I think you're wrong. A used copy of Dragon Age 1 for the 360 is objectively worth less than a new copy because it comes with less content. For games without pack-in codes, used (or opened) merchandise is typically sold at a discount. You would balk at Best Buy selling opened merchandise for the same price as brand new stuff, but I have bought some pieces opened entirely because of the discount offered.
Uh, you do realize some of the main arguments in that comic don't apply at all to video games? 'You can take it anywhere and it will always work'? Yeah, sorry, but console games rarely support backward compatibility nowadays, and never did in the past. Buy a NES game, and it won't work on a SNES. Buy a SNES game, and it won't work on a Gamecube. As some posters have pointed out, they've had to buy old consoles multiple times because the machines kept dying, and such was the only way to make use of their games library.
And how would piracy be the only way to play older games in 20 years? We already have 20 year old video games that are legally available through legitimate means, digital distribution being one of the easiest ways. Hell, look at all the different ways one can play the original Final Fantasy(gameboy, psp, playstation 3, and smart phones).
i don't think anyone's talking about backwards compatibility. as long as you have a physical copy of the game it will work with any functional system it's designed for, with no limitations placed on the consumer. replacing older consoles is a cheaper option then re-buying my 20+ SNES games on virtual console. plus you get the bonus of using the original controller the game was designed to support, and the knowledge (in the case of cartridges) that your save is safe as well.
the idea that i should simply 'buy it again' is stupid because i already bought those games when i was ten, why the fuck should i have to pay to play them again? there are probably people would rather resort to piracy than buy the game they already own.
I think you're wrong. A used copy of Dragon Age 1 for the 360 is objectively worth less than a new copy because it comes with less content. For games without pack-in codes, used (or opened) merchandise is typically sold at a discount. You would balk at Best Buy selling opened merchandise for the same price as brand new stuff, but I have bought some pieces opened entirely because of the discount offered.
If you're not online, a used copy of DA1 comes with the same amount of content as a new copy of DA1
I think you're wrong. A used copy of Dragon Age 1 for the 360 is objectively worth less than a new copy because it comes with less content. For games without pack-in codes, used (or opened) merchandise is typically sold at a discount. You would balk at Best Buy selling opened merchandise for the same price as brand new stuff, but I have bought some pieces opened entirely because of the discount offered.
If you're not online, a used copy of DA1 comes with the same amount of content as a new copy of DA1
You're not wrong, but that's not terribly relevant to me (or most 360 gamers). If you can't be bothered to redeem your new purchase incentives then that's on nobody but you. And it's a great idea - I think incentivizing new purchases (which some people see as screwing used buyers instead) is a great way for publishers to curtail the used market. I do like, however, that the content is still available behind a pay gate for people who buy used because eventually Batman: Arkham City won't be available new and whoever got that used copy might want to play as Catwoman, and Rocksteady (or WB, no idea how the money gets cut up) gets some revenue off of that used sale.
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Do you feel like a "skanky ho" because you bought a used textbook? A used car?
In a word: yes. I would never buy a used car or book.
I only buy used on games I'm really unsure about, and I typically end up disliking them anyways, so that works out to "fuck the developer anyways"
What about a used house?
Especially a used house.
I actually just got into my first new house a month and a half ago. I was renting an apartment before, and though there was a small deal of satisfaction on having my own place, I never felt proud of living in an apartment, and found myself consistently thinking about people who had been there before me (especially when I got their mail).
I have to say that I find it extremely bizarre to consider used goods as second-rate items. Probably more than half of the books I've ever purchased are used because it just makes good fiscal sense to buy a stack of books for the same price as one new book, especially when it means I've got a better chance of finding something good. The first car I had was a great car and it was bought used. I've lived in several apartments and was never anything but happy with them because you know what? Regardless of who lived there before, it's still my space.
I'm gonna have to go on record and say that I don't know what bizarro world people live in where buying used items is somehow skeezy or unethical. I seriously doubt this is what you're trying to do, but denigrating second-hand/common-use items as sub-standard just seems massively elitist. Especially with the used car/apartment situation, since there are so many people who would absolutely kill to have the means to afford the kind of goods you're writing off. And I do mean they would literally kill somebody for that opportunity.
And in relation to used games, nobody should ever feel guilty about buying a used game. Well, unless they bought it from a place like Gamestop, but that's only because they way overpaid for a used copy they could've gotten for a much better price.
Uh, you do realize some of the main arguments in that comic don't apply at all to video games?
The cartoon says that new technology tends to screw up DRM. This is historically accurate. Try to work around the DRM and in many cases you'll be breaking the law. I'm a PC gamer, by the way. We like to hold onto our ancient games.
And how would piracy be the only way to play older games in 20 years? We already have 20 year old video games that are legally available through legitimate means, digital distribution being one of the easiest ways. Hell, look at all the different ways one can play the original Final Fantasy(gameboy, psp, playstation 3, and smart phones).
Sure, we've got games the rights holders deemed profitable and popular enough to update and port. But for every Final Fantasy, there is a 3D-WorldRunner that has no re-release. There are lots of PC games which can technically be run by dedicated tinkerers, but the rights owners don't feel that it would be profitable to update the game or ethical to sell a game which doesn't normally function. This situation has happened before, and it will happen again. I don't want piracy to be the only option when that time comes.
Yeah, I think the prevalence of DD in general and specifically the existence of a site like GoG precludes the likelihood that piracy will be the only way to get to play current games 20 years down the road.
GOG.com is great, but there are vast gaps in their catalog. They can't update everything, both from a resource allocation standpoint and from a legal standpoint. Remember when we didn't know if they'd get Planescape Torment? Or how no DD has System Shock 2? And those are the AAA titles. I was a big fan of Home of the Underdogs back when it was active. Many less acclaimed releases slip through the cracks. Publishers and DD sites cannot be depended on to keep every old title available.
One could argue that I don't need to be able to buy and play any old random game. Nevertheless, that's what used games allow. Anti-resale DRM will be restrictive to retro-gamers who prefer to stay on the legal side of the line.
Buying used does not hurt the developer one bit, as they have already made money on the initial purchase of the game.
-.-
Consumer [A] purchases Dragon Age brand new at GameStop. This copy has already been purchased by the store, so the publisher has made it's sale before Customer [A] ever walked through the door.
Customer [A] plays it for a week, and then decide for whatever reason to return it for store credit. GameStop puts it on the shelf for reselling.
Now, here is the kicker: In GameStop's ideal world, they would never have to buy more than the initial run from the publisher, while selling many times that many copies of the game - they overwhelmingly prefer to just get back used product from Customer [A] and those like him, because it's essentially free money. And so GameStop has structured their business accordingly: used games are given preferential displays & the stores order a very limited quantity of product from the publisher, banking on their resale model working for them. And, so far, it has.
They're fucking parasites. They didn't create any of the content, but they want to cut the publisher out of money-making part of the retail relationship. It's strikingly similar to piracy (the guy at TPB uploading the torrent had to purchase an initial copy as well, unless it was leaked to him), except that GameStop is actually making money doing it. I mean, if you want to save money so badly, why don't you just download a torrent? It'll even save you time & gas on top of being still cheaper than buying used copies.
Buying used does not hurt the developer one bit, as they have already made money on the initial purchase of the game.
-.-
Consumer [A] purchases Dragon Age brand new at GameStop. This copy has already been purchased by the store, so the publisher has made it's sale before Customer [A] ever walked through the door.
Customer [A] plays it for a week, and then decide for whatever reason to return it for store credit. GameStop puts it on the shelf for reselling.
