• 133 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Posted by Hunter5024 (5506 posts) -

Buying used games is totally fine, just don't be one of those jerks who buys a week old game for 55 bucks instead of 60, because if you can afford the former, you can afford the latter. I can usually get away with buying all of my games new because I rarely buy a game until I'm ready to play it, which cuts back a lot on backlog and the cost of the hobby.

#52 Posted by Xtrememuffinman (958 posts) -

I buy new whenever I realistically can- as in, when stores would still have the game new. I recently bought Metro 2033 used for the XBox, because  I'd have to go online to get that sucker new, and honestly, at this point it barely matters, right? Generally, that means within the year of release.
 
Also, buy 2 get 1's at Gamestop. Again, I usually get older games though.

#53 Posted by MetalGearSunny (6986 posts) -

It's great for the consumer but bad for the people who made the game.

#54 Edited by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@Rainbowkisses said:

Personally, while I do understand that it does harm the industry a bit,

And that's where I nearly stopped reading. Used games do not harm the industry. If they caused the slightest bit of harm to the industry, it wouldn't continue to grow every year. Used games haven't hurt the industry any more than secondhand books and public libraries have hurt the publishing industry or how pre-owned movies have hurt the film industry. They only serve to promote content, not hurt it as you implied in your point regarding sequels.

In a world where The Pirate Bay and its infringing links are a mere few clicks away, the secondhand market cannot hurt Big Content.

By that logic, Steam, gog.com, Amazon, Origin, eBay, Gamestop, craigslist, are all culpable in hurting the gaming industry. But they don't, do they? For all the people who whine about used games as though the gaming industry was the only such industry that has to cope with the secondhand market, I find it odd that the gaming industry continues to thrive like never before as it supports more platforms with each passing generation.

#55 Posted by Getz (2986 posts) -

When I buy used I try to go through peer-to-peer channels as much as possible. If I'm going to shaft the developers on their cut then at least I won't be giving it Gamestop who will then shaft the developers AND their consumers.

In a perfect world I would buy every game I loved directly from the people who made it but it's impossible. Sometimes I will buy a game brand new as a statement though, even if I don't think it's worth the money. Like when I bought Spec Ops: The Line because Yager deserves to be rewarded for being so ballsy.

#56 Posted by Getz (2986 posts) -

@QuistisTrepe said:

By that logic, Steam, gog.com, Amazon, Origin, eBay, Gamestop, craigslist, are all culpable in hurting the gaming industry. But they don't, do they? For all the people who whine about used games as though the gaming industry was the only such industry that has to cope with the secondhand market, I find it odd that the gaming industry continues to thrive like never before as it supports more platforms with each passing generation.

This is a terrible analogy. Steam, Good Old Games, and Origin are all direct links to developers and money on game sales gets chopped up even less than it would at retail. What are you smoking? Hell, Origin is even publisher-run!

#57 Edited by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@Getz said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

By that logic, Steam, gog.com, Amazon, Origin, eBay, Gamestop, craigslist, are all culpable in hurting the gaming industry. But they don't, do they? For all the people who whine about used games as though the gaming industry was the only such industry that has to cope with the secondhand market, I find it odd that the gaming industry continues to thrive like never before as it supports more platforms with each passing generation.

This is a terrible analogy. Steam, Good Old Games, and Origin are all direct links to developers and money on game sales gets chopped up even less than it would at retail. What are you smoking? Hell, Origin is even publisher-run!

Uh, so used games are bad, but Steam selling (for example) Max Payne 3 at 75% doesn't have the same effect? What are YOU smoking?

#58 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

i sometimes buy used when there aren't any at the store. i don't feel like going around looking towns looking for a game. sometimes it's good to buy used like there aren't any copies for older games. there aren't any new copies left so the only thing to do is buy used. another thing is sometimes new games that are old aren't worth a whole lot.

another thing, people take care of your games. i hate when i buy a used games to look at them to find a bunch of scratches and finger prints everywhere.

#59 Posted by believer258 (11558 posts) -

@QuistisTrepe said:

@Getz said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

By that logic, Steam, gog.com, Amazon, Origin, eBay, Gamestop, craigslist, are all culpable in hurting the gaming industry. But they don't, do they? For all the people who whine about used games as though the gaming industry was the only such industry that has to cope with the secondhand market, I find it odd that the gaming industry continues to thrive like never before as it supports more platforms with each passing generation.

This is a terrible analogy. Steam, Good Old Games, and Origin are all direct links to developers and money on game sales gets chopped up even less than it would at retail. What are you smoking? Hell, Origin is even publisher-run!

Uh, so used games are bad, but Steam selling (for example) Max Payne 3 at 75% doesn't have the same effect? What are YOU smoking?

Five people are willing to buy Max Payne 3 at $60 the day it comes out.

Fifty are willing to buy it at $15 a month later.

