Metal Jared, I'm not crying - I'm just pointing out the situation. And urging you to take a little bit more responsibility with how you spend your dollar if you love video games.
Also, you're mistaken. We (the game industry) are fixing our own problems. It will be a combination of a move to digital distro facilitated by a number of things that discourage buying retail until a complete digital move can be done. Perhaps before this over Gamespot will decide to play ball and do something about their vast pre-owned market they've created. Or perhaps they won't.
You're
Matrias on
3DS/Pokemon Friend Code - 2122-5878-9273 - Kyle
0
Options
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
The creation of single video game is a colossal undertaking far dwarfing the creation of kitchen knives.
Not to besmirch far more established expressions of culture and entertainment, or indeed, the creators of the kitchen knives, but video game development is really up there in terms of incredible and difficult accomplishments for human civilization.
Maybe that is something worth a small pause of notice?
More impressive than a car, or air conditioning/refridgeration (One of the most important inventions in the history of mankind, litterally) or one of a thousand other thigns?
Look I get you love your job. I love that you do your job too. I love video games. But lets slow down a bit shall we:
"video game development is really up there in terms of incredible and difficult accomplishments for human civilization."
One gamestop quirk I really do not understand is their pricing for new/used Mass Effect 2.
I just completed Mass Effect (using a copy borrowed from a coworker, so by THQ standards I'm pirate scum.), but there's only a $3 price difference between new/used copies, but a substantial content difference in the form of the Cerebus thing.
There's nothing to understand. They're gouging.
It's a terrible pre-owned market, but people buy into it so it's working.
Matrias on
3DS/Pokemon Friend Code - 2122-5878-9273 - Kyle
0
Options
Triple BBastard of the NorthMARegistered Userregular
You're right, I shouldn't do what's right for me and my family. I should worry about the people who make the games. Oh wait I got that mixed up. I do what's best for me. Always. I am not a shareholder in your company. I don't care about you. If you make a good game I will buy it, if I feel the price is right. That is the only thing I have to worry about. You guys have to fix your business model. I hope you can do it, I don't want you to lose your job. But stop blaming consumers.
This might not be entirely popular with the majority, but goddamn if this isn't the most reasonable, realistic opinion in this entire thread.
Seriously, other dudes that aren't Metal Jared, I'm happy for you that you can afford to worry about someone else's family as well as your own, but I myself cannot.
To speak of my own personal situation with regards to capitalism/survival of the fittest/what have you...I don't want other people to fail and slip into bankruptcy, but ultimately I can't prevent it from happening while I'm trying to feed three people and two animals. Especially when one of the people is legally blind and the other is permanently disabled. Being the only person with a job and a car in a household with a family does not put me in the most sympathetic position. I don't know what game devs make salary-wise, but I've got to think that a lot of them get paid more money than I will ever see to do something as awesome as making video games. I can't exactly shed a tear for that.
Also, on digital delivery: I think it's all well and good right where it is at this exact point in time. With some games, you have the option of a digital delivery or buying it at retail. It should never become the only way you can get your hands on a game. Ever. If we're being sympathetic, aren't there lots of graphic designers out there who would be out of work if there was no longer a need to design box art? So basically it's okay if an entire department loses their jobs as long as the rest of us still get paid for the sale of something that is no longer ours to sell. Interesting logic.
Triple B on
Steam/XBL/PSN: FiveAgainst1
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
One gamestop quirk I really do not understand is their pricing for new/used Mass Effect 2.
I just completed Mass Effect (using a copy borrowed from a coworker, so by THQ standards I'm pirate scum.), but there's only a $3 price difference between new/used copies, but a substantial content difference in the form of the Cerebus thing.
Because the GameStop used game sales model depends on customer ignorance.
Too right. To the credit of the Game Stop employee at my local store, he actually brought this up, even though I already knew it going in (thanks thread!), and checked the computer to confirm that the store by my office had it in stock since they were out.
The creation of single video game is a colossal undertaking far dwarfing the creation of kitchen knives.
Not to besmirch far more established expressions of culture and entertainment, or indeed, the creators of the kitchen knives, but video game development is really up there in terms of incredible and difficult accomplishments for human civilization.
Maybe that is something worth a small pause of notice?
More impressive than a car, or air conditioning/refridgeration (One of the most important inventions in the history of mankind, litterally) or one of a thousand other thigns?
Look I get you love your job. I love that you do your job too. I love video games. But lets slow down a bit shall we:
"video game development is really up there in terms of incredible and difficult accomplishments for human civilization."
Now you're just being silly.
Well, no, I'm not. The amount of technologies and disciplines working together to create what they do is pretty damn impressive.
What, I'm trying to say, a chap named Beethoven is well known for good music made a long time ago. Should not a collective group who made something awesome be known for what they made?
If you happened to read all the stuff that I've wrote I am asking that developers and publishers take the risk of changing their buisness model. Not just blame consumers for buying things legally. I don't care if you think I don't support you. You don't matter to me.
I don't know why "blame" is the proper word for pointing out what I assumed was the obvious point that the customers who buy used console games from Gamestop are not customers of the developers or publishers of those games, but of Gamestop. So when developers or publishers decide to change their business model those customers are of far less importance than the ones that buy new games.
If you make the games, or someone else does. It doesn't matter. If your company fails another company will take your place. Maybe they will be better, maybe they will be worse. Did Fallout die? No Bethesda got the licence and made the game. This is capitalism. If enough people want a game to get made, it will get made.
Yes, what's the problem if your favorite band breaks up? I mean, some shitty bar band will do cover versions of their songs eventually, if the invisible hand of the free market commands it.
Oh, hey, I'm wondering why the "this is capitalism" excuse doesn't apply to the developers and publishers who want to incentivize buying new copies of their games.
Lawndart on
0
Options
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
Metal Jared, I'm not crying - I'm just pointing out the situation. And urging you to take a little bit more responsibility with how you spend your dollar if you love video games.
Also, you're mistaken. We (the game industry) are fixing our own problems. It will be a combination of a move to digital distro facilitated by a number of things that discourage buying retail until a complete digital move can be done. Perhaps before this over Gamespot will decide to play ball and do something about their vast pre-owned market they've created. Or perhaps they won't.
