game, and the medium it's on. The medium might deteriorate, but the game never will. As long as the medium is good enough, the game itself remains pristine, as good as the day it was made. In the case of digital distribution there's no medium to deteriorate, so the product remains in perfect condition forever.
There's such a huge difference between "used sales make up a significant part of the market" and "X retailer makes most of its money from used sales" though.
Now, "significant part of the market" can be seen as a subjective term, so I'll not call it outright false, but video game sales make up a HUGE bulk of their numbers right when the game comes out. First week or two. Especially for the more popular titles, releases are a big deal, where the idea is to open with a bang. It's also the time where there are the fewest number of second hand copies available on the market. Gamestop also deals largely in pre-orders, which obviously doesn't apply to used copies, so even that functions to stem the tide of their own second hand initiative.
The reason Gamestop makes so much of their money from used game sales has nothing to do with the overall percentage of the market that said sales represent, but with their business model built around such a gigantic profit margin on each transaction. Gamestop doesn't suck because they sell used games. They suck because they BUY used games for so low, then sell them for the same price.
I don't like Gamestop. I don't like that I can buy a game "new" that's been taken out of the shrink wrap, never actually play it or touch the game beyond the point of sale, return it the next day, and only able to get the used price for the game. But developers and publishers crying foul all the time because of second hand sales just strikes me as the same bullshit the music and movie industries cried about whenever a new thing came along that threatened their bottom line.
Support companies who make the games you like. But while you're doing so, don't be convinced that most game companies are doing a-okay in the meantime, regardless of the existence of used games.
some countries in europe (notably france) do that with resale works, and apparently california does too (although only on high-dollar sales of 'fine art.')
It doesn't need to go back to the dev, it can all stay with the publisher. Then the publisher, as the company that bankrolls future games, can afford to bankroll more games, and perhaps can afford to take more risks with slightly different games. Even if all the money stays with the publisher, that helps the industry.
This is the thing I don't buy. A game publisher (or any venture capitalist) isn't making investing more money just because they happen to have more to invest, they're doing it based on perceived risk vs return. Giving a publisher another X amount of dollars doesn't mean that money will go into development if the publisher can't identify a project it considers worthwhile.
Maybe publishers are leveraged to the hilt right now and are turning away new projects only on the basis of lack of capital, but I don't think that really describes the state of the industry.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Money that goes to developers goes to more, better games, new technologies, better conditions for developers, whatever, and improves the industry generally. Gamestop is parasitic in that its used sales offer nothing new to the industry at large.
This seems to be at the heart of the sentiments of people who are 'against' used sales. The idea seems to be that if game revenue were to increase by some percentage as a result of fewer used sales, that money would somehow wind up in the developer's pocket, instead of just being captured by the publisher. But I'm not sure why that would actually be the case, especially when so many studios operate as direct subsidiaries (also, there is substantial reason to believe that the 'cost' of used sales is baked into the sticker price of console games anyway.)
I also object to the idea that used sales are parasitic. Hardly anyone would consider a used bookseller (or a library) a 'parasite'; the idea of first sale is part of copyright law because it increases access, which should be the policy goal in the first place.
It doesn't need to go back to the dev, it can all stay with the publisher. Then the publisher, as the company that bankrolls future games, can afford to bankroll more games, and perhaps can afford to take more risks with slightly different games. Even if all the money stays with the publisher, that helps the industry.
My problem with the used game market is that none of the money goes to the developers, it's all going to the retail stores.
So what? Isn't this the same for other used markets? Some used markets have even worked with the system so some of the money does go to them(!) (hello car manufacturers) instead of trying to obliterate it. Why do videogame developers get to double dip? Perhaps this point leans on your second.
Second,
I'd say the difference between games and all your examples is that games generally don't deteriorate over time, used cars greatly depreciate in value, a used house might be run down, clothes might be torn and stained, but as long as the physical medium is in decent condition, a game will always be exactly as the day it was made.