Now, here is the kicker: In GameStop's ideal world, they would never have to buy more than the initial run from the publisher, while selling many times that many copies of the game - they overwhelmingly prefer to just get back used product from Customer [A] and those like him, because it's essentially free money. And so GameStop has structured their business accordingly: used games are given preferential displays & the stores order a very limited quantity of product from the publisher, banking on their resale model working for them. And, so far, it has.
They're fucking parasites. They didn't create any of the content, but they want to cut the publisher out of money-making part of the retail relationship. It's strikingly similar to piracy (the guy at TPB uploading the torrent had to purchase an initial copy as well, unless it was leaked to him), except that GameStop is actually making money doing it. I mean, if you want to save money so badly, why don't you just download a torrent? It'll even save you time & gas on top of being still cheaper than buying used copies.
just because you didn't create the product does not mean you can't sell it. if gamestop is a parasite so is amazon, and goodwill, and every other seller of used items. they aren't doing it to 'cut the developer out', they are providing a service people CLEARLY want, because multiple outlets sell used games. people want cheaper, more affordable games.
and fuck off with the torrenting shit already! i work hard for my money. i buy my games like everyone else, i hate people with the idea that stealing is similar to buying used. the used copy had to be fucking paid for in the first place to end up in my possession. equating one douche uploading a SINGLE COPY to THOUSANDS of criminals, does not equal ONE copy changing hands. how about rental services? do those people try to cut out the developer?
games are fucking expensive hobby, but one i enjoy. i pay for new games when they prove worth the extreme price of entry. for the rest, i'll buy used much more frequently. it should be my right as a consumer, but i guess not everyone agrees on that part.
just because you didn't create the product does not mean you can't sell it. if gamestop is a parasite so is amazon, and goodwill, and every other seller of used items. they aren't doing it to 'cut the developer out', they are providing a service people CLEARLY want, because multiple outlets sell used games. people want cheaper, more affordable games.
Except that Amazon purchases every copy that they sell from the publisher. They don't buy one copy with a model to generate multiple sales from that single copy.
and fuck off with the torrenting shit already! i work hard for my money. i buy my games like everyone else, i hate people with the idea that stealing is similar to buying used. the used copy had to be fucking paid for in the first place to end up in my possession. equating one douche uploading a SINGLE COPY to THOUSANDS of criminals, does not equal ONE copy changing hands. how about rental services? do those people try to cut out the developer?
Everyone works hard for their money. You're not special.
Piracy is not the same as theft; someone still had to buy the original, then upload the ISO (after circumventing the DRM). In principle, it's quite similar to the resale model (just on a different scale) that GameStop uses. The only reason that one is illegal and the other isn't is that GameStop doesn't actually violate the antiquated copyright laws (they've just found a business model that effectively circumvents them).
And it's not just one copy changing hands once. Did you know that GameStop's model predicts approximately quadruple value from one unit of product? In otherwords, the fully expect that each individual game will be shared by four purchasers, who'd otherwise have bought the game at full price. The hugely impacts sales for the publisher, because the stores model their inventory purchasing accordingly (in other words, they buy about 4 times less inventory than they would if they didn't operate a used game market).
Rental services have a pretty unique relationship with publishers - the two common models are to either offer a royalty to the publisher for every piece of their inventory that goes out the door, or to pay annual / monthly /bi-monthy / whatever licensing & leasing fees (this is the model currently used by Netflix) to the publisher / studio. So the publisher doesn't particularly care that they don't make money on inventory sales because they're getting a check in the mail regardless.
This isn't true with GameStop.
games are fucking expensive hobby, but one i enjoy. i pay for new games when they prove worth the extreme price of entry. for the rest, i'll buy used much more frequently. it should be my right as a consumer, but i guess not everyone agrees on that part.
Well, it's not your right as a consumer. Your rights are spelled-out in the EULA (not that anyone ever reads it).
Again, if you feel that a game hasn't 'proven' it's worth (I'd call bullshit on that comment anyway, because clearly it has proven it's worth if you want to own it), why don't you just download the torrent? The publisher makes no money either way, and you've violated the terms of use either way, so it's no more or less ethical. It seems to me that you're just trying to feel less guilty via your wallet.
Ender, you're aware that Amazon sells used games, right?
Also, EULAs are borderline illegal (contracts that are made after the sale takes place?) and the publisher has no other legal recourse for denying used sales.
If the publisher wants more new sales, make the game more enticing, same as every other product on the market.
phoenix already addressed stuff you over looked but hey you're wrong on a few counts:
just because the EULA says it does not mean they are going to take me to court for reselling my game.
So the publisher doesn't particularly care that they don't make money on inventory sales because they're getting a check in the mail regardless.
This isn't true with GameStop.
except they DO get checks from gamestop, lots of them, for all those fancy preorder incentives and exclusive advertising avenues like midnight launches and retailer promotions! they can't bitch with the same mouth that sucks gamestop's dick daily, if they really wanted to stike back at gamestop they could stop making deals with them? instead of giving them first dibs on the best incentives?
your argument about torrenting the game is really dumb, you're missing all the legitimate ways they can now make money off me. if i buy a online pass, DLC, or future iterations of the game and they have made money off me in spades, despite my purchasing the game used. crazy enough, some of us like to be savvy with our money, and judge the value of a game not on the price publishers determine, but a price we fucking determine. some games, like say a 8 hour action game, are not worth my $60. i will buy it used 2 months later for $20 and enjoy it minus the bonus levels/preorder armor.
If the publisher wants more new sales, make the game more enticing, same as every other product on the market.
I can make exactly the same argument for downloading it from TPB.
your argument about torrenting the game is really dumb
No it's not; you're offering all of the same reasons anyone who pirates games does for not paying the publisher, and you want me to swallow the justification. Sorry - you've made an unethical consumer choice.
EDIT:
crazy enough, some of us like to be savvy with our money, and judge the value of a game not on the price publishers determine, but a price we fucking determine. some games, like say a 8 hour action game, are not worth my $60. i will buy it used 2 months later for $20 and enjoy it minus the bonus levels/preorder armor.
Why should you get to determine the price of a product someone else made and is selling? It's your choice to purchase the product or not - if it's an 8 hour long action game, I'd be inclined to agree (probably) that's it's not worth sixty dollars. So don't buy it, then. You don't get to say, "This is too much money, so I'm going to take your product anyway at a lower price."
Again, see how this line of reasoning applies equally to piracy.
No it's not; you're offering all of the same reasons anyone who pirates games does for not paying the publisher, and you want me to swallow the justification. Sorry - you've made an unethical consumer choice.
except i've given examples of ways i can still make the developers money when buying a used copy. i bought a lot of the DLC for alan wake despite getting that game for $8 used. i will be buying the next alan wake game. i would NEVER torrent a game. but i do pay for them like everyone else.
i'm not telling them how much to sell their game for; i'm determining how much the game is worth to me, personally. if i don't feel a game isn't worth $60 i'll buy it on sale, used, or rent it. i don't see how this is equal to piracy in any fucking way, because each scenario involves money exchanging hands.
If the publisher wants more new sales, make the game more enticing, same as every other product on the market.
I can make exactly the same argument for downloading it from TPB.
your argument about torrenting the game is really dumb
No it's not; you're offering all of the same reasons anyone who pirates games does for not paying the publisher, and you want me to swallow the justification. Sorry - you've made an unethical consumer choice.
EDIT:
crazy enough, some of us like to be savvy with our money, and judge the value of a game not on the price publishers determine, but a price we fucking determine. some games, like say a 8 hour action game, are not worth my $60. i will buy it used 2 months later for $20 and enjoy it minus the bonus levels/preorder armor.
Why should you get to determine the price of a product someone else made and is selling? It's your choice to purchase the product or not - if it's an 8 hour long action game, I'd be inclined to agree (probably) that's it's not worth sixty dollars. So don't buy it, then. You don't get to say, "This is too much money, so I'm going to take your product anyway at a lower price."