You're
I agree that you're fixing your problems, however I just disagree with how you're fixing them. Also, what right do you have to tell me how I spend my money and judge if I spend it responsibly or not? I judge how responsibly I spend my money by how it effects myself and my family. That seems pretty responsible to me. Since someone else quoted this I'll post what I wrote again:
Metal Jared wrote:
when an item has a secondary resale market the original purchaser (especially someone who later sells the game) takes this fact into account and positively effects their decision to buy it creating a value of the item in the secondary market due the fact it helped sell the game the first time.
If you happened to read all the stuff that I've wrote I am asking that developers and publishers take the risk of changing their buisness model. Not just blame consumers for buying things legally. I don't care if you think I don't support you. You don't matter to me.
I don't know why "blame" is the proper word for pointing out what I assumed was the obvious point that the customers who buy used console games from Gamestop are not customers of the developers or publishers of those games, but of Gamestop. So when developers or publishers decide to change their business model those customers are of far less importance than the ones that buy new games.
If you make the games, or someone else does. It doesn't matter. If your company fails another company will take your place. Maybe they will be better, maybe they will be worse. Did Fallout die? No Bethesda got the licence and made the game. This is capitalism. If enough people want a game to get made, it will get made.
Yes, what's the problem if your favorite band breaks up? I mean, some shitty bar band will do cover versions of their songs eventually, if the invisible hand of the free market commands it.
Oh, hey, I'm wondering why the "this is capitalism" excuse doesn't apply to the developers and publishers who want to incentivize buying new copies of their games.
Limed. Exactly.
Until we have full digital distro, companies are going to do what they have to discourage reselling and retail in general. Sometimes they do it right, sometimes they ham hand it. The game industry is figuring out, but it's not going to be an easy transition and it will take time.
Matrias on
3DS/Pokemon Friend Code - 2122-5878-9273 - Kyle
0
Options
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
If you happened to read all the stuff that I've wrote I am asking that developers and publishers take the risk of changing their buisness model. Not just blame consumers for buying things legally. I don't care if you think I don't support you. You don't matter to me.
I don't know why "blame" is the proper word for pointing out what I assumed was the obvious point that the customers who buy used console games from Gamestop are not customers of the developers or publishers of those games, but of Gamestop. So when developers or publishers decide to change their business model those customers are of far less importance than the ones that buy new games.
If you make the games, or someone else does. It doesn't matter. If your company fails another company will take your place. Maybe they will be better, maybe they will be worse. Did Fallout die? No Bethesda got the licence and made the game. This is capitalism. If enough people want a game to get made, it will get made.
Yes, what's the problem if your favorite band breaks up? I mean, some shitty bar band will do cover versions of their songs eventually, if the invisible hand of the free market commands it.
Oh, hey, I'm wondering why the "this is capitalism" excuse doesn't apply to the developers and publishers who want to incentivize buying new copies of their games.
What excuse? I've said many times if publishers want to work on the digital distribution, licensing model and stop reselling they should do that. That would allow them to lower prices and that would be give and take for both the business and the consumer. However what they are donig now is keeping prices the same and changing the product (not allowing online play) which affects the item as an asset and lowers its overall value. They want their cake and eat it too.
Edit: Silly Goose on a crutch Matrias are you serious? I keep telling you to fix your business model then you say that I don't want you to fix your business model. How is suggesting a change in business model not mean "This is capitalism"
Metal Jared on
BattleTag: MetalJared#1756
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
If Gamestop is gouging so heavily, damaging consumers and the industry, wouldn't it be really easy for same other business to cut their fat margins in half on used games and absolutely ruin them in this market space?
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Oh, hey, I'm wondering why the "this is capitalism" excuse doesn't apply to the developers and publishers who want to incentivize buying new copies of their games.
Im not a big fan of the "this is capitalism" argument, but you are right, in this instance it does cut both ways.
I'm in the camp that buys new + used, but ultimately I don't think the used market makes as much of an impact as THQ is claiming and I take exception to a developer calling me a "pirate".
If Gamestop is gouging so heavily, damaging consumers and the industry, wouldn't it be really easy for same other business to cut their fat margins in half on used games and absolutely ruin them in this market space?
I think they're too ubiquitous at this point. Game Crazy took a good stab at this. They offered more on trade-in games (still not a lot, but more than GS), and generally sold used games for less. They're dead now, but I'm not sure if that was because of Game Crazy's business model, or because it was inextricably linked to brick & mortar movie rentals which is a dying business anyway.
Bionic Monkey on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
If Gamestop is gouging so heavily, damaging consumers and the industry, wouldn't it be really easy for same other business to cut their fat margins in half on used games and absolutely ruin them in this market space?
If Gamestop is gouging so heavily, damaging consumers and the industry, wouldn't it be really easy for same other business to cut their fat margins in half on used games and absolutely ruin them in this market space?
That's why Best Buy, WalMart and a few other big box retailers are dipping a toe into the used game market.
When Gamestop talks about used games being a quarter of their sales yet close to half of their profits, you can't expect nobody to take notice, either on the publisher or the retailer side.
Oh, hey, I'm wondering why the "this is capitalism" excuse doesn't apply to the developers and publishers who want to incentivize buying new copies of their games.
Im not a big fan of the "this is capitalism" argument, but you are right, in this instance it does cut both ways.
I'm in the camp that buys new + used, but ultimately I don't think the used market makes as much of an impact as THQ is claiming and I take exception to a developer calling me a "pirate".
A developer did not call you a pirate. Some dude who writes a webcomic did.
This is what the THQ rep actually said. Express your displeasure with it if you must, but don't blame a publisher or a developer for things they didn't actually say.
Lawndart on
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
Well, let's hope this sparks a used games margin war.
The less money being syphoned off by retailers in the used market, the more value stays in the product to drive new sales.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
Metal Jared, I'm not crying - I'm just pointing out the situation. And urging you to take a little bit more responsibility with how you spend your dollar if you love video games.
Also, you're mistaken. We (the game industry) are fixing our own problems. It will be a combination of a move to digital distro facilitated by a number of things that discourage buying retail until a complete digital move can be done. Perhaps before this over Gamespot will decide to play ball and do something about their vast pre-owned market they've created. Or perhaps they won't.
You're
I agree that you're fixing your problems, however I just disagree with how you're fixing them. Also, what right do you have to tell me how I spend my money and judge if I spend it responsibly or not? I judge how responsibly I spend my money by how it effects myself and my family. That seems pretty responsible to me. Since someone else quoted this I'll post what I wrote again:
There really is no 'We.' A lot of businesses will try different solutions and eventually they will be a standard that works out.