Yes, I'm sorry, but DVDs are not made out of imaginaterium which doesn't deteriorate or suffer the affects of use. It's also a bit of a weird argument you make here, saying as long as it stays in tact it will remain in tact. Okay? Maybe here you meant to argue that DVDs have a longer shelf life without upkeep than a house, typically. So? And what point does this matter? If a product can go 6 months without deterioriation than it shouldn't be sold as used? 1 year? 3 years? 10? Where, why, how, and who draws that line?
Because I have a bunch of cards, comics, and books that don't look used at all and some are over 2 decades old. Maybe I can't sell these products as used because they look new?
I'd say that one difference is that used sales make up such a significant part of the market. In any other market, garage sales and second hand stores are pretty tiny. I don't think I've actually seen a second-hand book or dvd for sale in years. But when the largest game retailer makes most of its money from used sales, games are clearly a different case.
I guess I didn't make my second point very clear. There are two things: the game, and the medium it's on. The medium might deteriorate, but the game never will. As long as the medium is good enough, the game itself remains pristine, as good as the day it was made. In the case of digital distribution there's no medium to deteriorate, so the product remains in perfect condition forever.
How do we differentiate between the medium and the game itself? And better yet, why should we?
Whatever the game is preserved on--hard drive, disc, floppy, even the Internet--will deteriorate. I don't see why we should separate the two. The game can't exist without the medium. End stop. Can't happen. Won't happen. That is the limits of our world: All mediums deteriorate.
Yes, even digital distribution has deterioration, both software and hardware alike. Code can actually become faulty, the internet can actually lose information, hardware can no longer play certain games. Overall though, I agree with @javen. Video game companies are special pleading because they don't want to work with the changing times, they want to fight it.
Being from New Zealand originally, I know what it's like to have absolutely terrible internet that only works for half the month and might as well not exist beyond that due to incredibly low data caps (20gigs - imagine playing the games you do, downloading and such on a 20 gig cap per month. It's not easy whatsoever). You just have to live with it and play your games that need internet DLC or whatever at the start of the month, with other games later. That's just the way an increasingly digital world works and there is no easy solution to that except to force telecommunications companies to pull their finger out (haha, like they will).
This don't jive.
Don't screw the consumer who is paying new but doesn't have an internet connection chasing a lost sale.
The used/new boils down to this: Developers and publishers can fix the problems with the used market on their own terms, but they choose not to. Services like Steam and GOG have shown them how to play the game, and some refuse. Variable pricing, great content, make it easy for the consumer to find and partake in. This is not new information. They can look to other markets and learn this. Ebooks are currently struggling through this right now.
My personal bugaboo, Persona 3 on PSN is still $39.99. That's asinine. The used market provides it at a more reasonable. If the publisher did, then there wouldn't be a problem. The publisher is going out of their way to prevent a sales because... who knows?
For most titles that "I want to try it" or "I'm not sure" level is around $30-40. Kingdoms of Amalur being $45 at Newegg and TRU ensures the developer a sale from me. Why couldn't that be the MSRP?
The consumers will buy the product when it reaches the value they've given it.
All this is from someone who hasn't purchased a used game in years.
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
Comparing buying used games to buying used X (cars, TVs, whatever) on the surface makes sense. I can go out and buy a used car, snowmobile, tv, anything really and nobody raises a fuss. However with games they do. But the thing is when I buy used X more often then not it is a year if not more old. To use cars as an example, you may be hard pressed to find a car at a used dealership a week after it has hit the market. With video games you can find a used copy of a game that was just released yesterday.
I think that may be the bulk of the publishers' irritation. They look at all the used sales that GameStop (as an example) gets from a game the publishers' just released and think to themselves, "God damn, those could have been our sales."
I doubt a publisher cares if people are buying their game used a year after release. I think it is that initial, lets say, three months (maybe more) that is upsetting them.
So offering a bonus to people who buy the game new seems perfectly acceptable to me. Now note, I said bonus, stuff like; a downloadable extra map for a FPS, or extra character skins, or even a quest/story. Not, however, key features of the game like say multiplayer (to use as an example).