Again, see how this line of reasoning applies equally to piracy.
Um. Yes we do. It's called buying used. We've been doing it for decades :P If I don't think the product is worth sixty dollars then (surprise!) I have more than just 2 options (buy new or don't buy). If the publishers want my money on a regular basis then they might want to price their products in a way that doesn't make me consider the alternatives.
Or they could gate their content in stupid ways. **shrug** Which isn't gonna bring me around to their way of thinking, tbh.
except i've given examples of ways i can still make the developers money when buying a used copy. i bought a lot of the DLC for alan wake despite getting that game for $8 used. i will be buying the next alan wake game. i would NEVER torrent a game. but i do pay for them like everyone else.
i'm not telling them how much to sell their game for; i'm determining how much the game is worth to me, personally. if i don't feel a game isn't worth $60 i'll buy it on sale, used, or rent it. i don't see how this is equal to piracy in any fucking way, because each scenario involves money exchanging hands.
Okay:
Suppose you were to design a game. It's a one-man project in your garage, and it takes you 5~ years to make. It's a pretty good game at the end; you put it up on Steam for twenty bucks.
I download your game and show it to my buddy. My buddy says, "That's pretty cool, but it's not worth twenty dollars. I'll pay you five for a copy, though."
I decide that this is a pretty good transaction (I make five dollars in exchange for nothing)... and then a lightbulb goes off in my head. I post your game up on my own webspace and offer downloads for 5 dollars a pop. My website gets pretty decent traffic, so I start to eat into your market share.
Are you perfectly fine with my business practice, or not?
I actually just got into my first new house a month and a half ago. I was renting an apartment before, and though there was a small deal of satisfaction on having my own place, I never felt proud of living in an apartment, and found myself consistently thinking about people who had been there before me (especially when I got their mail).
Kinda off topic but this seems really weird man. Maybe it's because I live in the UK but houses are never new here, they've always been lived in before but it's still yours when you're in it. Hell most people I know would rather go for an old house because of how it looks or for it's history.
Suppose you were to design a game. It's a one-man project in your garage, and it takes you 5~ years to make. It's a pretty good game at the end; you put it up on Steam for twenty bucks.
I download your game and show it to my buddy. My buddy says, "That's pretty cool, but it's not worth twenty dollars. I'll pay you five for a copy, though."
I decide that this is a pretty good transaction (I make five dollars in exchange for nothing)... and then a lightbulb goes off in my head. I post your game up on my own webspace and offer downloads for 5 dollars a pop. My website gets pretty decent traffic, so I start to eat into your market share.
Are you perfectly fine with my business practice, or not?
The critical difference with your absurd example is that in the current retail market, the license to use a particular piece of game software is tied to the physical media it is delivered on. When the physical media exchanges owners, the original purchaser no longer holds a license. One person (who paid full price) cannot (legally) play the game anymore, while someone else has taken his place. It is the nature of these physical media and until software distribution is completely digital, there will be a second-hand market for it. With piracy, it is the license itself that is being exploited by multiple users, simultaneously.
While this is a transitional period, software licenses for games currently remain a secondary quality to the physical media that they are delivered on. I do not believe that publishers have moral (or legal) jurisdiction over what the user chooses to do with his disc once it is purchased. The disc is personal property. Perhaps the license is not, but as long as there is no system in place for locking a particular license to a particular individual, it's really too bad for the publishers.
Sure they can make a game and set whatever price they want. But if the second-hand market is so predictable that Gamestop is able to base their retail strategy on recycling inventory, then is it not reasonable to assume that there is a good chance that at least some customers are only willing to pay full price because they know they will be able to recoup some of that money when they later resell it? The ability to resell the product does in fact contribute to the value of the purchase. Clearly, those who pay $60 dollars for an 8 hour action game (to borrow an example from earlier) and then turn around and resell it 2 weeks later did not feel that they had got their full money's worth on the investment. I mean, how do you determine the inherent "value" of a video game anyway? If once can sell it for $40 and not feel like they are losing something in the process, maybe the game was really only worth $20 to that person. They had a means to partially recover the investment.
So I think it boils down to this: publishers need to find a better way to tie their licenses to customers, and also provide quality content at reasonable and competitive prices. If I'm going to be locked to a game FOREVER it better damn well be good. And if it was not worth the investment, there had better be a way to opt out, like maybe with a friend-to-friend based license swapping system?
except i've given examples of ways i can still make the developers money when buying a used copy. i bought a lot of the DLC for alan wake despite getting that game for $8 used. i will be buying the next alan wake game. i would NEVER torrent a game. but i do pay for them like everyone else.
i'm not telling them how much to sell their game for; i'm determining how much the game is worth to me, personally. if i don't feel a game isn't worth $60 i'll buy it on sale, used, or rent it. i don't see how this is equal to piracy in any fucking way, because each scenario involves money exchanging hands.
Okay:
Suppose you were to design a game. It's a one-man project in your garage, and it takes you 5~ years to make. It's a pretty good game at the end; you put it up on Steam for twenty bucks.
I download your game and show it to my buddy. My buddy says, "That's pretty cool, but it's not worth twenty dollars. I'll pay you five for a copy, though."
I decide that this is a pretty good transaction (I make five dollars in exchange for nothing)... and then a lightbulb goes off in my head. I post your game up on my own webspace and offer downloads for 5 dollars a pop. My website gets pretty decent traffic, so I start to eat into your market share.
Are you perfectly fine with my business practice, or not?
No, of course people are not okay with you making unauthorised copies of something that you do not own the copyright of and selling them for a profit.
As a game creator (I really should sort out my sig pic) I am very happy with people selling my game used. Not so happy on copyright infringement.
Do you feel like a "skanky ho" because you bought a used textbook? A used car?
In a word: yes. I would never buy a used car or book.
I only buy used on games I'm really unsure about, and I typically end up disliking them anyways, so that works out to "fuck the developer anyways"
What about a used house?
Especially a used house.
I actually just got into my first new house a month and a half ago. I was renting an apartment before, and though there was a small deal of satisfaction on having my own place, I never felt proud of living in an apartment, and found myself consistently thinking about people who had been there before me (especially when I got their mail).
I'm not talking about renting-vs-owning, I'm talking about buying a house that people have previously lived in rather than a new build.
If you spend less then.. I dunno, 3,000,000$ on making a game, I don't think the opinion of a developer matters in this particular conversation. Seeing as I doubt Gamestop has ever or will ever carry the game.
This is about actual licensed disc games and all, games that probably cost more to get Sony/Microsoft certified than most small time indie devs spend making their entire game.
This is especially true of niche games like Rune Factory or similar that gamestop orders a single copy of and just shuffles used forever. Welcome to being the cause of carbon-copy CoD syndrome.
except i've given examples of ways i can still make the developers money when buying a used copy. i bought a lot of the DLC for alan wake despite getting that game for $8 used. i will be buying the next alan wake game. i would NEVER torrent a game. but i do pay for them like everyone else.
i'm not telling them how much to sell their game for; i'm determining how much the game is worth to me, personally. if i don't feel a game isn't worth $60 i'll buy it on sale, used, or rent it. i don't see how this is equal to piracy in any fucking way, because each scenario involves money exchanging hands.
Okay:
Suppose you were to design a game. It's a one-man project in your garage, and it takes you 5~ years to make. It's a pretty good game at the end; you put it up on Steam for twenty bucks.
I download your game and show it to my buddy. My buddy says, "That's pretty cool, but it's not worth twenty dollars. I'll pay you five for a copy, though."
I decide that this is a pretty good transaction (I make five dollars in exchange for nothing)... and then a lightbulb goes off in my head. I post your game up on my own webspace and offer downloads for 5 dollars a pop. My website gets pretty decent traffic, so I start to eat into your market share.