And I see your point. I just mean... You exercise a certain power in the economy with how you spend your money. I'm sure you know this, but you have other priorities and that's fair.
For me I work in games, so I apologize if I come biased. It's my bread and butter, and also something I feel passionate about. When I buy the games I like (and it's easier for me these days, because time is my commodity more then anything else), I feel the need to buy new to encourage the people in the same trade as me so I buy new. I also don't like Gamestop, so I don't want to encourage them either.
Matrias on
3DS/Pokemon Friend Code - 2122-5878-9273 - Kyle
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Oh, hey, I'm wondering why the "this is capitalism" excuse doesn't apply to the developers and publishers who want to incentivize buying new copies of their games.
Im not a big fan of the "this is capitalism" argument, but you are right, in this instance it does cut both ways.
I'm in the camp that buys new + used, but ultimately I don't think the used market makes as much of an impact as THQ is claiming and I take exception to a developer calling me a "pirate".
A developer did not call you a pirate. Some dude who writes a webcomic did.
This is what the THQ rep actually said. Express your displeasure with it if you must, but don't blame a publisher or a developer for things they didn't actually say.
Whoops, I guess that got lost in the dozens of pages. It's just semantics though. The dev is suggesting that I am cheating them by buying used. I am suggesting that he can eat a dick.
"when the game's bought used we get cheated"
Deebaser on
0
Options
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
Metal Jared, I'm not crying - I'm just pointing out the situation. And urging you to take a little bit more responsibility with how you spend your dollar if you love video games.
Also, you're mistaken. We (the game industry) are fixing our own problems. It will be a combination of a move to digital distro facilitated by a number of things that discourage buying retail until a complete digital move can be done. Perhaps before this over Gamespot will decide to play ball and do something about their vast pre-owned market they've created. Or perhaps they won't.
You're
I agree that you're fixing your problems, however I just disagree with how you're fixing them. Also, what right do you have to tell me how I spend my money and judge if I spend it responsibly or not? I judge how responsibly I spend my money by how it effects myself and my family. That seems pretty responsible to me. Since someone else quoted this I'll post what I wrote again:
There really is no 'We.' A lot of businesses will try different solutions and eventually they will be a standard that works out.
And I see your point. I just mean... You exercise a certain power in the economy with how you spend your money. I'm sure you know this, but you have other priorities and that's fair.
For me I work in games, so I apologize if I come biased. It's my bread and butter, and also something I feel passionate about. When I buy the games I like (and it's easier for me these days, because time is my commodity more then anything else), I feel the need to buy new to encourage the people in the same trade as me so I buy new. I also don't like Gamestop, so I don't want to encourage them either.
Of course you should be biased, you don't need to apologize. Heck Tycho is biased his work is based on gaming too. You want your job to be secure and I get that. I want your job to be secure as well. This isn't me telling you that I don't care about 'you' as a person but it's about not feeling bad for 'you' as in your company/industry. I don't want your job to be secure because the industry is screwing with their consumers. Offering them less and charging more. I know you have to do what you have to do in business. I get that and I respect that. However don't blame your consumers for not spending their money 'correctly' because you decided to change the rules on them. Just offer a product they want to purchase at a price they can afford.
So, today's comic editorial seemed a bit silly goosy to me dealing with used games and equating them to piracy.
I mean, sure the company isn't making extra money from another sale, but why should they? They already got their full amount from the original sale.
For instance, have you ever sold a car, *or anything for that matter* then gotten angry that you didn't get a cut when that person eventually sold it? No? That would be silly because you sold it to them and it was their property to do with as they wished?
Can you imagine if other companies pulled the same stuff as THQ? Maybe Sony doesn't like it's DVD players being sold used! After all, they aren't making any money if you get it used! So they make it if you aren't the original owner then your DVD player can no longer pause or something silly.
Thoughts?
I know im a little late to the party here but i figured id offer my 2 cents anyways. Gotta build that post count! I dont think he was saying its the same as piracy in terms of having a moral objection. He was simply saying as far as a developer or publisher is concerned its not different from piracy because they see zero profit from the sale. What if a game sells 2 million copies, its a hit right? What if 1 million of those copies are used? Thats a million copies worth of sales that the developer will never see and those sales will never get recorded.
I dont really agree with these companies punishing the gamers for this. Locking out content that is on the disk is a terrible idea. Locking out multiplayer whether its on PSN or XBL is even worse. If anything there should be value add propositions for people who buy new. Not just some timed exclusive content but fully exclusive content. How about if you buy the game new any future DLC is half price? Or a certain amount of DLC is free just like they did with Mass Effect.
Its just not a good idea to punish people for trying to save a few bucks and while I agree that developers and publishers deserve to see the money they earned they shouldnt be taking it out on their customers. What they should really do is work out some kind of agreement with retailers to get in on the profits of the used games. If publishers said we wont let you sell our games and they stood together than a store like gamestop would pretty much have to cave to any demands they made because without new games sooner or later their business will die no matter how many used games they sell.
d0x on
0
Options
Triple BBastard of the NorthMARegistered Userregular
What, I'm trying to say, a chap named Beethoven is well known for good music made a long time ago. Should not a collective group who made something awesome be known for what they made?
Yes, and that's why they get to put their name all over it in the form of logos on the box art, end credits, and unskippable (most of the time) full-screen splashes at the beginning of every game ever. This isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand. The issue is not being known for their work, it's being paid for it. Which they are. And want to be even more, apparently.
What, I'm trying to say, a chap named Beethoven is well known for good music made a long time ago. Should not a collective group who made something awesome be known for what they made?
Yes, and that's why they get to put their name all over it in the form of logos on the box art, end credits, and unskippable full-screen splashes at the beginning of every game ever. This isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand. The issue is not being known for their work, it's being paid for it. Which they are. And want to be even more, apparently.
And?
What's one good reason why a developer shouldn't look at Gamestop's profit margins on used game sales and think "You know, it'd be nice if more of those profits went to us"?
Because for the life of me I cannot think of one single reason why Gamestop is more entitled to profit off of a game sale than the developer of that game is.
What, I'm trying to say, a chap named Beethoven is well known for good music made a long time ago. Should not a collective group who made something awesome be known for what they made?
Yes, and that's why they get to put their name all over it in the form of logos on the box art, end credits, and unskippable full-screen splashes at the beginning of every game ever. This isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand. The issue is not being known for their work, it's being paid for it. Which they are. And want to be even more, apparently.