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
Being from New Zealand originally, I know what it's like to have absolutely terrible internet that only works for half the month and might as well not exist beyond that due to incredibly low data caps (20gigs - imagine playing the games you do, downloading and such on a 20 gig cap per month. It's not easy whatsoever). You just have to live with it and play your games that need internet DLC or whatever at the start of the month, with other games later. That's just the way an increasingly digital world works and there is no easy solution to that except to force telecommunications companies to pull their finger out (haha, like they will).
This don't jive.
Don't screw the consumer who is paying new but doesn't have an internet connection chasing a lost sale.
The used/new boils down to this: Developers and publishers can fix the problems with the used market on their own terms, but they choose not to. Services like Steam and GOG have shown them how to play the game, and some refuse. Variable pricing, great content, make it easy for the consumer to find and partake in. This is not new information. They can look to other markets and learn this. Ebooks are currently struggling through this right now.
My personal bugaboo, Persona 3 on PSN is still $39.99. That's asinine. The used market provides it at a more reasonable. If the publisher did, then there wouldn't be a problem. The publisher is going out of their way to prevent a sales because... who knows?
For most titles that "I want to try it" or "I'm not sure" level is around $30-40. Kingdoms of Amalur being $45 at Newegg and TRU ensures the developer a sale from me. Why couldn't that be the MSRP?
The consumers will buy the product when it reaches the value they've given it.
All this is from someone who hasn't purchased a used game in years.
i agree with all of this, devs/publishers can fight used sales without screwing offline users, but they don't want to see the price of games go down.
What Gamestop does have going for it is that it's often the only way to find a title that has been out of print for years. However, digital distribution solves that simply by never letting titles go out of print.
This would be true if GS (at least the one near me) carried anything from more than one generation back except for Xbox which they liquidated out a while ago.
Buying used does not hurt the developer one bit, as they have already made money on the initial purchase of the game.
Yeah, it does hurt developers, because you're buying a used copy of the game instead of buying a new copy and thus increasing their profits.
This is not a value judgement on the "ethics" of buying used vs. new, or whether developers are being hurt in unreasonable amounts, but it's silly to deny that used games cut into developer profit margins.
People who buy used may not plan to buy new anyway. Some may have planned to buy new but chose to buy used for the savings. How many? Impossible to quantify.
On the flipside, someone who sells a used game (not buys it), then gets an injection of cash to potentially spend on another new game that they might otherwise not have bought. How many people will spend that cash on a new game? Impossible to quantify.
So we have used games potentially harming the developers in an unquantifiable way, and we have used games potentially benefiting the developers in an unquantifiable way.
Can everyone see why this is a silly conversation yet?
As I said in another thread. when you buy new from a shop not one penny is going from you to the Developer/Publisher. It is all going to the shop. This isn't like a movie theatre where a percentage share is going to the theatre and a percentage share going to the distributor. This is like any other shop where the good has already been paid for by the shop. And depending on the distribution network the shop might have bought it from a distributor who bought it from the publisher. So there's already many, many layers between "you" and "paying the developer".
All buying used does is add one more layer.
Except thats false.
Shop buys only whats preordered (This is, in the end, /exactly what gamestop does) and simply cycles out those same copies as they are bought/resold as used.
Wherein before shops had to order more than preordered to accomodate for other buyers coming in later. (Which is why some games are so hard to find.)
Lets take for example Atelier Rorona. A very niche title, but quite good. My local gamestop got exactly one copy. The one I ordered. They have not had it since. The one in the plaza up the road got in two copies, also preorders, and one got sold back. So they then sold this used copy to another person. Who then also sold it back, and was then picked up by a third person. All because the shop /didn't have anything but the used copy/ because Gamestop orders nothing but preorders unless its a 'guaranteed' sell (CoD.)
There is no 'additional layers', this is simply gamestop fucking over niche titles and non-juggernauts.
Guess what? Had they ordered 4 copies they would have sold all four, at a profit to the publishers/devs, instead they only sold 2 new and got to resell another one a couple times. Meaning they got the 30$ flat profit off the game being rebought.
Then isn't the problem just Gamestop? Buy your new games at Best Buy or wherever else, and the problem's solved? Or is your design somewhat larger?
Sigh...