Are you perfectly fine with my business practice, or not?
So we are now at the point where we make a perfect 1:1 comparison between illegal piracy for profit and legally selling a used copy of a game that the developer has already been paid for. Classy.
Also, as a big mean economist, I'd tell said company they should consider having a sale. If it costs them $1 in transaction costs to sell a game, they should offer their game during, say, summer sales at 75% off and roll in the free money. The only reason publishers can set their own prices instead of having a market price dictated to them is because they are acting with monopoly power (however, due to first sale doctrine, it isn't perfect), and I'm not going to cry crocodile tears over people who intentionally choose to price customers out of the marketplace to enhance their overall profit.
Used game merchants aren't insidious schemers out to steal business away from hard working businessmen, they are people offering a legal product to customers who a monopolist has consciously, willfully, and aware of the consequences, chosen to not sell to, even at a profit. So, well, fuck them, and fuck their attempts to build in sabotage mechanisms into their own products to discourage legitimate commerce.
And it's not just one copy changing hands once. Did you know that GameStop's model predicts approximately quadruple value from one unit of product? In otherwords, the fully expect that each individual game will be shared by four purchasers, who'd otherwise have bought the game at full price. The hugely impacts sales for the publisher, because the stores model their inventory purchasing accordingly (in other words, they buy about 4 times less inventory than they would if they didn't operate a used game market).
That is ignorant or an insidious lie. The reason more people buy used is because of the most basic, high school level econ 101 principal of supply and demand. When you sell a product cheaper, more people buy it.
There's also other more complicated arguments, but there's no need to make them when the argument is flawed at the most basic level.
games are fucking expensive hobby, but one i enjoy. i pay for new games when they prove worth the extreme price of entry. for the rest, i'll buy used much more frequently. it should be my right as a consumer, but i guess not everyone agrees on that part.
Well, it's not your right as a consumer. Your rights are spelled-out in the EULA (not that anyone ever reads it).
Again, if you feel that a game hasn't 'proven' it's worth (I'd call bullshit on that comment anyway, because clearly it has proven it's worth if you want to own it), why don't you just download the torrent? The publisher makes no money either way, and you've violated the terms of use either way, so it's no more or less ethical. It seems to me that you're just trying to feel less guilty via your wallet.
Essentially, between this and other arguments, you're saying that game publishers should have all of the benefits of the free market and government intervention, and none of the cons / responsibilities of either. That might fly with other people, but it doesn't with me. You don't get to have utter contempt for consumers, and then demand government intervention to protect you from the consequences of said contempt.
I'm surprised that its taken this long for developers to create an incentive to buy their games new.
Games developers are a business first and its not surprising that they're going to hold people who buy their games used (and therefore not giving them any money) to a lower regard then people who buy new.
Someone must have mentioned the whole EULA argument by now. I mean no one actually thinks they own the content of the games they buy right?
No it's not; you're offering all of the same reasons anyone who pirates games does for not paying the publisher, and you want me to swallow the justification. Sorry - you've made an unethical consumer choice.
except i've given examples of ways i can still make the developers money when buying a used copy. i bought a lot of the DLC for alan wake despite getting that game for $8 used. i will be buying the next alan wake game. i would NEVER torrent a game. but i do pay for them like everyone else.
Weren't you one of the guys arguing against the evolving practices against online passes and project ten dollar and all the other evolving schemes to make money off of used games? And are you now arguing that you're spending money on these services after buying the game used so it makes the used game market OK?
I really hope I'm just thinking of someone else due to it being 4am and having only just finished my first cup of coffee.
Everyone works hard for their money.
*eyeballs his now empty coffee cup and copy of American Handgunner he's been flipping through while we've been underway*
TOGSolid on
0
Options
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
I don't know what others mean by "degrade" but it's not the physical disc that I'm thinking of. A 90's shooter (for example) looks like crap next to a 00's shooter, even if we liked it at the time. I mean, when people said you had to look at Duke Nukem Forever as a game of it's time instead of a shooter of today, that was ridiculous right? That game was crap, right?
The one time code as degrade analogy doesn't hold. It would be like a car that was designed to fail once it changed hands. It isn't the same thing as being older and not of current quality.
I think you're right here. On the subject of having old games around forever in physical form but not in digital form. For those of you who are pro-physical, do you keep all of your game discs in air-tight moisture-free vaults? If not, enjoy trying to spin those discs in 30 years (that's if the disc-drive itself hasn't already failed)
I don't know what others mean by "degrade" but it's not the physical disc that I'm thinking of. A 90's shooter (for example) looks like crap next to a 00's shooter, even if we liked it at the time. I mean, when people said you had to look at Duke Nukem Forever as a game of it's time instead of a shooter of today, that was ridiculous right? That game was crap, right?
The one time code as degrade analogy doesn't hold. It would be like a car that was designed to fail once it changed hands. It isn't the same thing as being older and not of current quality.
I, uh. Not sure what point you're making here.
Aside from a very select group of objects that appreciate in value (generally due to being either handmade or of extreme rarity), anything that's older will be cheaper. It has nothing to do with being used versus new, but rather it being a less desirable version of that product by virtue of it not having the same feature set as a newer version of the product.
I was trying to respond to the points that an old game hasn't degraded if it's kept in pristine condition and that one time codes are "degrade". I disagree with them. I could have probably written that out better. Sorry about that.
Again, let's be very clear here why Cucco's argument does not belong in this thread.
We are discussing "new vs. used." As in, a new copy of Dragon Age vs. a used copy of Dragon Age. Accordingly, arguments about the fact that Baldur's Gate has worse graphics and therefore should be worth less are a red herring.
The only proper comparisons are "used vs. new" Dragon Age and "used vs. new" Baldur's Gate. When you want to buy Baldur's Gate, assuming you don't end up with scratched disks, what's the difference between a used copy and a new copy? Nothing; the game plays exactly the same, the bits are the same, etc. When you want to buy Dragon Age, what's the difference between a used copy and a new copy? The Day 1 DLC unlock (probably). The relative price between BG and DA doesn't matter, because it's beyond the scope of this argument - it's an argument for why 10-year-old games should cost less, in whatever form, than brand-new games, in whatever form.
So, for Cucco and anyone else who wants to use this as a line of argument for buying used, you're in the wrong thread.
The one time code as degrade analogy doesn't hold. It would be like a car that was designed to fail once it changed hands. It isn't the same thing as being older and not of current quality.
No, the one-time code is more like a dealer offering you free oil changes for as long as you own your car. If you sell your car, the guy who bought it from you is welcome to come to the dealer and pay the standard rate, but he doesn't get an oil change for free because they only offered that service to the first guy.
The dealer is under no obligation to provide free oil changes to the second buyer.
We are discussing "new vs. used." As in, a new copy of Dragon Age vs. a used copy of Dragon Age. Accordingly, arguments about the fact that Baldur's Gate has worse graphics and therefore should be worth less are a red herring.
The only proper comparisons are "used vs. new" Dragon Age and "used vs. new" Baldur's Gate. When you want to buy Baldur's Gate, assuming you don't end up with scratched disks, what's the difference between a used copy and a new copy? Nothing; the game plays exactly the same, the bits are the same, etc.
Actually, the new copy of Baldur's Gate I bought off of GoG.com is a bit different from the original discs of Baldur's Gate I bought. It's a single .exe file instead of multiple CD's, and changes were made to make it more compatible with modern versions of Windows. If I were to try to install my original CD's of Baldur's Gate, it probably wouldn't work exactly the same as my GoG.com version.
"What? You're not the first owner of your home? Sorry, but I only buy new construction because I believe in actually supporting the contractors."