You tell me which one is more profitable. Let's not forget that actual physical copies cost something to produce, whereas the only cost for digital copies is the upkeep of servers and internet connections.

#60 Posted by MikeJFlick (435 posts) -

@BlatantNinja23: To add to what you said, it's not even the developers, it's the publishers, the devs got their money the moment the publishers invested the money into the game, per sale, devs get very little, it's the publishers and retailers that make money from retail sales.

#61 Edited by Nights (602 posts) -

@Rainbowkisses said:

Lately, being a broke college student, I have been buying used games more often than I usually do. Personally, while I do understand that it does harm the industry a bit, economically your first concern should be yourself. If you have enough disposable income to buy a new game and are willing to do so than that's great. However, if you decided to save a little and buy used I'm not going to lose any sleep at night.

I have heard the idiotic argument that buying used games is just as bad as piracy. While the situation of used games as a whole might be more harmful than piracy this is because the act of buying used games is more common.

Wow, you weren't kidding. Some people actually believe this. Buying used games is worse than piracy, Steam sales devalue IPs (according to EA). Can you spot the trend? It's an obvious attack on cheap products. Heaven forbid the consumer saves a bit of money! Sorry, but I'll buy whatever is cheapest. Be it a used game or a digital sale, I'll do what's best for my wallet. Steam realized this a long time ago, and guess what? They have a massive user base. I've purchased dozens of games off of Steam in the past few years because it's quick, easy and most importantly, cheap! I feel this is especially true nowadays where you have a seemingly endless supply of live streams, reviews and opinions at your disposal. Consumers have a lot of resources readily available to them when it comes time to make their next purchase.

#62 Posted by TyCobb (1944 posts) -

I'll say it again. Used games are just as bad a piracy. Unfortunately one is legal while the other isn't. The original developers/companies do not get money either way. Instead, we get companies like GameStop who makes billions off of selling used games for just a couple of dollars less than the original while others get in trouble for downloading a copy.

I wouldn't have an issue with used games IF it wasn't allowed to be sold in stores until they are no longer being produced or at the least until 3 months have passed so the games true sales can be recorded. Selling a used copy of a $60 game for $55 really hurts the industry in my book.

#63 Edited by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

@Getz said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

By that logic, Steam, gog.com, Amazon, Origin, eBay, Gamestop, craigslist, are all culpable in hurting the gaming industry. But they don't, do they? For all the people who whine about used games as though the gaming industry was the only such industry that has to cope with the secondhand market, I find it odd that the gaming industry continues to thrive like never before as it supports more platforms with each passing generation.

This is a terrible analogy. Steam, Good Old Games, and Origin are all direct links to developers and money on game sales gets chopped up even less than it would at retail. What are you smoking? Hell, Origin is even publisher-run!

Uh, so used games are bad, but Steam selling (for example) Max Payne 3 at 75% doesn't have the same effect? What are YOU smoking?

Five people are willing to buy Max Payne 3 at $60 the day it comes out.

Fifty are willing to buy it at $15 a month later.

You tell me which one is more profitable. Let's not forget that actual physical copies cost something to produce, whereas the only cost for digital copies is the upkeep of servers and internet connections.

That's not even the point. And besides, neither scenario is profitable. Without a secondhand market, the developers would actually take a bigger loss. It's already been stated in this thread, used games promote the industry and in order for there to have been a used game in the first place, it means someone already bought it new. I mean really, your fall back is that buying a game new in the bargain bin is so much better for the developer than buying it used? Marginal at best.

The largest retailers of used games are also the biggest promoters of new titles. All those sales people who are constantly pushing preorders in our faces are essentially giving free advertising for the developers (Gamestop is a prime example of this). The relationship between retailer and developer/publisher is symbiotic. If the developers and publishers don't like it, they can start financing their own outlets to sell and advertise their wares.

@TyCobb said:

I'll say it again. Used games are just as bad a piracy.

That has got to be the most insanely idiotic claim I have ever read on any message board anywhere. I'm genuinely unsure if you're merely trolling. I've rarely encountered a premise so intellectually bankrupt as that one. I'm actually somewhat troubled that there are those who would be so willing to sacrifice their own property rights for some corporation that couldn't give a shit about them.

#64 Posted by Grimluck343 (1146 posts) -

I own several used games and have never had a problem. Nothing wrong with saving money.

#65 Posted by believer258 (11558 posts) -

@QuistisTrepe said:

@believer258 said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

@Getz said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

By that logic, Steam, gog.com, Amazon, Origin, eBay, Gamestop, craigslist, are all culpable in hurting the gaming industry. But they don't, do they? For all the people who whine about used games as though the gaming industry was the only such industry that has to cope with the secondhand market, I find it odd that the gaming industry continues to thrive like never before as it supports more platforms with each passing generation.

This is a terrible analogy. Steam, Good Old Games, and Origin are all direct links to developers and money on game sales gets chopped up even less than it would at retail. What are you smoking? Hell, Origin is even publisher-run!