Choc, that is false. Any shop that uses a preorder system, Gamestop predominantly, uses preorder numbers from across the country to figure out the relative hype for a certain title. Obviously there are many other factors in this but that is the part that preorders play. Then they do all the math with the consideration figures and order a ton of copies.
Gamestop, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Target, etc. all practice a Warestocking system. They will order from the developer a number of copies based on the consideration figures mentioned before, which (usually) greatly over-encompasses the relative first-time demand. A percentage of this initial purchase is sent out to stores to cover both preorders and walk in purchases. The rest of the games go into their central inventory processing unit to be delivered to stores as per store demand. If, at any time, the number of new copies in the warehouse reaches a certain low amount, they order more from the developer, up to a certain threshold.
Now, in terms of the consideration numbers and preorders (basically a Gamestop only problem), if a certain store does not have a lot of preorders then CIPU thinks there isn't a lot of demand in those locations, so they don't ship out a large number of copies there, even if those preorders are not indicitive of the relative demand at that location. When a store location indicates that demand is higher than consideration would imply, new shipments are sent to cover demand. Understandably (From a profit example) they factor in for used game sales with this shipment. Is this a bad system for the consumer? Kinda, but it also saves them money, so... yeah, I see where they are coming from in doing it. Don't agree, but, meh.
Well, sir, considering I know several people who do inventory work for gamestop, both now and in the past, and the fact that gamestop released an official memo dictating this new policy some years back...
No, it isn't false. This is literally how gamestop does it. You have to specifically make the order yourself, to acquire copies of any games wherein there is not a publisher deal to push x amount of stock.
So while your description might fit other retailers (Its how Target does it, I know this for a fact having worked their logistics.) Gamestop makes a point of not doing it that way, purely to increased used sales. At least in Pa, Ga and NM.
Posts
Bioware seems to have a really weird track record with their DLC. Seems like theyre either great like Shadow Broker, or wtf type stuff like that weird monster dlc for the original Dragon Age.
That's a completely ridiculous context in which to relate to the situation.
Everything, from cars to houses to clothes to entertainment and every other form of IP, has a used market (except maybe food, diapers, and perishable stuff like that). eBay, craigslist, your local Salvation Army/Goodwill, and every garage sale/boot sale in the history of civilization sells everything ever made "used". Normal wear and tear aside, whenever you buy something used, you expect it to work properly.
My complaint is why, out of every industry, market, and society in the history of man, is the video game/computer program industry different so it's ok to make it where the product only works when purchased brand new, and god help you if it's used?
What amazes me is over in the Nintendo thread, they're talking about how they might make it so you can trade your downloaded games to someone else with the WiiU or whatever, like it's an amazing new concept that's innovative and revolutionary. Why is this unheard of?
This isn't a problem of people making exact copies of the game costing you sales or overloading online servers with illegitimate copies, it's using a perfectly legal and valid copy of the game that was purchased by someone else that is now yours.
EDIT: And this is a modern system. Video games up to just a decade ago still worked with all aspects of the game functioning properly when you bought it used. Because we have access to online verification, that makes it ok for companies to try to squeeze extra fees out of us because....why again?
It just seems to me to be a greedy as hell moneygrab. Not every game is going to sell 10 million copies and print money. That's not an excuse to try to fleece people for playing a game that has already been sold.
I have to agree with Astale here. If your money goes to Gamestop, the devs and publisher owe you nothing. If your money goes to the people who made it, then you get a full, functioning product. All other arguments are meaningless to me. The publishers are businesses, trying to get money. You don't give them money, they have no interest in helping you.
I'd say the difference between games and all your examples is that games generally don't deteriorate over time, used cars greatly depreciate in value, a used house might be run down, clothes might be torn and stained, but as long as the physical medium is in decent condition, a game will always be exactly as the day it was made. Digital copies even more so: if you could trade digital copies it's entirely possible (not likely, of course) that millions of people would trade one copy between themselves. As long as Steam is up and running, my copies of games there are exactly as they were on release day, and if I could trade them they would be as valuable as a new copy.