I know I'm late to the party, but I feel like throwing in a few points.
a) Whenever a company fails to be profitable due to being unable to adapt to a changing market, we tend not to pity them. "That's what you get for not changing with the market." Yet, if a game developer doesn't do well, and blames used sales for soaking up all their profit, then it's all "Oh, those poor developers!"
The second-hand market is something that has existed as long as currency has been exchanged for goods. We mock and criticize companies for not being able to keep up with market conditions that change and evolve and are sometimes hard to predict. Well what about being able to handle a market condition that has remained the same the whole damn time?
b) My problem with Gamestop isn't that they sell used, it's that they have such a huge markup, with very little in the way of actual discounts. If I just want to save money, $5 off a $60 game doesn't cut it. And it's just kinda insulting that you can only give me $5 off knowing you have a $20 markup. Fuck off.
I buy used games all the time, but from individual sellers or retailers who offer significant discounts off the new price.
c) Buying a new copy of a game doesn't give money to people that make games. They sell to the retailer. The only way they get more money, is if the retailer orders more. The retailer orders more if demand outweighs supply. When you buy a new copy, you've just reduced supply. Congratulations. When you buy a used copy, guess what, you just reduced supply by the exact same amount! Amazing!
Of course, at the same time, you've also reduced demand at the same time, as there is one less person who needs a copy. But either way, people buying new or used have the exact same effect on the numbers. Pirates, on the other hand, can reduce demand without affecting supply, so that's not good.
Now that I think about it, selling your copy increases supply. So if anything, it's not the people buying used that's fucking it up, but the people that sell. So in conclusion, if you want to "support the industry, buy new, buy used, buy whatever. Just keep it forever.
c) Buying a new copy of a game doesn't give money to people that make games.
While this is academically true, it misses the entire thrust of the argument.
Consider the case where a retailer is going to sell a game. They order 5 new copies, sell them, buy 3 back as used, resell those, buy 1 back as used, and resell it. The retailer has made a total of 9 sales off of 5 copies. The publishers get money on the retailer's initial order of 5 copies; developer royalties are based on 5 sales; etc.
Now, consider the case where the used games are not available, and, because people are not always willing to pay the new price for a game, only half of the people who would have bought used upconvert.* Thus, there is demand for 5 + ((3 + 1) / 2) = 7 copies. The retailer, being efficient, orders and sells 7 copies (maybe in two separate batches). The retailer has made a total of 7 sales off of 7 copies. The publishers get money on the retailer's order of 7 copies; developer royalties are based on 7 sales; etc.
Is it not patently obvious how this is better for the developers?
* In reality, we do not know what this number is. It is between 0% and 100%, with either extreme unlikely; thus, we pick the middle for ease of illustration.
c) Buying a new copy of a game doesn't give money to people that make games. They sell to the retailer. The only way they get more money, is if the retailer orders more. The retailer orders more if demand outweighs supply. When you buy a new copy, you've just reduced supply. Congratulations. When you buy a used copy, guess what, you just reduced supply by the exact same amount! Amazing!
The two quantities aren't treated as the same pile, though. Stores like Gamestop typically hold a limited number of new games on hand for those customers that refuse to buy used. If enough new copies are bought, they'll need to order yet more new copies, regardless of how many used copies that they have on hand, because otherwise they'll lose a sale to that customer who'll walk in and demand a new, shrink-wrapped copy who'll take his business elsewhere if all they can provide is used copies.
Let's say a store is selling Gears of War 3. They have 5 new copies, and 20 used copies. Suddenly, the 5 new copies all get sold out, despite pushing and prodding by the staff for people to buy the used copies instead. Now they have 20 used copies and 0 new copies. Likely as not, they're going to order some new copies for the store in case more people come in who refuse to buy used.
You know why people hate used games so much? Because Gamestop is the leader in them.
There would be many, many less arguments on the topic if we were talking about something limited to mom & pop stores, pawn stores or Goozex or any other retailer than Gamestop. Gamers love to talk about how much they hate Gamestop so anti-used stuff usually ends up revolving around their opinions of that company in particular.
You know who depends on used game sales? A lot of smaller gaming shops. They don't get that much on new games compared to used. They don't have the sweet preorder deals that Gamestop can offer. A lot of them do well with the used stuff and may be the only place you can find classic games to buy at all. I have no problem with saying "preorder/buy new, get extra stuff" however once the game is inaccessible to a used purchaser it will hurt the non-Gamestop type of sellers.
We are discussing "new vs. used." As in, a new copy of Dragon Age vs. a used copy of Dragon Age. Accordingly, arguments about the fact that Baldur's Gate has worse graphics and therefore should be worth less are a red herring.
The only proper comparisons are "used vs. new" Dragon Age and "used vs. new" Baldur's Gate. When you want to buy Baldur's Gate, assuming you don't end up with scratched disks, what's the difference between a used copy and a new copy? Nothing; the game plays exactly the same, the bits are the same, etc.
Actually, the new copy of Baldur's Gate I bought off of GoG.com is a bit different from the original discs of Baldur's Gate I bought.
I'd argue that it's actually a different product altogether (it, as you point out, isn't the same as the disk-based version).
I know my local game shop won't even buy most games new except for the biggest titles like Madden, NCAA, COD. I know the owner and he says he just can't compete with GameStop since they pay for overnight shipping and offer all the bonuses to have the games in-store on the day of release. This store is lucky to get a new release by the weekend and to compensate they only charge 57.99 on new titles. So basically his store IS the 2nd hand market (and has been for 10+ years and 2 locations).
Basically people don't generally have a "used game" problem they have a "Gamestop" problem because that's all they know.
Let's say a store is selling Gears of War 3. They have 5 new copies, and 20 used copies. Suddenly, the 5 new copies all get sold out, despite pushing and prodding by the staff for people to buy the used copies instead. Now they have 20 used copies and 0 new copies. Likely as not, they're going to order some new copies for the store in case more people come in who refuse to buy used.
And if that store is part of some vast national retail chain then it's just going to get another copy delivered from central inventory.
And if you make the argument that eventually this may trigger more new games to be bought then you have to cope with the argument that the money people are paid for their second hand games might go towards buying more new games.
We are discussing "new vs. used." As in, a new copy of Dragon Age vs. a used copy of Dragon Age. Accordingly, arguments about the fact that Baldur's Gate has worse graphics and therefore should be worth less are a red herring.
The only proper comparisons are "used vs. new" Dragon Age and "used vs. new" Baldur's Gate. When you want to buy Baldur's Gate, assuming you don't end up with scratched disks, what's the difference between a used copy and a new copy? Nothing; the game plays exactly the same, the bits are the same, etc.
Actually, the new copy of Baldur's Gate I bought off of GoG.com is a bit different from the original discs of Baldur's Gate I bought.
I'd argue that it's actually a different product altogether (it, as you point out, isn't the same as the disk-based version).
I suppose you're right that it's is a different product altogether, and you're comparing new versus used based on the exact same product model, including packaging, content, etc. I don't think anyone sells the original Baldur's Gate like that anymore, though.
Let's say a store is selling Gears of War 3. They have 5 new copies, and 20 used copies. Suddenly, the 5 new copies all get sold out, despite pushing and prodding by the staff for people to buy the used copies instead. Now they have 20 used copies and 0 new copies. Likely as not, they're going to order some new copies for the store in case more people come in who refuse to buy used.
And if that store is part of some vast national retail chain then it's just going to get another copy delivered from central inventory.
And if you make the argument that eventually this may trigger more new games to be bought then you have to cope with the argument that the money people are paid for their second hand games might go towards buying more new games.