Uh, so used games are bad, but Steam selling (for example) Max Payne 3 at 75% doesn't have the same effect? What are YOU smoking?

Five people are willing to buy Max Payne 3 at $60 the day it comes out.

Fifty are willing to buy it at $15 a month later.

You tell me which one is more profitable. Let's not forget that actual physical copies cost something to produce, whereas the only cost for digital copies is the upkeep of servers and internet connections.

That's not even the point. And besides, neither scenario is profitable. With a secondhand market, the developers would actually take a bigger loss. It's already been stated in this thread, used games promote the industry and in order for there to have been a used game in the first place, it means someone already bought it new. I mean really, your fall back is that buying a game new in the bargain bin is so much better for the developer than buying it used? Marginal at best.

The largest retailers of used games are also the biggest promoters of new titles. All those sales people who are constantly pushing preorders in our faces are essentially giving free advertising for the developers (Gamestop is a prime example of this). The relationship between retailer and developer/publisher is symbiotic. If the developers and publishers don't like it, they can start financing their own outlets to sell and advertise their wares.

Have you ever fucking seen Steam? Or GOG? Or Origin? The first thing you see when you open any of them are advertisements. It takes half a second to look and see what's being promoted, and it's all over the place. Not just sales, brand-new games are shown with scrolling ads, same way you'd see posters on the way into Gamestop. Your reasoning for sales discounts being more hurtful than used games is laughable at best.

Again, five people buy Max Payne 3 at $60. Fifty buy it at fifteen. You do the math. You tell me which one is more profitable. Go ahead, pull up the calculator on your computer. Do it. Tell me what you get. And then tell me that you really believe that deep discounts actually hurt developers. It's right there. A substantial amount of people buy games they never would have even touched in the first place when Steam sales come along.

#66 Posted by TobbRobb (4549 posts) -

I only buy used if it is unavailable otherwise. I hate having things inherited or previously used. I want the games to be pristine and most importantly, mine. Which also means I'll never sell and rarely loan games either.

This is all very bad for me economically! But the publishers like me? XD

#67 Edited by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@believer258 said:

Have you ever fucking seen Steam? Or GOG? Or Origin? The first thing you see when you open any of them are advertisements. It takes half a second to look and see what's being promoted, and it's all over the place. Not just sales, brand-new games are shown with scrolling ads, same way you'd see posters on the way into Gamestop. Your reasoning for sales discounts being more hurtful than used games is laughable at best.

Again, five people buy Max Payne 3 at $60. Fifty buy it at fifteen. You do the math. You tell me which one is more profitable. Go ahead, pull up the calculator on your computer. Do it. Tell me what you get. And then tell me that you really believe that deep discounts actually hurt developers. It's right there. A substantial amount of people buy games they never would have even touched in the first place when Steam sales come along.

Why are you so hell bent on avoiding my argument? You're almost straw-manning. I'm not talking about digital distribution at any length, I only brought it up in the first place to counter the point of used games devaluing the industry and that's all. You're approaching this topic one-dimensionally.

Your bit about calculating the arbitrary figures of new and used titles is irrelevant to the discussion as it fails to cover variables which you have chosen to ignore. For starters, the developer and publisher already made their money by the physical copy of the game even appearing on store shelves. Beyond that, you're supporting the retailer with your purchase. The only way any gamer can directly support the developer is to pre-order a title and purchase any available DLC, and that's about it. This is why your hair-splitting about buying an arbitrary number of discounted new titles is irrelevant to the discussion, again, the developer/publisher already made that money in the months previous to that game hitting the bargain bin. For someone yaking about math, I'm amused that you overlooked something so rudimentary.

When gamers are trading in their old titles, they're putting that credit towards the latest hot title. Man, those "discounts" must have really hurt the developer as more new copies of a game are purchased with store credit, eh? Gee, I guess used games aren't so bad after all.

#68 Posted by RE_Player1 (7544 posts) -

Never buy used.

#69 Posted by TyCobb (1944 posts) -

@QuistisTrepe said:

@TyCobb said:

I'll say it again. Used games are just as bad a piracy.

That has got to be the most insanely idiotic claim I have ever read on any message board anywhere. I'm genuinely unsure if you're merely trolling. I've rarely encountered a premise so intellectually bankrupt as that one. I'm troubled somewhat that there are those who would be so willing to sacrifice their own property rights for some corporation that couldn't give a shit about them.

Really? That opinion is "intellectually bankrupt"? First off, what property rights are you talking about? You do not own the game when you buy it from a store. You merely own the plastic case and the plastic that was used to make the disc. You do not own the data on the disc. Game companies have said it many times before that you don't. On disc DLC ring any bells? I am sorry, but there is something wrong when a company can purchase a game for a few dollars and then undercut the new one by just a few dollars. They made money selling it new, buying it back for a couple of dollars, selling it at practically new price, then possibly doing the same process all over again with the same game. I honestly don't see why that should be allowed when you don't own the data.