I have to take issue with this bit. I'm not sure where the people you know live, but I pay $1800 a month for a small one bedroom apartment, and it's one of the cheapest places anywhere near where I work in Sydney. $1600 a month will get an apartment so small my 2 seater couch would not fit anywhere. At uni I lived in a dinky little 5 bedroom apartment for $4660/month, or $930/month per person, and that was a)terrible and b)in a cheap, dirty suburb. Also, wage may be higher but income tax is ~20-30% higher.
Help me do what, exactly? They actually went out of their way to write code to take away part of the game from me because little Bobby bought the game and not me. I'm not asking for their help. I'm asking for the complete game, which was given to the person that initially bought the game.
Me playing costs them nothing at all more than if little Bobby was still playing the game. Why should my game be limited because I'm not little Bobby?
EDIT: Theoretically, they would save money by not having to write the extra code to lock me out and not have to print out a couple million cards with the verification code to get access to whatever.
Again, it's nothing but a greedy moneygrab. They deal with Gamestop, do business with Gamestop, have "exclusive" crap with Gamestop, but then cry because Gamestop has a business model that doesn't give the game companies free money for no additional effort, product, or material?
I'm not seeing where the logic is in these arguments besides "Gamestop is making money off products we already sold, and we want more money because other people are making money. we can't get free money from Gamestop, so we'll leech it off our customers".
If they don't like it, why don't they open their own Gamestops and resell their own games?
Well, I disagree with two of your premises.
First,
So what? Isn't this the same for other used markets? Some used markets have even worked with the system so some of the money does go to them(!) (hello car manufacturers) instead of trying to obliterate it. Why do videogame developers get to double dip? Perhaps this point leans on your second.
Second,
Yes, I'm sorry, but DVDs are not made out of imaginaterium which doesn't deteriorate or suffer the affects of use. It's also a bit of a weird argument you make here, saying as long as it stays in tact it will remain in tact. Okay? Maybe here you meant to argue that DVDs have a longer shelf life without upkeep than a house, typically. So? And what point does this matter? If a product can go 6 months without deterioriation than it shouldn't be sold as used? 1 year? 3 years? 10? Where, why, how, and who draws that line?
Because I have a bunch of cards, comics, and books that don't look used at all and some are over 2 decades old. Maybe I can't sell these products as used because they look new?
You're entire argument falls flat right their. There's something to be said about having day one DLC thats required for plot or is integral to the game(especially if you did buy the game new.)
The problem is when you assume they have a responsibility to you to by proxy provide you with a full product.(They dont. They dont have to shit for you, because you bought used.) For the last time, they owe you nothing. You didnt buy it from them.
And getting money from used sales, instead of selling their own used games, is exactly what theyre doing with online passes.
edit: ok, that was a little harsh. I should clarify that I do have an issue with them completely locking out used games all together. I think the online pass thing is a decent middleground to the argument. And if gamestop puts their used game prices down as a result-which some people have said theyre doing (so you can buy the game/online pass for the same amount as the game would be used if it didnt have the online pass) then that seems to be a nonissue to me.
PC vs console.
Two similar markets which have vastly different points of execution (Case in point, Gamestop carries almost no PC games, no used sales, etc.)
All buying used does is add one more layer.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Except thats false.
Shop buys only whats preordered (This is, in the end, /exactly what gamestop does) and simply cycles out those same copies as they are bought/resold as used.
Wherein before shops had to order more than preordered to accomodate for other buyers coming in later. (Which is why some games are so hard to find.)
Lets take for example Atelier Rorona. A very niche title, but quite good. My local gamestop got exactly one copy. The one I ordered. They have not had it since. The one in the plaza up the road got in two copies, also preorders, and one got sold back. So they then sold this used copy to another person. Who then also sold it back, and was then picked up by a third person. All because the shop /didn't have anything but the used copy/ because Gamestop orders nothing but preorders unless its a 'guaranteed' sell (CoD.)
There is no 'additional layers', this is simply gamestop fucking over niche titles and non-juggernauts.
Guess what? Had they ordered 4 copies they would have sold all four, at a profit to the publishers/devs, instead they only sold 2 new and got to resell another one a couple times. Meaning they got the 30$ flat profit off the game being rebought.