And?
What's one good reason why a developer shouldn't look at Gamestop's profit margins on used game sales and think "You know, it'd be nice if more of those profits went to us"?
Because for the life of me I cannot think of one single reason why Gamestop is more entitled to profit off of a game sale than the developer of that game is.
Because neither is entitled to shit?
And people complain about gamers having an entitlement complex.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Basically Metal Jared has been saying everything that I want to say.
I've read posts in this thread saying things along the lines of, "Digital distribution hasn't taken off completely yet, and some people still like the brick and mortar thing." Well, that's cool and it's your right as a developer. Just don't expect me to buy your game in a brick and mortar environment if you take away one of the biggest reasons I would ever buy a game in a retail store while charging me the same amount.
I'm not a guy who will buy a game off of Steam before it goes on sale or before I've tried it elsewhere and know I will like it for the entire duration. Being able to trade in a game conveniently at a store up the street, use that money to try a used game out for a week and return it if I don't like it is a big plus for retail stores. If you take that away and keep the price structure the same as buying a digital copy new without allowing me to try more than 10 minutes of the game, I probably won't buy it. Not at the $59.99 mark, anyway.
Would I have bought The Force Unleashed brand new, after reading all the disappointed posts on here? Maybe, if I knew I'd be able to trade it in if I didn't like it and I was excited enough to try it out on day 1. It's a lot easier to convince myself to not buy the game if I'm not going to be able to give it back if I hate it.
What, I'm trying to say, a chap named Beethoven is well known for good music made a long time ago. Should not a collective group who made something awesome be known for what they made?
Yes, and that's why they get to put their name all over it in the form of logos on the box art, end credits, and unskippable full-screen splashes at the beginning of every game ever. This isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand. The issue is not being known for their work, it's being paid for it. Which they are. And want to be even more, apparently.
And?
What's one good reason why a developer shouldn't look at Gamestop's profit margins on used game sales and think "You know, it'd be nice if more of those profits went to us"?
Because for the life of me I cannot think of one single reason why Gamestop is more entitled to profit off of a game sale than the developer of that game is.
Because neither is entitled to shit?
And people complain about gamers having an entitlement complex.
Yes, expecting to get paid for the work you do or the products you sell is "having an entitlement complex."
I really hope every single person who employs you follows that same line of thinking.
What, I'm trying to say, a chap named Beethoven is well known for good music made a long time ago. Should not a collective group who made something awesome be known for what they made?
Yes, and that's why they get to put their name all over it in the form of logos on the box art, end credits, and unskippable full-screen splashes at the beginning of every game ever. This isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand. The issue is not being known for their work, it's being paid for it. Which they are. And want to be even more, apparently.
And?
What's one good reason why a developer shouldn't look at Gamestop's profit margins on used game sales and think "You know, it'd be nice if more of those profits went to us"?
Because for the life of me I cannot think of one single reason why Gamestop is more entitled to profit off of a game sale than the developer of that game is.
You might as well shut down Ebay, Craigslist, or school playgrounds, because I hear people are selling used games there as well. Gamestop is a physical marketplace with a name. It's no different than any of the examples I just listed.
RocketSauce on
0
Options
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
What, I'm trying to say, a chap named Beethoven is well known for good music made a long time ago. Should not a collective group who made something awesome be known for what they made?
Yes, and that's why they get to put their name all over it in the form of logos on the box art, end credits, and unskippable full-screen splashes at the beginning of every game ever. This isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand. The issue is not being known for their work, it's being paid for it. Which they are. And want to be even more, apparently.
And?
What's one good reason why a developer shouldn't look at Gamestop's profit margins on used game sales and think "You know, it'd be nice if more of those profits went to us"?
Because for the life of me I cannot think of one single reason why Gamestop is more entitled to profit off of a game sale than the developer of that game is.
Why? Because the developers and publishers CREATED THIS MODEL. This is how they do it, they aren't forced to, they chose to. GameStop, run by smart people apparently, found a way to make a shitload of money with this system. They are good at business, thats why they deserve the money. They took the rules of the game that they were given (publishers selling games at retail) and broke the game. Good for them (even if their practicies are shitty they are still a well run business, a business of jerks but still a good business)
If they developes and publishers want to fix this, that is fine. If they get backlash from the consumers they have to deal with that. If they want to take things away, that's a shitty way of treating customers and then this fucking shitstorm happens. They could go all digital TODAY and tell GameStop to die in a fire. They don't though, they offer GameStop cool preorder giveaways because they sell a ton of boxed games.
If you can't see why this entitles GameStops to huge profits I don't know what to tell you. They didn't make the rules.
What, I'm trying to say, a chap named Beethoven is well known for good music made a long time ago. Should not a collective group who made something awesome be known for what they made?
Yes, and that's why they get to put their name all over it in the form of logos on the box art, end credits, and unskippable full-screen splashes at the beginning of every game ever. This isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand. The issue is not being known for their work, it's being paid for it. Which they are. And want to be even more, apparently.
And?
What's one good reason why a developer shouldn't look at Gamestop's profit margins on used game sales and think "You know, it'd be nice if more of those profits went to us"?
Because for the life of me I cannot think of one single reason why Gamestop is more entitled to profit off of a game sale than the developer of that game is.
Because neither is entitled to shit?
And people complain about gamers having an entitlement complex.
Yes, expecting to get paid for the work you do or the products you sell is "having an entitlement complex."
I really hope every single person who employs you follows that same line of thinking.
You got paid for the product you sold.
You are not entitled to get paid for every transaction involving that product until the end of time.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
What, I'm trying to say, a chap named Beethoven is well known for good music made a long time ago. Should not a collective group who made something awesome be known for what they made?
Yes, and that's why they get to put their name all over it in the form of logos on the box art, end credits, and unskippable full-screen splashes at the beginning of every game ever. This isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand. The issue is not being known for their work, it's being paid for it. Which they are. And want to be even more, apparently.
And?
What's one good reason why a developer shouldn't look at Gamestop's profit margins on used game sales and think "You know, it'd be nice if more of those profits went to us"?
Because for the life of me I cannot think of one single reason why Gamestop is more entitled to profit off of a game sale than the developer of that game is.
You might as well shut down Ebay, Craigslist, or school playgrounds, because I hear people are selling used games there as well. Gamestop is a physical marketplace with a name. It's no different than any of the examples I just listed.