Let's make a quick scenario and you tell me where I am wrong in the fact that used games don't put some sort of dent. Of course these numbers arbitrary, but probably a fair estimate.

  • WEEK 1
  • New game is released for $60. GameStop buys for $45 a unit. Made up number, but probably about right for their size. (Mom and Pop Shop probably would pay $50-55)
  • It sells 1,000,000 copies in the first week.
  • $60,000,000 went into the system.
  • Publisher @ $45,000,000 / GameStop @ $15,000,000
  • WEEK 2
  • Let's say 50,000 units are sold back to GameStop for $30. (Not going into the whole cash vs in-store credit. Too low level for this.)
  • GameStop @ $13,500,000
  • Week stats are in: 500,000 games sold and the 50,000 used units were also sold at $55.
  • Publisher @ $67,500,000 / GameStop @ $23,750,000 - The publisher has already lost an estimated 50,000 sales because GameStop was cheaper by $5. That's a possible $2,250,000 they didn't get in the first week.
  • This time a total of 80,000 copies were sold back to GameStop since the game has been out for 2 weeks and more on the market.
  • GameStop @ $21,350,000
  • WEEK 3
  • Third and final example week. Game sold 300,000 units. GameStop sold another 80,000 used units.
  • Publisher @ $81,000,000 / GameStop @ $30,250,000 - Another $4,400,000 possible loss.
  • The publisher in 3 weeks just lost an estimated 180,000 units for a possible total of $6,650,000.

Now I am sure I will get lots of shit for how wrong this is, but honestly, I don't think I am far off. Yes, these numbers are arbitrary and only act as if GameStop is the sole retailer, but can you honestly tell me with a straight face that over the course of a game still being produced and shipped to retailers, that they aren't hurt by used game sales? Well then I say bullshit to you sir/madam and I want you to show me how they are not. A game still having new copies available on the shelf over a 1 year period definitely gets screwed by used game sales. Especially when we are talking about games that may not have all that much replay value. Sure it had a 15 hour+ campaign, but if there's nothing more than that and a possible requirement of it to sell X copies in order for a sequel to be funded. I am not saying you shouldn't be able to sell used games to people, but on a massive scale for a new game it hurts.

#70 Posted by Little_Socrates (5675 posts) -

In my lifestyle, where I care a lot about what games get made and playing games when they come out to join the conversation about them, I pretty much feel obliged to buy them new most of the time. I want games like Deadly Premonition and Rayman: Origins to get made, so I'm happy to help those sales figures, and generally anything I buy is informing me in some way.

That said, I've also got a copy of Um Jammer Lammy sitting next to me that I picked up last week, along with Twisted Metal Black, F-Zero GX, and Kinect Adventures!, and I got them for $2.50 each. Used game sales can be sweet. I'm going to completely take advantage of the launches of the next two consoles, when games like Resident Evil 6 and Soulcalibur V can finally be picked up for $10 or less. I like to collect games and go back to old consoles and reminisce, and there's a lot of very interesting games for the 360 and PS3 that I want to play, but don't honestly feel like investing in over Far Cry 3. I got Brutal Legend for roughly the same reason. Will I play it? Probably, someday. But I'm not stressed about when because I got it for the price of a burrito. And, yeah, that's some upper-middle-class shit, and most people shouldn't be making their decisions like a kind-of-materialistic college student. But we all buy stupid shit; my usual excuse is that I don't drink, and my money goes elsewhere. And purchasing shit still keeps me from buying everything on impulse, which is what I'd probably wind up with if I pirated games. So I'm happy to spend a bit of money on used games pretty often, and I'll probably keep it up for a long time.

Basically, as much as I care about this industry, Macklemore's still right, and getting stuff on the actual cheap is fucking awesome.

#71 Posted by egg (1450 posts) -

the industry makes no sense. you dont know if a game is worth buying without playing it so the idea of games selling well at all doesnt make sense for a number of reasons.

#72 Posted by AndyAce83 (118 posts) -

I never buy used games (as I find it discussing to have something beloning to a stranger) but I do buy a lot of old games. Old games cost about 10$ which often is the same price as used cost. But the game have to be atleast 1-2 years old before they fall that much in price, even longer for popular games.

#73 Posted by Cold_Wolven (2205 posts) -

I only really go for used when I'm looking for old retro games off Ebay otherwise I know where I can get new games cheap which funnily enough is from the same place.

#74 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

If I can't afford it new, I wait and save for new. I think it sucks that people aren't getting paid for what they are doing. That's what happens when you buy used games. Period. Is it evil? Nope! But if you are buying a game that is still sold new and isn't hard to find new, you are taking away profit from people who make the awesome things you enjoy so much and get nothing useful from, just entertainment and good times. Unless you're an idiot, and buy shitty games.