Edit: PC games are harder to get used, but older PC games are dirt cheap compared to console games. Say, a 4 year old new PC game for 5 bucks instead of the 20 or so it'd be for console. Like the Civ V copies I saw last time I went into half price books. Though that might just be because no one liked that game.
That said, if a PAer wants a copy I'd be willing to let my PS3 copy go for super cheap (Inb4 MEGAIRONY).
Do we have a thread for that sorta thing I need to direct this to?
The trend of goty/ultimate editions also contributes to this: often I don't want to wait for that edition before playing a game, so I buy it on release, finish it, sell it back as 2nd hand. Then I rebuy the 'final' edition when it surfaces a year later with all the DLC and xpacs included.
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
Ordering just enough copies of niche titles simply minimizes their risk. The longer a new game (or used, for that matter) sits on the shelf the more money they lose on it. It makes sense to only buy what you know you are going to sell.
Gamestop is a business like any other, making money by filling the market's demand. If people didn't buy used game, they wouldn't sell them, and consequently would not exist because there is not enough profit in new game sales to keep a specialty retailer afloat.
Actually other businesses subsisted on it just fine. Gamestop just made enough money to buy them all out so it has no competition.
Buying only what people preorder is well and dandy, but its exactly why publishers/developers do all this preorder/day 1 DLC shit people whine about. Because they need people to preorder or gamestop won't order any. Obvious.
Also: Fixed for accuracy. Lets be honest here, unless the seller is guaranteeing you that the item is 100% like new, buying used is always a crapshoot.
Actually, they didn't. Gamestop exists because it was big enough to buy out Software Etc and Electronics Boutique, and it had the cash to do so because of used sales. If Gamestop sold nothing but new hardware (0 margin) and new games (varies, but around $5 to $10) it would not be the corporation that it is today. Best Buy and Walmart succeed, albeit to a lesser extent, because they sell other things with a much higher margin.
Gamestop is not ruining the gaming market, is is just the biggest player so the publishers need to play by their rules, and will be until consoles stop running on physical media. Smaller developers will be the first to jump the disc based ship. This is already happening thanks to XBLA, Sony's marketplace, and steam. Gamestop is sitting on a gold mine, but the gold will run out eventually, at which point they will adapt or cease to exist.
I see none of this as either good or bad, it just is, and it will change with time, at which point people will complain about that as well.
This seems to be at the heart of the sentiments of people who are 'against' used sales. The idea seems to be that if game revenue were to increase by some percentage as a result of fewer used sales, that money would somehow wind up in the developer's pocket, instead of just being captured by the publisher. But I'm not sure why that would actually be the case, especially when so many studios operate as direct subsidiaries (also, there is substantial reason to believe that the 'cost' of used sales is baked into the sticker price of console games anyway.)
I also object to the idea that used sales are parasitic. Hardly anyone would consider a used bookseller (or a library) a 'parasite'; the idea of first sale is part of copyright law because it increases access, which should be the policy goal in the first place.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
On top of that, those practices didn't come about because of used games in general, they came about because of Gamestop's destructive use of the used game market. Companies couldn't do anything about Gamestop taking physical copies of games, giving people a pittance on trade-in, and then giving people a marginal discount, so they had to find a way to make something off of those used game sales themselves. There's a world of difference between Gamestop's practices and those of the mom-and-pop stores where you could get actual deals on trade-ins and used purchases.
So I would say that yeah, used game sales are not necessarily parasitic. However, I would add that Gamestop's approach to used game sales is absolutely parasitic and is basically a cancer on the entire industry. It's also kind of funny that libraries are mentioned; when public libraries were being instituted in the USA, the booksellers and publishing houses screamed about how it would destroy the market which obviously never happened. But again, there's a lot of difference between libraries and a company which is built around taking in used books for practically nothing and then selling them back at slightly less than a new copy, thus cutting the publishers out of the loop and making even more profit from the same product.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm a budget gamer. I almost never buy games new, and never buy games at release price. The way I see it, why pay 60-70 dollars on a new game when I could spend 30 and get 3 old games I haven't played yet? If the used game market on consoles goes, I don't expect I'd be buying any more consoles.