Look, the argument isn't hard to understand. Regardless of how many middleman there are, gaming stores typically keep a certain amount of new games on hand. It's regarded as a separate, distinct commodity from the used versions in terms of inventory. Buy enough new games, and those new games will need to be replaced, regardless of how many used versions are on hand.
Also, I don't see how your argument has anything to do with my assertion. If anything, if a person was intent on buying games with their money, they would've gone for a trade-in to start with.
You know why people hate used games so much? Because Gamestop is the leader in them.
There would be many, many less arguments on the topic if we were talking about something limited to mom & pop stores, pawn stores or Goozex or any other retailer than Gamestop. Gamers love to talk about how much they hate Gamestop so anti-used stuff usually ends up revolving around their opinions of that company in particular.
You know who depends on used game sales? A lot of smaller gaming shops. They don't get that much on new games compared to used. They don't have the sweet preorder deals that Gamestop can offer. A lot of them do well with the used stuff and may be the only place you can find classic games to buy at all. I have no problem with saying "preorder/buy new, get extra stuff" however once the game is inaccessible to a used purchaser it will hurt the non-Gamestop type of sellers.
Also true. Half the arguments against used games in this thread have amounted to "Gamestop provides nothing and still makes a boatload of money".
And it's not just one copy changing hands once. Did you know that GameStop's model predicts approximately quadruple value from one unit of product? In otherwords, the fully expect that each individual game will be shared by four purchasers, who'd otherwise have bought the game at full price. The hugely impacts sales for the publisher, because the stores model their inventory purchasing accordingly (in other words, they buy about 4 times less inventory than they would if they didn't operate a used game market).
I've bolded the contentious point here. Once again, the assumption that if a cheaper option disappeared, users would automatically buy a new copy of a title.
Let's say a store is selling Gears of War 3. They have 5 new copies, and 20 used copies. Suddenly, the 5 new copies all get sold out, despite pushing and prodding by the staff for people to buy the used copies instead. Now they have 20 used copies and 0 new copies. Likely as not, they're going to order some new copies for the store in case more people come in who refuse to buy used.
And if that store is part of some vast national retail chain then it's just going to get another copy delivered from central inventory.
And if you make the argument that eventually this may trigger more new games to be bought then you have to cope with the argument that the money people are paid for their second hand games might go towards buying more used games back from customers.
I can't think of another market whose primary purpose is to cut the content creators out of the sales cycle as soon as possible. For that reason, I will always buy new, with one exception. If a game/book/movie is long out of print, and I cannot find a new copy, I will buy used. I don't care about reselling. My collection a library of titles. I collect and keep good content.
Posts
the idea that i should simply 'buy it again' is stupid because i already bought those games when i was ten, why the fuck should i have to pay to play them again? there are probably people would rather resort to piracy than buy the game they already own.
If you're not online, a used copy of DA1 comes with the same amount of content as a new copy of DA1
You're not wrong, but that's not terribly relevant to me (or most 360 gamers). If you can't be bothered to redeem your new purchase incentives then that's on nobody but you. And it's a great idea - I think incentivizing new purchases (which some people see as screwing used buyers instead) is a great way for publishers to curtail the used market. I do like, however, that the content is still available behind a pay gate for people who buy used because eventually Batman: Arkham City won't be available new and whoever got that used copy might want to play as Catwoman, and Rocksteady (or WB, no idea how the money gets cut up) gets some revenue off of that used sale.
I have to say that I find it extremely bizarre to consider used goods as second-rate items. Probably more than half of the books I've ever purchased are used because it just makes good fiscal sense to buy a stack of books for the same price as one new book, especially when it means I've got a better chance of finding something good. The first car I had was a great car and it was bought used. I've lived in several apartments and was never anything but happy with them because you know what? Regardless of who lived there before, it's still my space.
I'm gonna have to go on record and say that I don't know what bizarro world people live in where buying used items is somehow skeezy or unethical. I seriously doubt this is what you're trying to do, but denigrating second-hand/common-use items as sub-standard just seems massively elitist. Especially with the used car/apartment situation, since there are so many people who would absolutely kill to have the means to afford the kind of goods you're writing off. And I do mean they would literally kill somebody for that opportunity.
And in relation to used games, nobody should ever feel guilty about buying a used game. Well, unless they bought it from a place like Gamestop, but that's only because they way overpaid for a used copy they could've gotten for a much better price.
Sure, we've got games the rights holders deemed profitable and popular enough to update and port. But for every Final Fantasy, there is a 3D-WorldRunner that has no re-release. There are lots of PC games which can technically be run by dedicated tinkerers, but the rights owners don't feel that it would be profitable to update the game or ethical to sell a game which doesn't normally function. This situation has happened before, and it will happen again. I don't want piracy to be the only option when that time comes.
GOG.com is great, but there are vast gaps in their catalog. They can't update everything, both from a resource allocation standpoint and from a legal standpoint. Remember when we didn't know if they'd get Planescape Torment? Or how no DD has System Shock 2? And those are the AAA titles. I was a big fan of Home of the Underdogs back when it was active. Many less acclaimed releases slip through the cracks. Publishers and DD sites cannot be depended on to keep every old title available.
One could argue that I don't need to be able to buy and play any old random game. Nevertheless, that's what used games allow. Anti-resale DRM will be restrictive to retro-gamers who prefer to stay on the legal side of the line.
-.-
Consumer [A] purchases Dragon Age brand new at GameStop. This copy has already been purchased by the store, so the publisher has made it's sale before Customer [A] ever walked through the door.
Customer [A] plays it for a week, and then decide for whatever reason to return it for store credit. GameStop puts it on the shelf for reselling.
Now, here is the kicker: In GameStop's ideal world, they would never have to buy more than the initial run from the publisher, while selling many times that many copies of the game - they overwhelmingly prefer to just get back used product from Customer [A] and those like him, because it's essentially free money. And so GameStop has structured their business accordingly: used games are given preferential displays & the stores order a very limited quantity of product from the publisher, banking on their resale model working for them. And, so far, it has.
They're fucking parasites. They didn't create any of the content, but they want to cut the publisher out of money-making part of the retail relationship. It's strikingly similar to piracy (the guy at TPB uploading the torrent had to purchase an initial copy as well, unless it was leaked to him), except that GameStop is actually making money doing it. I mean, if you want to save money so badly, why don't you just download a torrent? It'll even save you time & gas on top of being still cheaper than buying used copies.
just because you didn't create the product does not mean you can't sell it. if gamestop is a parasite so is amazon, and goodwill, and every other seller of used items. they aren't doing it to 'cut the developer out', they are providing a service people CLEARLY want, because multiple outlets sell used games. people want cheaper, more affordable games.
and fuck off with the torrenting shit already! i work hard for my money. i buy my games like everyone else, i hate people with the idea that stealing is similar to buying used. the used copy had to be fucking paid for in the first place to end up in my possession. equating one douche uploading a SINGLE COPY to THOUSANDS of criminals, does not equal ONE copy changing hands. how about rental services? do those people try to cut out the developer?
games are fucking expensive hobby, but one i enjoy. i pay for new games when they prove worth the extreme price of entry. for the rest, i'll buy used much more frequently. it should be my right as a consumer, but i guess not everyone agrees on that part.
Except that Amazon purchases every copy that they sell from the publisher. They don't buy one copy with a model to generate multiple sales from that single copy.
Everyone works hard for their money. You're not special.
Piracy is not the same as theft; someone still had to buy the original, then upload the ISO (after circumventing the DRM). In principle, it's quite similar to the resale model (just on a different scale) that GameStop uses. The only reason that one is illegal and the other isn't is that GameStop doesn't actually violate the antiquated copyright laws (they've just found a business model that effectively circumvents them).