That said, I don't see people who buy used as awful people. I don't feel they are the gamer equivalent of mercenaries like pirates, but I do think that if you can save up to support a game by buying it new (which does more than just give the money to the developer), you absolutely should. I've been in that "I HAVE NO MONEY" place, and I bought games new whenever I could. There were some exceptions. But those were almost always things that weren't available new. If I could do it without a freakin job and living in a pretty poor family (The only reason I had a 360 is because I saved up for two years). And now, I have a job and have a good bit of disposable income, and I throw my money at developers. Happily. Because I know that while I don't give a fuck about getting money in the military, I'd be happy to go in just for room and board, once I'm out, I want to be paid for what I do so I can start a family and provide them with security and enjoy my freedom to make money. I'd be pretty bummed if a friend of mine bought my game used.

You wanna save money? Buy consoles used. They are already sold at a loss, so you're doing the big three a favor at that point because they make all their damn money on everything BUT the core hardware.

@BlatantNinja23: This applies only to the first run, and none the less, the number of copies the retailers order is connected to their stats on used games. They know they only need to buy a lot early on because after that they can start just put used copies up more and more. If people didn't buy used copies, then more new copies would be ordered by retailers. This is a pretty sensible thing at first glance, but when you get into how business really works, it kind of falls apart.

#75 Edited by WEB_War4 (111 posts) -

I generally only buy new if it's possible to find. With that, nobody ever plays new games. It's impossible. As soon as that wrapper is off, it's a used game. You don't want that copy from GameStop that has the wrapper missing. "It was put straight in the sleeve." Chances are it was, but to everyone else: if it isn't sealed, it's used. I still have some new games, they're several years old, but still sealed.

#76 Posted by JudgeDread (571 posts) -

a company that cannot survive in a market that has had used game sales since the beginning of that market does not deserve to survive

no sympathy for incompetence

used sales and right of ownership has existed for thousands of years, if you cannot adapt to that then fuck off. go starve, i do not care.

#77 Posted by Gamer_152 (14049 posts) -

I'm a student as well, and I prefer to buy games new, asmany used game discs and boxes are often scratched, scuffed, or broken, but sometimes I have to buy stuff used. I don't believe for a second that anything is wrong with it, and plenty of other industries have the sale of used products happen within them without it being seen as "harm" being done, nobody compares the purchasing of second-hand furniture or automobiles to theft. The way I see it, used sales are less something detrimental happening to publishers, and more just not as many good things happening to publishers as they'd like. Used games didn't become this huge boogieman until publishers worked out that they might be able to profit from them, control the market for them, or start wiping them out, and most of the companies most aggressive towards used games aren't the smaller ones who need the money more, they're largely the huge industries super-publishers who are already rolling in cash like EA and Activision.

Moderator
#78 Posted by SMTDante89 (2541 posts) -

I generally go for new games now because I don't like to risk getting a messed up copy of a game and then go back to the store to return it. About the only time I buy used is if there's a huge price difference or if the game is out of print.

#79 Posted by FritzDude (2249 posts) -

Never have, & never will. I need all my games to be New & in Perfect condition. Used games can have everything from a broken disc to a smelly cover. No thank you. It would be different with older games, but I don't purchase or collect older games. Lately I've been purchasing all my games digitally, new of course.

#80 Posted by Sinusoidal (1261 posts) -

I'm with JudgeDread. The only reason publishers are getting away with selling us a slab of vinyl and a leaflet full of ads for 60 bucks in the first place is because that price point is a holdover from when you got a cartridge and a fat-ass manual for that much money. As long as gamers are willing to pay it, they'll keep charging it.

Used game sales haven't forced them to make the prices more reasonable yet, if anything, we need more of em.

It's too bad the developers get caught in the middle, but it's not like they're making anywhere near the profit that the publishers are.

#81 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

All the games I own are digital, so I don't really think about used games.

#82 Posted by cmblasko (1107 posts) -

I try to stay away from used games, but I completely understand that not everyone is in the position to be able to buy all of their games new. Games really should launch at cheaper prices, but it would take a lot of ingenuity to make that feasible for big titles.

#83 Posted by JohnstonThistle (42 posts) -

I love them except when assholes dirty up the discs and boxes. My games are always kept in mint condition so I'm pissed to see some in my collection that look like the previous owner dragged them through mud.

#84 Posted by Tesla (1902 posts) -

I haven't purchased a used game in a number of years for three reasons: Steam, Amazon, and patience. There are a handful of games I buy brand new full price, everything else I just wait until I can buy it brand new for dirt cheap.

I will forever cherish my childhood memories of wheeling and dealing at Gamestop to get games when I didn't have a job. But when I became a man, I put away childish things.

#85 Posted by Lysergica33 (517 posts) -

I'm not a huge fan of buying used. I mostly try and only buy games that I feel certain will provide me with entertainment to years to come, and I want those copies to be fundamentally mine. I took the plastic wrap, so it's my shit.