Someone mentioned the possibility of tradable games on the WiiU. I'm surprised this hasn't already happened on Steam. I think there's potential for a market that allows people to buy tickets which allow them to trade games that qualify under certain rules. If I decided to buy one of those tickets for a buck, and trade Mass Effect to a friend since I probably won't play it again, there's potential that the developer would gain two sales with the sequel if both of us enjoyed it. I just think we all have games in our libraries that are just sitting there now, which could potentially be profitable for Valve both as a source of trade income, and as advertisements.
companies can bemoan lost sales to used games but until they make games more affordable people will seek out ways to buy used. the limitations they place on used buyers often aren't enough to deter them from buying used, so it's a stupid system that treats the offline customer who buys NEW like they are buying used.
it's fucked up
I like this point. It is an excellent point.
Then isn't the problem just Gamestop? Buy your new games at Best Buy or wherever else, and the problem's solved? Or is your design somewhat larger?
Sigh...
Choc, that is false. Any shop that uses a preorder system, Gamestop predominantly, uses preorder numbers from across the country to figure out the relative hype for a certain title. Obviously there are many other factors in this but that is the part that preorders play. Then they do all the math with the consideration figures and order a ton of copies.
Gamestop, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Target, etc. all practice a Warestocking system. They will order from the developer a number of copies based on the consideration figures mentioned before, which (usually) greatly over-encompasses the relative first-time demand. A percentage of this initial purchase is sent out to stores to cover both preorders and walk in purchases. The rest of the games go into their central inventory processing unit to be delivered to stores as per store demand. If, at any time, the number of new copies in the warehouse reaches a certain low amount, they order more from the developer, up to a certain threshold.
Now, in terms of the consideration numbers and preorders (basically a Gamestop only problem), if a certain store does not have a lot of preorders then CIPU thinks there isn't a lot of demand in those locations, so they don't ship out a large number of copies there, even if those preorders are not indicitive of the relative demand at that location. When a store location indicates that demand is higher than consideration would imply, new shipments are sent to cover demand. Understandably (From a profit example) they factor in for used game sales with this shipment. Is this a bad system for the consumer? Kinda, but it also saves them money, so... yeah, I see where they are coming from in doing it. Don't agree, but, meh.
It doesn't need to go back to the dev, it can all stay with the publisher. Then the publisher, as the company that bankrolls future games, can afford to bankroll more games, and perhaps can afford to take more risks with slightly different games. Even if all the money stays with the publisher, that helps the industry.
I'd say that one difference is that used sales make up such a significant part of the market. In any other market, garage sales and second hand stores are pretty tiny. I don't think I've actually seen a second-hand book or dvd for sale in years. But when the largest game retailer makes most of its money from used sales, games are clearly a different case.
I guess I didn't make my second point very clear. There are two things: the game, and the medium it's on. The medium might deteriorate, but the game never will. As long as the medium is good enough, the game itself remains pristine, as good as the day it was made. In the case of digital distribution there's no medium to deteriorate, so the product remains in perfect condition forever.
Or would that just be dumb?
Well, that's basically what online passes and DLC that's free for new purchases is.
Then, the publishers will die, leaving only consoles and Steam behind to do what they formerly did, but in a sleeker, shinier manner that doesn't entail people discovering that the money their patrons gave them were advances on future profits and that they owe millions of dollars to those nice men.
There's such a huge difference between "used sales make up a significant part of the market" and "X retailer makes most of its money from used sales" though.
Now, "significant part of the market" can be seen as a subjective term, so I'll not call it outright false, but video game sales make up a HUGE bulk of their numbers right when the game comes out. First week or two. Especially for the more popular titles, releases are a big deal, where the idea is to open with a bang. It's also the time where there are the fewest number of second hand copies available on the market. Gamestop also deals largely in pre-orders, which obviously doesn't apply to used copies, so even that functions to stem the tide of their own second hand initiative.
The reason Gamestop makes so much of their money from used game sales has nothing to do with the overall percentage of the market that said sales represent, but with their business model built around such a gigantic profit margin on each transaction. Gamestop doesn't suck because they sell used games. They suck because they BUY used games for so low, then sell them for the same price.