Yes, I'm sure just as many used games are sold on school playgrounds as are sold by Gamestop.
What, I'm trying to say, a chap named Beethoven is well known for good music made a long time ago. Should not a collective group who made something awesome be known for what they made?
Yes, and that's why they get to put their name all over it in the form of logos on the box art, end credits, and unskippable full-screen splashes at the beginning of every game ever. This isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand. The issue is not being known for their work, it's being paid for it. Which they are. And want to be even more, apparently.
And?
What's one good reason why a developer shouldn't look at Gamestop's profit margins on used game sales and think "You know, it'd be nice if more of those profits went to us"?
Because for the life of me I cannot think of one single reason why Gamestop is more entitled to profit off of a game sale than the developer of that game is.
You might as well shut down Ebay, Craigslist, or school playgrounds, because I hear people are selling used games there as well. Gamestop is a physical marketplace with a name. It's no different than any of the examples I just listed.
Yes, I'm sure just as many used games are sold on school playgrounds as are sold by Gamestop.
How exactly does scale determine whether an action is right or wrong
What, I'm trying to say, a chap named Beethoven is well known for good music made a long time ago. Should not a collective group who made something awesome be known for what they made?
Yes, and that's why they get to put their name all over it in the form of logos on the box art, end credits, and unskippable full-screen splashes at the beginning of every game ever. This isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand. The issue is not being known for their work, it's being paid for it. Which they are. And want to be even more, apparently.
And?
What's one good reason why a developer shouldn't look at Gamestop's profit margins on used game sales and think "You know, it'd be nice if more of those profits went to us"?
Because for the life of me I cannot think of one single reason why Gamestop is more entitled to profit off of a game sale than the developer of that game is.
You might as well shut down Ebay, Craigslist, or school playgrounds, because I hear people are selling used games there as well. Gamestop is a physical marketplace with a name. It's no different than any of the examples I just listed.
Yes, I'm sure just as many used games are sold on school playgrounds as are sold by Gamestop.
How exactly does scale determine whether an action is right or wrong
Killing one dude on a school playground is clearly inconsequential. Nobody will notice anyway. But if you shoot up a mall or something you're fucked. Duh.
Why? Because the developers and publishers CREATED THIS MODEL.
No, they didn't. The developers and publishers didn't create the First Sale doctrine, for example. And the idea that game publishers can simply forgo physical distribution of console games is a delusion.
It is fun to hear how one corporation that turns a profit by fucking over their customers is "smart" and "good at business" and "deserves the money" while others are somehow at fault for doing so.
You might as well shut down Ebay, Craigslist, or school playgrounds, because I hear people are selling used games there as well. Gamestop is a physical marketplace with a name. It's no different than any of the examples I just listed.
Yes, I'm sure just as many used games are sold on school playgrounds as are sold by Gamestop.
How exactly does scale determine whether an action is right or wrong
When it comes to economic impact, scale is really important.
Why? Because the developers and publishers CREATED THIS MODEL.
No, they didn't. The developers and publishers didn't create the First Sale doctrine, for example. And the idea that game publishers can simply forgo physical distribution of console games is a delusion.
It is fun to hear how one corporation that turns a profit by fucking over their customers is "smart" and "good at business" and "deserves the money" while others are somehow at fault for doing so.
Oh, you mean the First Sale doctrine that says that basically, if you didn't specifically agree to a EULA stating that the software was only a license, software is to be treated as a sale?
So basically a company has decided to force you into a license on a medium that has typically been treated as a sale for, oh, the last 20 years or so, and people are complaining about that. And they don't have the right to?
Nobody is forced to go to GameStop and sell their games and buy used ones, just like I'm not forced to buy their wrestling game for $59.99 knowing I'll never be able to sell it. It just so happens that GameStop, in this case, has better business sense. People go in there and sell their games knowing full well they could get a few bucks more on Amazon, and why? Because it's convenient. Because they offered an amount and the customer accepted. I'm not going to fault GameStop for coming up with a business model that works for them.
joshofalltrades on
0
Options
Metal JaredMulligan WizardRhode IslandRegistered Userregular
Why? Because the developers and publishers CREATED THIS MODEL.
No, they didn't. The developers and publishers didn't create the First Sale doctrine, for example. And the idea that game publishers can simply forgo physical distribution of console games is a delusion.
It is fun to hear how one corporation that turns a profit by fucking over their customers is "smart" and "good at business" and "deserves the money" while others are somehow at fault for doing so.
Really? Then how have PC developers gotten around this (for a long time actually). I honestly don't think any amount of reasonable information will change your mind. Because frankley I don't think you actually read what I write. I never said the developers were at fault. I said they would suffer backlash for changing a model and screwing their customers. GameStop gets backlash but they don't give a shit apparently.
Everyone is welcome to fuck their customers as much as they want. Developers, right now, want to fuck their customers and then cry poverty to their customers, and blame their customers because they aren't good at business. Awesome.
And the idea that game publishers can simply forgo physical distribution of console games is a delusion.
I guess everyone who makes XBL games and PSN games doesn't understand this huh? I mean they sell a 250 gig HDD for the xbox now. How much room is on a DVD? They could do full digital distribution if they wanted to. Fuck I bet Microsoft would love that, they would get more money for Xbox Live Points. However they don't so because not everyone is online, they like physical things etc etc etc.
Nobody is forced to go to GameStop and sell their games and buy used ones, just like I'm not forced to buy their wrestling game for $59.99 knowing I'll never be able to sell it. It just so happens that GameStop, in this case, has better business sense. People go in there and sell their games knowing full well they could get a few bucks more on Amazon, and why? Because it's convenient. Because they offered an amount and the customer accepted. I'm not going to fault GameStop for coming up with a business model that works for them.
The bolded part is not what's happening, or what is going to happen. Would you like to actually discuss efforts on the part of console game publishers to incentivize new game purchases, or would you like to debate about how awful it would be if the Giant Candy Unicorn abolished the First Sale doctrine?
I do enjoy how Gamestop is immune from criticism for basing their business model on exploiting their customers and cutting developers and publishers out of the profit loop, but those bastard entitled developers and publishers are evil bastards for even considering doing anything that might inconvenience their loyal customers.
You might as well shut down Ebay, Craigslist, or school playgrounds, because I hear people are selling used games there as well. Gamestop is a physical marketplace with a name. It's no different than any of the examples I just listed.