I have no problems buying used though. I occasionally buy a few cheapies if I'm feeling bored. Used games are a great boon when it comes to stuff like that.

As far as how buying used affects the industry? I couldn't give two shits. The Publishers that are currently monopolising this industry are all rich as hell and don't need any more of my money to stay afloat. I owe them nothing, I owe the industry nothing. You don't get a carpenter coming up to you when you're trying to sell a table and chairs you bought off him saying HEY I NEED A PORTION OF THE MONEY YOU MAKE SELLING THAT TO HELP ME STAY AFLOAT, do you? No, of course you fucking don't, that'd be absurd, because once you've bought the item, it's your property and you can do whatever you want with it. You can feed it to your cats, you could play frisbee with it... Hell, you could even pop it into your gaming machine of choice and actually PLAY the damn thing! OR... You could sell it on or trade it in, and you should be able to do all of this without some suit and tie wearing schmuck with dollar signs in his eyes leaning over your back going "hey, we deserve a cut of that!" and if you think they have ANY right to act the way they do over used games, you're a moron.

#86 Posted by Dezztroy (769 posts) -

If you think used games aren't as bad as piracy, you're nothing but a hypocrite. Or just blind to the issue.
 
As long as you know that you're hurting the industry and can admit to it, do whatever you want I guess.

#87 Edited by RenegadeDoppelganger (406 posts) -

@Lysergica33 said:

I'm not a huge fan of buying used. I mostly try and only buy games that I feel certain will provide me with entertainment to years to come, and I want those copies to be fundamentally mine. I took the plastic wrap, so it's my shit.

I have no problems buying used though. I occasionally buy a few cheapies if I'm feeling bored. Used games are a great boon when it comes to stuff like that.

As far as how buying used affects the industry? I couldn't give two shits. The Publishers that are currently monopolising this industry are all rich as hell and don't need any more of my money to stay afloat. I owe them nothing, I owe the industry nothing. You don't get a carpenter coming up to you when you're trying to sell a table and chairs you bought off him saying HEY I NEED A PORTION OF THE MONEY YOU MAKE SELLING THAT TO HELP ME STAY AFLOAT, do you? No, of course you fucking don't, that'd be absurd, because once you've bought the item, it's your property and you can do whatever you want with it. You can feed it to your cats, you could play frisbee with it... Hell, you could even pop it into your gaming machine of choice and actually PLAY the damn thing! OR... You could sell it on or trade it in, and you should be able to do all of this without some suit and tie wearing schmuck with dollar signs in his eyes leaning over your back going "hey, we deserve a cut of that!" and if you think they have ANY right to act the way they do over used games, you're a moron.

You should probably read some of the legal stuff that comes with the games you buy.

You don't legally 'own' any of the games you've purchased, you own non-transferable licence to play them. Gears of War and all the code, assets, engine, etc doesn't become your property simply because you've paid $60 for a disc with a copy on it, Epic and Microsoft still retain all the rights to their game and are issuing you a licence to access it for the purposes of enjoyment. The licence does not allow you to turn around and sell the game to someone else because it technically wasn't yours to sell.

#88 Posted by Fredddi43 (308 posts) -

I totally don't have a problem with buying used games. If they're cheaper than I will most likely go for it, if the game in question doesn't have that idiotic online pass thing. The whole argument of "uh, but, the publisher doesn't get any money from used sales" is beside me, cause buying used stuff is as old as buying new stuff, and no one ever complained about used books, movies, CDs, TVs, or anything. I see their point, but I don't find it fair as a customer, expecting me to go out of my way to give them money and at the same time throwing out Day 1 DLC left and right.

#89 Posted by Lysergica33 (517 posts) -

@RenegadeDoppelganger said:

@Lysergica33 said:

I'm not a huge fan of buying used. I mostly try and only buy games that I feel certain will provide me with entertainment to years to come, and I want those copies to be fundamentally mine. I took the plastic wrap, so it's my shit.

I have no problems buying used though. I occasionally buy a few cheapies if I'm feeling bored. Used games are a great boon when it comes to stuff like that.

As far as how buying used affects the industry? I couldn't give two shits. The Publishers that are currently monopolising this industry are all rich as hell and don't need any more of my money to stay afloat. I owe them nothing, I owe the industry nothing. You don't get a carpenter coming up to you when you're trying to sell a table and chairs you bought off him saying HEY I NEED A PORTION OF THE MONEY YOU MAKE SELLING THAT TO HELP ME STAY AFLOAT, do you? No, of course you fucking don't, that'd be absurd, because once you've bought the item, it's your property and you can do whatever you want with it. You can feed it to your cats, you could play frisbee with it... Hell, you could even pop it into your gaming machine of choice and actually PLAY the damn thing! OR... You could sell it on or trade it in, and you should be able to do all of this without some suit and tie wearing schmuck with dollar signs in his eyes leaning over your back going "hey, we deserve a cut of that!" and if you think they have ANY right to act the way they do over used games, you're a moron.