I don't like Gamestop. I don't like that I can buy a game "new" that's been taken out of the shrink wrap, never actually play it or touch the game beyond the point of sale, return it the next day, and only able to get the used price for the game. But developers and publishers crying foul all the time because of second hand sales just strikes me as the same bullshit the music and movie industries cried about whenever a new thing came along that threatened their bottom line.
Support companies who make the games you like. But while you're doing so, don't be convinced that most game companies are doing a-okay in the meantime, regardless of the existence of used games.
This is the thing I don't buy. A game publisher (or any venture capitalist) isn't making investing more money just because they happen to have more to invest, they're doing it based on perceived risk vs return. Giving a publisher another X amount of dollars doesn't mean that money will go into development if the publisher can't identify a project it considers worthwhile.
Maybe publishers are leveraged to the hilt right now and are turning away new projects only on the basis of lack of capital, but I don't think that really describes the state of the industry.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
How do we differentiate between the medium and the game itself? And better yet, why should we?
Whatever the game is preserved on--hard drive, disc, floppy, even the Internet--will deteriorate. I don't see why we should separate the two. The game can't exist without the medium. End stop. Can't happen. Won't happen. That is the limits of our world: All mediums deteriorate.
Yes, even digital distribution has deterioration, both software and hardware alike. Code can actually become faulty, the internet can actually lose information, hardware can no longer play certain games. Overall though, I agree with @javen. Video game companies are special pleading because they don't want to work with the changing times, they want to fight it.
This, and
This don't jive.
Don't screw the consumer who is paying new but doesn't have an internet connection chasing a lost sale.
The used/new boils down to this: Developers and publishers can fix the problems with the used market on their own terms, but they choose not to. Services like Steam and GOG have shown them how to play the game, and some refuse. Variable pricing, great content, make it easy for the consumer to find and partake in. This is not new information. They can look to other markets and learn this. Ebooks are currently struggling through this right now.
My personal bugaboo, Persona 3 on PSN is still $39.99. That's asinine. The used market provides it at a more reasonable. If the publisher did, then there wouldn't be a problem. The publisher is going out of their way to prevent a sales because... who knows?
For most titles that "I want to try it" or "I'm not sure" level is around $30-40. Kingdoms of Amalur being $45 at Newegg and TRU ensures the developer a sale from me. Why couldn't that be the MSRP?
The consumers will buy the product when it reaches the value they've given it.
All this is from someone who hasn't purchased a used game in years.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
I think that may be the bulk of the publishers' irritation. They look at all the used sales that GameStop (as an example) gets from a game the publishers' just released and think to themselves, "God damn, those could have been our sales."
I doubt a publisher cares if people are buying their game used a year after release. I think it is that initial, lets say, three months (maybe more) that is upsetting them.
So offering a bonus to people who buy the game new seems perfectly acceptable to me. Now note, I said bonus, stuff like; a downloadable extra map for a FPS, or extra character skins, or even a quest/story. Not, however, key features of the game like say multiplayer (to use as an example).
i agree with all of this, devs/publishers can fight used sales without screwing offline users, but they don't want to see the price of games go down.
buying a used game and finding an unused code in there
People who buy used may not plan to buy new anyway. Some may have planned to buy new but chose to buy used for the savings. How many? Impossible to quantify.
On the flipside, someone who sells a used game (not buys it), then gets an injection of cash to potentially spend on another new game that they might otherwise not have bought. How many people will spend that cash on a new game? Impossible to quantify.
So we have used games potentially harming the developers in an unquantifiable way, and we have used games potentially benefiting the developers in an unquantifiable way.
Can everyone see why this is a silly conversation yet?
Well, sir, considering I know several people who do inventory work for gamestop, both now and in the past, and the fact that gamestop released an official memo dictating this new policy some years back...
No, it isn't false. This is literally how gamestop does it. You have to specifically make the order yourself, to acquire copies of any games wherein there is not a publisher deal to push x amount of stock.
So while your description might fit other retailers (Its how Target does it, I know this for a fact having worked their logistics.) Gamestop makes a point of not doing it that way, purely to increased used sales. At least in Pa, Ga and NM.