Yes, I'm sure just as many used games are sold on school playgrounds as are sold by Gamestop.
How exactly does scale determine whether an action is right or wrong
When it comes to economic impact, scale is really important.
Well, who cares as long as GameStop isn't breaking a law?
Do we have any examples of the used game market putting a game company out of business?
i mean, not to be flip, but why buy a $40 new copy when a $30 used copy was available? especially if you planned to resell it anyways and don't have any reservations about peddling in the used game market?
Disk quality that demands higher trade-in value. Brand Loyalty. Reduction in risk of bad disk. Wont to support the developers. Etc.
Also note that we are not just talking about current sales. Since the expectation of a resale market figures into prices.
This makes no sense, because if the used market didn't exist you'd have no choice but to buy (if you wanted a copy) at $40. If you're willing to pay $40 for a copy of the game, the existence of a secondary market where you could get a similar product for less money does not help the sellers. The $30 used market didn't make you willing to pay $40 for a new copy, your valuation of the game vs the price made you willing to buy the game.
On the secondary market he is selling. So if he is only willing to purchase a new game for 30 dollars and a used game for 10 dollars the ability to resell a game for 20 dollars of profit puts the value of the new title at 50 dollars, enough to purchase it new, and the value of the used game at 30(assuming you get the same value for trading in each disk, which may not be the case due to increased wear and tear). Net welfare from purchasing the new game vs the used game is $10 dollars.
I do not understand where this idea is coming from. The existence of generic drugs doesn't help Big Pharma. The existence of brand name cereal does not help General Mills. The used book market doesn't help publishers. The used car market doesn't help manufacturers. Every customer that these markets satisfy is either a customer that would not buy a new/brand product anyway or a customer that would have but instead bought a generic/used product and thus reduced the number of products the manufacturer/brand name sold.
This is not true.
1) Games are not commodities like cereals(and so brands are indications of quality rather real specific differences in the product. There are also psychological effects here). Rather, games change and improve like cars and books.
2) The used market for cars DOES help car manufacturers. The drive to create better new products would be around with or without the used market. What the used market does is increase the value of new cars. There is a reason that companies tout their resale values and its not because they don't think people consider it when buying them even if cars lose tonnes of their value once they're driven off the lot. Used cars allow people who would otherwise not be buying a car at all to increase the value of new cars to current purchasers AND it helps to instill brand loyalty in those people who buy used cars such that if they do end up buying new, they end up buying a new car of your own.
That second part is so important companies gain value by certifying the quality of used cars.
You're right, everytime I listen to music, play a game, watch a tv show, watch a sport, go see a movie, see a well designed shirt, eat a well made meal, buy a new piece of electronics, (Or basically see, use or eat ANYTHING EVER) I should stop and appreciate all the people that made those things. Oh wait no I don't
That is cool, other people do, generate value from that appreciation and value from support of said appreciation.
Brand Loyalty is not a figment of the imaginations of every single company in the world. "Buy Local" is not a slogan that has no appeal to anyone and never works. "Tipping" is not something that is rarely seen in polite society.
This effect really does have an effect on whether or not people buy new or used. I mean shit, just go to the Steam thread, there are people who literally give away games to strangers because they like them so much.
Nobody is forced to go to GameStop and sell their games and buy used ones, just like I'm not forced to buy their wrestling game for $59.99 knowing I'll never be able to sell it. It just so happens that GameStop, in this case, has better business sense. People go in there and sell their games knowing full well they could get a few bucks more on Amazon, and why? Because it's convenient. Because they offered an amount and the customer accepted. I'm not going to fault GameStop for coming up with a business model that works for them.
The bolded part is not what's happening, or what is going to happen. Would you like to actually discuss efforts on the part of console game publishers to incentivize new game purchases, or would you like to debate about how awful it would be if the Giant Candy Unicorn abolished the First Sale doctrine?
I do enjoy how Gamestop is immune from criticism for basing their business model on exploiting their customers and cutting developers and publishers out of the profit loop, but those bastard entitled developers and publishers are evil bastards for even considering doing anything that might inconvenience their loyal customers.
Double standard much?
It's not a double standard. Tell me where I called the developers and publishers evil bastards. I think their business decisions suck. I think GameStop has made some smart business decisions.
If devs and publishers want to make more money and shrink the used market, I don't think cutting content at the gamer's level is the best way to go about it.
Posts
Also, you're mistaken. We (the game industry) are fixing our own problems. It will be a combination of a move to digital distro facilitated by a number of things that discourage buying retail until a complete digital move can be done. Perhaps before this over Gamespot will decide to play ball and do something about their vast pre-owned market they've created. Or perhaps they won't.
You're
More impressive than a car, or air conditioning/refridgeration (One of the most important inventions in the history of mankind, litterally) or one of a thousand other thigns?
Look I get you love your job. I love that you do your job too. I love video games. But lets slow down a bit shall we:
"video game development is really up there in terms of incredible and difficult accomplishments for human civilization."
Now you're just being silly.
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
There's nothing to understand. They're gouging.
It's a terrible pre-owned market, but people buy into it so it's working.
This might not be entirely popular with the majority, but goddamn if this isn't the most reasonable, realistic opinion in this entire thread.
Seriously, other dudes that aren't Metal Jared, I'm happy for you that you can afford to worry about someone else's family as well as your own, but I myself cannot.
To speak of my own personal situation with regards to capitalism/survival of the fittest/what have you...I don't want other people to fail and slip into bankruptcy, but ultimately I can't prevent it from happening while I'm trying to feed three people and two animals. Especially when one of the people is legally blind and the other is permanently disabled. Being the only person with a job and a car in a household with a family does not put me in the most sympathetic position. I don't know what game devs make salary-wise, but I've got to think that a lot of them get paid more money than I will ever see to do something as awesome as making video games. I can't exactly shed a tear for that.
Also, on digital delivery: I think it's all well and good right where it is at this exact point in time. With some games, you have the option of a digital delivery or buying it at retail. It should never become the only way you can get your hands on a game. Ever. If we're being sympathetic, aren't there lots of graphic designers out there who would be out of work if there was no longer a need to design box art? So basically it's okay if an entire department loses their jobs as long as the rest of us still get paid for the sale of something that is no longer ours to sell. Interesting logic.
Too right. To the credit of the Game Stop employee at my local store, he actually brought this up, even though I already knew it going in (thanks thread!), and checked the computer to confirm that the store by my office had it in stock since they were out.