And it's not just one copy changing hands once. Did you know that GameStop's model predicts approximately quadruple value from one unit of product? In otherwords, the fully expect that each individual game will be shared by four purchasers, who'd otherwise have bought the game at full price. The hugely impacts sales for the publisher, because the stores model their inventory purchasing accordingly (in other words, they buy about 4 times less inventory than they would if they didn't operate a used game market).
Rental services have a pretty unique relationship with publishers - the two common models are to either offer a royalty to the publisher for every piece of their inventory that goes out the door, or to pay annual / monthly /bi-monthy / whatever licensing & leasing fees (this is the model currently used by Netflix) to the publisher / studio. So the publisher doesn't particularly care that they don't make money on inventory sales because they're getting a check in the mail regardless.
This isn't true with GameStop.
Well, it's not your right as a consumer. Your rights are spelled-out in the EULA (not that anyone ever reads it).
Again, if you feel that a game hasn't 'proven' it's worth (I'd call bullshit on that comment anyway, because clearly it has proven it's worth if you want to own it), why don't you just download the torrent? The publisher makes no money either way, and you've violated the terms of use either way, so it's no more or less ethical. It seems to me that you're just trying to feel less guilty via your wallet.
Also, EULAs are borderline illegal (contracts that are made after the sale takes place?) and the publisher has no other legal recourse for denying used sales.
If the publisher wants more new sales, make the game more enticing, same as every other product on the market.
just because the EULA says it does not mean they are going to take me to court for reselling my game. except they DO get checks from gamestop, lots of them, for all those fancy preorder incentives and exclusive advertising avenues like midnight launches and retailer promotions! they can't bitch with the same mouth that sucks gamestop's dick daily, if they really wanted to stike back at gamestop they could stop making deals with them? instead of giving them first dibs on the best incentives?
your argument about torrenting the game is really dumb, you're missing all the legitimate ways they can now make money off me. if i buy a online pass, DLC, or future iterations of the game and they have made money off me in spades, despite my purchasing the game used. crazy enough, some of us like to be savvy with our money, and judge the value of a game not on the price publishers determine, but a price we fucking determine. some games, like say a 8 hour action game, are not worth my $60. i will buy it used 2 months later for $20 and enjoy it minus the bonus levels/preorder armor.
I can make exactly the same argument for downloading it from TPB.
No it's not; you're offering all of the same reasons anyone who pirates games does for not paying the publisher, and you want me to swallow the justification. Sorry - you've made an unethical consumer choice.
EDIT:
Why should you get to determine the price of a product someone else made and is selling? It's your choice to purchase the product or not - if it's an 8 hour long action game, I'd be inclined to agree (probably) that's it's not worth sixty dollars. So don't buy it, then. You don't get to say, "This is too much money, so I'm going to take your product anyway at a lower price."
Again, see how this line of reasoning applies equally to piracy.
i'm not telling them how much to sell their game for; i'm determining how much the game is worth to me, personally. if i don't feel a game isn't worth $60 i'll buy it on sale, used, or rent it. i don't see how this is equal to piracy in any fucking way, because each scenario involves money exchanging hands.
Um. Yes we do. It's called buying used. We've been doing it for decades :P If I don't think the product is worth sixty dollars then (surprise!) I have more than just 2 options (buy new or don't buy). If the publishers want my money on a regular basis then they might want to price their products in a way that doesn't make me consider the alternatives.
Or they could gate their content in stupid ways. **shrug** Which isn't gonna bring me around to their way of thinking, tbh.
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
Okay:
Suppose you were to design a game. It's a one-man project in your garage, and it takes you 5~ years to make. It's a pretty good game at the end; you put it up on Steam for twenty bucks.
I download your game and show it to my buddy. My buddy says, "That's pretty cool, but it's not worth twenty dollars. I'll pay you five for a copy, though."
I decide that this is a pretty good transaction (I make five dollars in exchange for nothing)... and then a lightbulb goes off in my head. I post your game up on my own webspace and offer downloads for 5 dollars a pop. My website gets pretty decent traffic, so I start to eat into your market share.
Are you perfectly fine with my business practice, or not?
Kinda off topic but this seems really weird man. Maybe it's because I live in the UK but houses are never new here, they've always been lived in before but it's still yours when you're in it. Hell most people I know would rather go for an old house because of how it looks or for it's history.
The critical difference with your absurd example is that in the current retail market, the license to use a particular piece of game software is tied to the physical media it is delivered on. When the physical media exchanges owners, the original purchaser no longer holds a license. One person (who paid full price) cannot (legally) play the game anymore, while someone else has taken his place. It is the nature of these physical media and until software distribution is completely digital, there will be a second-hand market for it. With piracy, it is the license itself that is being exploited by multiple users, simultaneously.
While this is a transitional period, software licenses for games currently remain a secondary quality to the physical media that they are delivered on. I do not believe that publishers have moral (or legal) jurisdiction over what the user chooses to do with his disc once it is purchased. The disc is personal property. Perhaps the license is not, but as long as there is no system in place for locking a particular license to a particular individual, it's really too bad for the publishers.
Sure they can make a game and set whatever price they want. But if the second-hand market is so predictable that Gamestop is able to base their retail strategy on recycling inventory, then is it not reasonable to assume that there is a good chance that at least some customers are only willing to pay full price because they know they will be able to recoup some of that money when they later resell it? The ability to resell the product does in fact contribute to the value of the purchase. Clearly, those who pay $60 dollars for an 8 hour action game (to borrow an example from earlier) and then turn around and resell it 2 weeks later did not feel that they had got their full money's worth on the investment. I mean, how do you determine the inherent "value" of a video game anyway? If once can sell it for $40 and not feel like they are losing something in the process, maybe the game was really only worth $20 to that person. They had a means to partially recover the investment.
So I think it boils down to this: publishers need to find a better way to tie their licenses to customers, and also provide quality content at reasonable and competitive prices. If I'm going to be locked to a game FOREVER it better damn well be good. And if it was not worth the investment, there had better be a way to opt out, like maybe with a friend-to-friend based license swapping system?
No, of course people are not okay with you making unauthorised copies of something that you do not own the copyright of and selling them for a profit.
As a game creator (I really should sort out my sig pic) I am very happy with people selling my game used. Not so happy on copyright infringement.
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.
I'm not talking about renting-vs-owning, I'm talking about buying a house that people have previously lived in rather than a new build.
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.
This is about actual licensed disc games and all, games that probably cost more to get Sony/Microsoft certified than most small time indie devs spend making their entire game.
This is especially true of niche games like Rune Factory or similar that gamestop orders a single copy of and just shuffles used forever. Welcome to being the cause of carbon-copy CoD syndrome.
So we are now at the point where we make a perfect 1:1 comparison between illegal piracy for profit and legally selling a used copy of a game that the developer has already been paid for. Classy.
Also, as a big mean economist, I'd tell said company they should consider having a sale. If it costs them $1 in transaction costs to sell a game, they should offer their game during, say, summer sales at 75% off and roll in the free money. The only reason publishers can set their own prices instead of having a market price dictated to them is because they are acting with monopoly power (however, due to first sale doctrine, it isn't perfect), and I'm not going to cry crocodile tears over people who intentionally choose to price customers out of the marketplace to enhance their overall profit.
Used game merchants aren't insidious schemers out to steal business away from hard working businessmen, they are people offering a legal product to customers who a monopolist has consciously, willfully, and aware of the consequences, chosen to not sell to, even at a profit. So, well, fuck them, and fuck their attempts to build in sabotage mechanisms into their own products to discourage legitimate commerce.
That is ignorant or an insidious lie. The reason more people buy used is because of the most basic, high school level econ 101 principal of supply and demand. When you sell a product cheaper, more people buy it.
There's also other more complicated arguments, but there's no need to make them when the argument is flawed at the most basic level.