Except that you don't technically 'own' the games you've purchased, you own non-transferable licence to play them. Those enormous legal prompts you receive when installing games state that they are not selling you their entire game part and parcel and waiving whatever rights they had over it (like a carpenter would a chair he sells), they are issuing you a licence to own and and install the the game for the purposes of playing it, but nothing else.

Quite frankly I don't really care what the small print has to say about my ownership of the product. In the real world the case, manual and disk sit upon my shelf in my current place of residence. Whether the legal jargon says I own it or not doesn't really matter to me because legal jargon is full of shit. Sorry bud.

#90 Edited by Laiv162560asse (487 posts) -

@Lysergica33 said:

@RenegadeDoppelganger said:

@Lysergica33 said:

I'm not a huge fan of buying used. I mostly try and only buy games that I feel certain will provide me with entertainment to years to come, and I want those copies to be fundamentally mine. I took the plastic wrap, so it's my shit.

I have no problems buying used though. I occasionally buy a few cheapies if I'm feeling bored. Used games are a great boon when it comes to stuff like that.

As far as how buying used affects the industry? I couldn't give two shits. The Publishers that are currently monopolising this industry are all rich as hell and don't need any more of my money to stay afloat. I owe them nothing, I owe the industry nothing. You don't get a carpenter coming up to you when you're trying to sell a table and chairs you bought off him saying HEY I NEED A PORTION OF THE MONEY YOU MAKE SELLING THAT TO HELP ME STAY AFLOAT, do you? No, of course you fucking don't, that'd be absurd, because once you've bought the item, it's your property and you can do whatever you want with it. You can feed it to your cats, you could play frisbee with it... Hell, you could even pop it into your gaming machine of choice and actually PLAY the damn thing! OR... You could sell it on or trade it in, and you should be able to do all of this without some suit and tie wearing schmuck with dollar signs in his eyes leaning over your back going "hey, we deserve a cut of that!" and if you think they have ANY right to act the way they do over used games, you're a moron.

Except that you don't technically 'own' the games you've purchased, you own non-transferable licence to play them. Those enormous legal prompts you receive when installing games state that they are not selling you their entire game part and parcel and waiving whatever rights they had over it (like a carpenter would a chair he sells), they are issuing you a licence to own and and install the the game for the purposes of playing it, but nothing else.

Quite frankly I don't really care what the small print has to say about my ownership of the product. In the real world the case, manual and disk sit upon my shelf in my current place of residence. Whether the legal jargon says I own it or not doesn't really matter to me because legal jargon is full of shit. Sorry bud.

Also, national consumer law supersedes contract law so 'small print' on a product is mostly irrelevant when it comes to waiving your pre-existing rights. Licenses, by law, now have to be transferable in many (ie. EU) countries, and in most other countries the license is transferable if the license is tied to ownership of the physical product.

#91 Posted by Salarn (463 posts) -

The problem I have with used games, is that it corrupts sales numbers.

It's very hard to get an accurate count of how many copies of your game sold, and if you're looking to make a second game, not even a sequel, it's important to have the big number to present someone when looking for funding to prove you can make a game that sold. Not only that because it's so nebulous it can be blamed for all the woes in a games sales numbers when coupled with unknown piracy numbers. Everyone has to guess what these numbers are and that's very subjective.

The bottom line in all of this, is well the bottom line. You can't force someone to place more value on an item that they are willing to. A new game is "worth" $60 because that's what the person making says it's worth. Marketing and sales people arn't dumb, the first 30 days a game is out it's going to sell a significant number of copies, and people who want the game are going to pay whatever the cost for the title when it comes out. As sales drop off, the price shifts down to encourage people to buy who had the value set lower. This is how steam does it, and with razor precision.

Steam has the model where no price is to low to make a profit, this however is only possible because there is no 'used' market on steam and very little piracy. So the creators will get a cut (worst case is ~70%) and it's all revenue because it's a digital sale so there is no disk to print, box to ship, and shelf space to buy. Compared to a physical copy where the the price to put it on the shelf makes a steam like discount almost impossible.

Is buying used as bad as piracy? That's a moral question and a world view opinion. It's 'as bad' in the case of money going to the publisher, however some stores like do give a kick back to publishers for used sales (Not Gamestop). As far as where the money goes? I personally would like to get my fraction of a cent for every new copy sold, I don't know what contract people are signing when they make games for a big publishing house, but somewhere in the fine print there better be a profit sharing line. At least in the case of used games, people are at least spending money, they may not know how they spend their money might effect game production in the big picture. Pirates know they are stealing and have made their peace with it.

Developers have been fighting piracy, some better than others. We have online passes, season passes, early and frequent DLC (free or paid) anything we can do to keep you from selling back a game in the first couple months and then sales have dropped and prices have been cut and the wheel of time turns.