What, I'm trying to say, a chap named Beethoven is well known for good music made a long time ago. Should not a collective group who made something awesome be known for what they made?
I don't know why "blame" is the proper word for pointing out what I assumed was the obvious point that the customers who buy used console games from Gamestop are not customers of the developers or publishers of those games, but of Gamestop. So when developers or publishers decide to change their business model those customers are of far less importance than the ones that buy new games.
Yes, what's the problem if your favorite band breaks up? I mean, some shitty bar band will do cover versions of their songs eventually, if the invisible hand of the free market commands it.
Oh, hey, I'm wondering why the "this is capitalism" excuse doesn't apply to the developers and publishers who want to incentivize buying new copies of their games.
I agree that you're fixing your problems, however I just disagree with how you're fixing them. Also, what right do you have to tell me how I spend my money and judge if I spend it responsibly or not? I judge how responsibly I spend my money by how it effects myself and my family. That seems pretty responsible to me. Since someone else quoted this I'll post what I wrote again:
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
Limed. Exactly.
Until we have full digital distro, companies are going to do what they have to discourage reselling and retail in general. Sometimes they do it right, sometimes they ham hand it. The game industry is figuring out, but it's not going to be an easy transition and it will take time.
What excuse? I've said many times if publishers want to work on the digital distribution, licensing model and stop reselling they should do that. That would allow them to lower prices and that would be give and take for both the business and the consumer. However what they are donig now is keeping prices the same and changing the product (not allowing online play) which affects the item as an asset and lowers its overall value. They want their cake and eat it too.
Edit: Silly Goose on a crutch Matrias are you serious? I keep telling you to fix your business model then you say that I don't want you to fix your business model. How is suggesting a change in business model not mean "This is capitalism"
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
Im not a big fan of the "this is capitalism" argument, but you are right, in this instance it does cut both ways.
I'm in the camp that buys new + used, but ultimately I don't think the used market makes as much of an impact as THQ is claiming and I take exception to a developer calling me a "pirate".
I think they're too ubiquitous at this point. Game Crazy took a good stab at this. They offered more on trade-in games (still not a lot, but more than GS), and generally sold used games for less. They're dead now, but I'm not sure if that was because of Game Crazy's business model, or because it was inextricably linked to brick & mortar movie rentals which is a dying business anyway.
Best Buy and Target getting into used video game business as publishers go to war against used games
doubly topical!
That's why Best Buy, WalMart and a few other big box retailers are dipping a toe into the used game market.
When Gamestop talks about used games being a quarter of their sales yet close to half of their profits, you can't expect nobody to take notice, either on the publisher or the retailer side.
A developer did not call you a pirate. Some dude who writes a webcomic did.
This is what the THQ rep actually said. Express your displeasure with it if you must, but don't blame a publisher or a developer for things they didn't actually say.
The less money being syphoned off by retailers in the used market, the more value stays in the product to drive new sales.
There really is no 'We.' A lot of businesses will try different solutions and eventually they will be a standard that works out.
And I see your point. I just mean... You exercise a certain power in the economy with how you spend your money. I'm sure you know this, but you have other priorities and that's fair.
For me I work in games, so I apologize if I come biased. It's my bread and butter, and also something I feel passionate about. When I buy the games I like (and it's easier for me these days, because time is my commodity more then anything else), I feel the need to buy new to encourage the people in the same trade as me so I buy new. I also don't like Gamestop, so I don't want to encourage them either.
Whoops, I guess that got lost in the dozens of pages. It's just semantics though. The dev is suggesting that I am cheating them by buying used. I am suggesting that he can eat a dick.
"when the game's bought used we get cheated"
Of course you should be biased, you don't need to apologize. Heck Tycho is biased his work is based on gaming too. You want your job to be secure and I get that. I want your job to be secure as well. This isn't me telling you that I don't care about 'you' as a person but it's about not feeling bad for 'you' as in your company/industry. I don't want your job to be secure because the industry is screwing with their consumers. Offering them less and charging more. I know you have to do what you have to do in business. I get that and I respect that. However don't blame your consumers for not spending their money 'correctly' because you decided to change the rules on them. Just offer a product they want to purchase at a price they can afford.
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
I know im a little late to the party here but i figured id offer my 2 cents anyways. Gotta build that post count! I dont think he was saying its the same as piracy in terms of having a moral objection. He was simply saying as far as a developer or publisher is concerned its not different from piracy because they see zero profit from the sale. What if a game sells 2 million copies, its a hit right? What if 1 million of those copies are used? Thats a million copies worth of sales that the developer will never see and those sales will never get recorded.
I dont really agree with these companies punishing the gamers for this. Locking out content that is on the disk is a terrible idea. Locking out multiplayer whether its on PSN or XBL is even worse. If anything there should be value add propositions for people who buy new. Not just some timed exclusive content but fully exclusive content. How about if you buy the game new any future DLC is half price? Or a certain amount of DLC is free just like they did with Mass Effect.
Its just not a good idea to punish people for trying to save a few bucks and while I agree that developers and publishers deserve to see the money they earned they shouldnt be taking it out on their customers. What they should really do is work out some kind of agreement with retailers to get in on the profits of the used games. If publishers said we wont let you sell our games and they stood together than a store like gamestop would pretty much have to cave to any demands they made because without new games sooner or later their business will die no matter how many used games they sell.
Yes, and that's why they get to put their name all over it in the form of logos on the box art, end credits, and unskippable (most of the time) full-screen splashes at the beginning of every game ever. This isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand. The issue is not being known for their work, it's being paid for it. Which they are. And want to be even more, apparently.
And?
What's one good reason why a developer shouldn't look at Gamestop's profit margins on used game sales and think "You know, it'd be nice if more of those profits went to us"?
Because for the life of me I cannot think of one single reason why Gamestop is more entitled to profit off of a game sale than the developer of that game is.
Because neither is entitled to shit?
And people complain about gamers having an entitlement complex.
I've read posts in this thread saying things along the lines of, "Digital distribution hasn't taken off completely yet, and some people still like the brick and mortar thing." Well, that's cool and it's your right as a developer. Just don't expect me to buy your game in a brick and mortar environment if you take away one of the biggest reasons I would ever buy a game in a retail store while charging me the same amount.