Essentially, between this and other arguments, you're saying that game publishers should have all of the benefits of the free market and government intervention, and none of the cons / responsibilities of either. That might fly with other people, but it doesn't with me. You don't get to have utter contempt for consumers, and then demand government intervention to protect you from the consequences of said contempt.
Games developers are a business first and its not surprising that they're going to hold people who buy their games used (and therefore not giving them any money) to a lower regard then people who buy new.
Someone must have mentioned the whole EULA argument by now. I mean no one actually thinks they own the content of the games they buy right?
I really hope I'm just thinking of someone else due to it being 4am and having only just finished my first cup of coffee. *eyeballs his now empty coffee cup and copy of American Handgunner he's been flipping through while we've been underway*
I think you're right here. On the subject of having old games around forever in physical form but not in digital form. For those of you who are pro-physical, do you keep all of your game discs in air-tight moisture-free vaults? If not, enjoy trying to spin those discs in 30 years (that's if the disc-drive itself hasn't already failed)
Again, let's be very clear here why Cucco's argument does not belong in this thread.
We are discussing "new vs. used." As in, a new copy of Dragon Age vs. a used copy of Dragon Age. Accordingly, arguments about the fact that Baldur's Gate has worse graphics and therefore should be worth less are a red herring.
The only proper comparisons are "used vs. new" Dragon Age and "used vs. new" Baldur's Gate. When you want to buy Baldur's Gate, assuming you don't end up with scratched disks, what's the difference between a used copy and a new copy? Nothing; the game plays exactly the same, the bits are the same, etc. When you want to buy Dragon Age, what's the difference between a used copy and a new copy? The Day 1 DLC unlock (probably). The relative price between BG and DA doesn't matter, because it's beyond the scope of this argument - it's an argument for why 10-year-old games should cost less, in whatever form, than brand-new games, in whatever form.
So, for Cucco and anyone else who wants to use this as a line of argument for buying used, you're in the wrong thread.
No, the one-time code is more like a dealer offering you free oil changes for as long as you own your car. If you sell your car, the guy who bought it from you is welcome to come to the dealer and pay the standard rate, but he doesn't get an oil change for free because they only offered that service to the first guy.
The dealer is under no obligation to provide free oil changes to the second buyer.
Car analogy: [/thread]
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
Actually, the new copy of Baldur's Gate I bought off of GoG.com is a bit different from the original discs of Baldur's Gate I bought. It's a single .exe file instead of multiple CD's, and changes were made to make it more compatible with modern versions of Windows. If I were to try to install my original CD's of Baldur's Gate, it probably wouldn't work exactly the same as my GoG.com version.
I know I'm late to the party, but I feel like throwing in a few points.
a) Whenever a company fails to be profitable due to being unable to adapt to a changing market, we tend not to pity them. "That's what you get for not changing with the market." Yet, if a game developer doesn't do well, and blames used sales for soaking up all their profit, then it's all "Oh, those poor developers!"
The second-hand market is something that has existed as long as currency has been exchanged for goods. We mock and criticize companies for not being able to keep up with market conditions that change and evolve and are sometimes hard to predict. Well what about being able to handle a market condition that has remained the same the whole damn time?
b) My problem with Gamestop isn't that they sell used, it's that they have such a huge markup, with very little in the way of actual discounts. If I just want to save money, $5 off a $60 game doesn't cut it. And it's just kinda insulting that you can only give me $5 off knowing you have a $20 markup. Fuck off.
I buy used games all the time, but from individual sellers or retailers who offer significant discounts off the new price.
c) Buying a new copy of a game doesn't give money to people that make games. They sell to the retailer. The only way they get more money, is if the retailer orders more. The retailer orders more if demand outweighs supply. When you buy a new copy, you've just reduced supply. Congratulations. When you buy a used copy, guess what, you just reduced supply by the exact same amount! Amazing!
Of course, at the same time, you've also reduced demand at the same time, as there is one less person who needs a copy. But either way, people buying new or used have the exact same effect on the numbers. Pirates, on the other hand, can reduce demand without affecting supply, so that's not good.
Now that I think about it, selling your copy increases supply. So if anything, it's not the people buying used that's fucking it up, but the people that sell. So in conclusion, if you want to "support the industry, buy new, buy used, buy whatever. Just keep it forever.
While this is academically true, it misses the entire thrust of the argument.
Consider the case where a retailer is going to sell a game. They order 5 new copies, sell them, buy 3 back as used, resell those, buy 1 back as used, and resell it. The retailer has made a total of 9 sales off of 5 copies. The publishers get money on the retailer's initial order of 5 copies; developer royalties are based on 5 sales; etc.
Now, consider the case where the used games are not available, and, because people are not always willing to pay the new price for a game, only half of the people who would have bought used upconvert.* Thus, there is demand for 5 + ((3 + 1) / 2) = 7 copies. The retailer, being efficient, orders and sells 7 copies (maybe in two separate batches). The retailer has made a total of 7 sales off of 7 copies. The publishers get money on the retailer's order of 7 copies; developer royalties are based on 7 sales; etc.
Is it not patently obvious how this is better for the developers?
* In reality, we do not know what this number is. It is between 0% and 100%, with either extreme unlikely; thus, we pick the middle for ease of illustration.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
The two quantities aren't treated as the same pile, though. Stores like Gamestop typically hold a limited number of new games on hand for those customers that refuse to buy used. If enough new copies are bought, they'll need to order yet more new copies, regardless of how many used copies that they have on hand, because otherwise they'll lose a sale to that customer who'll walk in and demand a new, shrink-wrapped copy who'll take his business elsewhere if all they can provide is used copies.
Let's say a store is selling Gears of War 3. They have 5 new copies, and 20 used copies. Suddenly, the 5 new copies all get sold out, despite pushing and prodding by the staff for people to buy the used copies instead. Now they have 20 used copies and 0 new copies. Likely as not, they're going to order some new copies for the store in case more people come in who refuse to buy used.
There would be many, many less arguments on the topic if we were talking about something limited to mom & pop stores, pawn stores or Goozex or any other retailer than Gamestop. Gamers love to talk about how much they hate Gamestop so anti-used stuff usually ends up revolving around their opinions of that company in particular.
You know who depends on used game sales? A lot of smaller gaming shops. They don't get that much on new games compared to used. They don't have the sweet preorder deals that Gamestop can offer. A lot of them do well with the used stuff and may be the only place you can find classic games to buy at all. I have no problem with saying "preorder/buy new, get extra stuff" however once the game is inaccessible to a used purchaser it will hurt the non-Gamestop type of sellers.
I'd argue that it's actually a different product altogether (it, as you point out, isn't the same as the disk-based version).
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Basically people don't generally have a "used game" problem they have a "Gamestop" problem because that's all they know.
And if that store is part of some vast national retail chain then it's just going to get another copy delivered from central inventory.
And if you make the argument that eventually this may trigger more new games to be bought then you have to cope with the argument that the money people are paid for their second hand games might go towards buying more new games.
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.
I suppose you're right that it's is a different product altogether, and you're comparing new versus used based on the exact same product model, including packaging, content, etc. I don't think anyone sells the original Baldur's Gate like that anymore, though.
Look, the argument isn't hard to understand. Regardless of how many middleman there are, gaming stores typically keep a certain amount of new games on hand. It's regarded as a separate, distinct commodity from the used versions in terms of inventory. Buy enough new games, and those new games will need to be replaced, regardless of how many used versions are on hand.
Also, I don't see how your argument has anything to do with my assertion. If anything, if a person was intent on buying games with their money, they would've gone for a trade-in to start with.
I've bolded the contentious point here. Once again, the assumption that if a cheaper option disappeared, users would automatically buy a new copy of a title.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.