I'm not a guy who will buy a game off of Steam before it goes on sale or before I've tried it elsewhere and know I will like it for the entire duration. Being able to trade in a game conveniently at a store up the street, use that money to try a used game out for a week and return it if I don't like it is a big plus for retail stores. If you take that away and keep the price structure the same as buying a digital copy new without allowing me to try more than 10 minutes of the game, I probably won't buy it. Not at the $59.99 mark, anyway.
Would I have bought The Force Unleashed brand new, after reading all the disappointed posts on here? Maybe, if I knew I'd be able to trade it in if I didn't like it and I was excited enough to try it out on day 1. It's a lot easier to convince myself to not buy the game if I'm not going to be able to give it back if I hate it.
Yes, expecting to get paid for the work you do or the products you sell is "having an entitlement complex."
I really hope every single person who employs you follows that same line of thinking.
You might as well shut down Ebay, Craigslist, or school playgrounds, because I hear people are selling used games there as well. Gamestop is a physical marketplace with a name. It's no different than any of the examples I just listed.
Why? Because the developers and publishers CREATED THIS MODEL. This is how they do it, they aren't forced to, they chose to. GameStop, run by smart people apparently, found a way to make a shitload of money with this system. They are good at business, thats why they deserve the money. They took the rules of the game that they were given (publishers selling games at retail) and broke the game. Good for them (even if their practicies are shitty they are still a well run business, a business of jerks but still a good business)
If they developes and publishers want to fix this, that is fine. If they get backlash from the consumers they have to deal with that. If they want to take things away, that's a shitty way of treating customers and then this fucking shitstorm happens. They could go all digital TODAY and tell GameStop to die in a fire. They don't though, they offer GameStop cool preorder giveaways because they sell a ton of boxed games.
If you can't see why this entitles GameStops to huge profits I don't know what to tell you. They didn't make the rules.
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
You got paid for the product you sold.
You are not entitled to get paid for every transaction involving that product until the end of time.
Yes, I'm sure just as many used games are sold on school playgrounds as are sold by Gamestop.
How exactly does scale determine whether an action is right or wrong
Also
Killing one dude on a school playground is clearly inconsequential. Nobody will notice anyway. But if you shoot up a mall or something you're fucked. Duh.
No, they didn't. The developers and publishers didn't create the First Sale doctrine, for example. And the idea that game publishers can simply forgo physical distribution of console games is a delusion.
It is fun to hear how one corporation that turns a profit by fucking over their customers is "smart" and "good at business" and "deserves the money" while others are somehow at fault for doing so.
When it comes to economic impact, scale is really important.
Oh, you mean the First Sale doctrine that says that basically, if you didn't specifically agree to a EULA stating that the software was only a license, software is to be treated as a sale?
So basically a company has decided to force you into a license on a medium that has typically been treated as a sale for, oh, the last 20 years or so, and people are complaining about that. And they don't have the right to?
Nobody is forced to go to GameStop and sell their games and buy used ones, just like I'm not forced to buy their wrestling game for $59.99 knowing I'll never be able to sell it. It just so happens that GameStop, in this case, has better business sense. People go in there and sell their games knowing full well they could get a few bucks more on Amazon, and why? Because it's convenient. Because they offered an amount and the customer accepted. I'm not going to fault GameStop for coming up with a business model that works for them.
Really? Then how have PC developers gotten around this (for a long time actually). I honestly don't think any amount of reasonable information will change your mind. Because frankley I don't think you actually read what I write. I never said the developers were at fault. I said they would suffer backlash for changing a model and screwing their customers. GameStop gets backlash but they don't give a shit apparently.
Everyone is welcome to fuck their customers as much as they want. Developers, right now, want to fuck their customers and then cry poverty to their customers, and blame their customers because they aren't good at business. Awesome.
I guess everyone who makes XBL games and PSN games doesn't understand this huh? I mean they sell a 250 gig HDD for the xbox now. How much room is on a DVD? They could do full digital distribution if they wanted to. Fuck I bet Microsoft would love that, they would get more money for Xbox Live Points. However they don't so because not everyone is online, they like physical things etc etc etc.
PSN: SoulCrusherJared
The bolded part is not what's happening, or what is going to happen. Would you like to actually discuss efforts on the part of console game publishers to incentivize new game purchases, or would you like to debate about how awful it would be if the Giant Candy Unicorn abolished the First Sale doctrine?
I do enjoy how Gamestop is immune from criticism for basing their business model on exploiting their customers and cutting developers and publishers out of the profit loop, but those bastard entitled developers and publishers are evil bastards for even considering doing anything that might inconvenience their loyal customers.
Double standard much?
Well, who cares as long as GameStop isn't breaking a law?
Do we have any examples of the used game market putting a game company out of business?
Also note that we are not just talking about current sales. Since the expectation of a resale market figures into prices.
On the secondary market he is selling. So if he is only willing to purchase a new game for 30 dollars and a used game for 10 dollars the ability to resell a game for 20 dollars of profit puts the value of the new title at 50 dollars, enough to purchase it new, and the value of the used game at 30(assuming you get the same value for trading in each disk, which may not be the case due to increased wear and tear). Net welfare from purchasing the new game vs the used game is $10 dollars.
This is not true.
1) Games are not commodities like cereals(and so brands are indications of quality rather real specific differences in the product. There are also psychological effects here). Rather, games change and improve like cars and books.
2) The used market for cars DOES help car manufacturers. The drive to create better new products would be around with or without the used market. What the used market does is increase the value of new cars. There is a reason that companies tout their resale values and its not because they don't think people consider it when buying them even if cars lose tonnes of their value once they're driven off the lot. Used cars allow people who would otherwise not be buying a car at all to increase the value of new cars to current purchasers AND it helps to instill brand loyalty in those people who buy used cars such that if they do end up buying new, they end up buying a new car of your own.
That second part is so important companies gain value by certifying the quality of used cars. That is cool, other people do, generate value from that appreciation and value from support of said appreciation.
Brand Loyalty is not a figment of the imaginations of every single company in the world. "Buy Local" is not a slogan that has no appeal to anyone and never works. "Tipping" is not something that is rarely seen in polite society.
This effect really does have an effect on whether or not people buy new or used. I mean shit, just go to the Steam thread, there are people who literally give away games to strangers because they like them so much.
It's not a double standard. Tell me where I called the developers and publishers evil bastards. I think their business decisions suck. I think GameStop has made some smart business decisions.
If devs and publishers want to make more money and shrink the used market, I don't think cutting content at the gamer's level is the best way to go about it.
Stop putting words in my mouth.