#92 Posted by NegativeCero (2972 posts) -

I'm the same as you in that I'm a poor college student. I usually wait until games go down and price, which usuall y happens quickly. Otherwise I'll buy used.

#93 Posted by ki11tank (675 posts) -

used games are fine because most games sure as flying fuck aren't worth $60 these clowns try and charge people. there are clearly games worth $60 or possibly more but very few.

you give me a way to play a game for a fair price up front and i'll pay it. beating piracy or used games selling will ultimately come down to making it a better and easier experience, or a video game corporate nazi like world where it is punishable by death....

#94 Posted by ShockD (2393 posts) -
@Ravenlight said:

All the games I own are digital, so I don't really think about used games.

Ditto.
#95 Posted by Alexander (1721 posts) -

@Dezztroy said:

If you think used games aren't as bad as piracy, you're nothing but a hypocrite. Or just blind to the issue. As long as you know that you're hurting the industry and can admit to it, do whatever you want I guess.

You're being a bit simplistic. The dev/publisher doesn't see direct income from a second-hand sale but the money is one way or another going to people who buy games, the industry sees a return. Not as much as a new sale but it's better than no sale or piracy.

#96 Posted by 2HeadedNinja (1526 posts) -

Gamers are a really weird bunch. Nobody would ever think twice about buying a book, DVD, music CD or car thats used. But when it comes to games we guilt ourselfs into thinking its a terrible, immoral thing to buy a used game. The publishers sure did a great job in brainwashing us. Buying a used game is perfectly fine. Its one copy of the game someone used and thats used by you now. The publisher already got their money for that game.

Dont let them guilt you ... thats how we got the online-pass stuff. And it will only get worse as time goes on.

Online
#97 Posted by RenegadeDoppelganger (406 posts) -

@Lysergica33 said:

@RenegadeDoppelganger said:

@Lysergica33 said:

I'm not a huge fan of buying used. I mostly try and only buy games that I feel certain will provide me with entertainment to years to come, and I want those copies to be fundamentally mine. I took the plastic wrap, so it's my shit.

I have no problems buying used though. I occasionally buy a few cheapies if I'm feeling bored. Used games are a great boon when it comes to stuff like that.

As far as how buying used affects the industry? I couldn't give two shits. The Publishers that are currently monopolising this industry are all rich as hell and don't need any more of my money to stay afloat. I owe them nothing, I owe the industry nothing. You don't get a carpenter coming up to you when you're trying to sell a table and chairs you bought off him saying HEY I NEED A PORTION OF THE MONEY YOU MAKE SELLING THAT TO HELP ME STAY AFLOAT, do you? No, of course you fucking don't, that'd be absurd, because once you've bought the item, it's your property and you can do whatever you want with it. You can feed it to your cats, you could play frisbee with it... Hell, you could even pop it into your gaming machine of choice and actually PLAY the damn thing! OR... You could sell it on or trade it in, and you should be able to do all of this without some suit and tie wearing schmuck with dollar signs in his eyes leaning over your back going "hey, we deserve a cut of that!" and if you think they have ANY right to act the way they do over used games, you're a moron.

Except that you don't technically 'own' the games you've purchased, you own non-transferable licence to play them. Those enormous legal prompts you receive when installing games state that they are not selling you their entire game part and parcel and waiving whatever rights they had over it (like a carpenter would a chair he sells), they are issuing you a licence to own and and install the the game for the purposes of playing it, but nothing else.

Quite frankly I don't really care what the small print has to say about my ownership of the product. In the real world the case, manual and disk sit upon my shelf in my current place of residence. Whether the legal jargon says I own it or not doesn't really matter to me because legal jargon is full of shit. Sorry bud.

It's cool, no need to apologize. Just know this mentality is the cause for publishers current obsession with launch DLC, tiered pre-order bonuses, collector's editions, online passes, crippling DRM, and a general bad attitude towards owners of used games. It's real easy to chalk it up to the greed of 'Big Pub' but the consumer bears some responsibility for the current state of the industry.

#98 Posted by Alexander (1721 posts) -

@RenegadeDoppelganger said:

@Lysergica33 said:

Quite frankly I don't really care what the small print has to say about my ownership of the product. In the real world the case, manual and disk sit upon my shelf in my current place of residence. Whether the legal jargon says I own it or not doesn't really matter to me because legal jargon is full of shit. Sorry bud.

It's cool, no need to apologize. Just know this mentality is the cause for publishers current obsession with launch DLC, tiered pre-order bonuses, collector's editions, online passes, crippling DRM, and a general bad attitude towards owners of used games. It's real easy to chalk it up to the greed of 'Big Pub' but the consumer bears some responsibility for the current state of the industry.

You make it sound like the "general bad attitude" could be different somehow. Tell me how to sell a used game "responsibly" so a publisher is happy.

#99 Edited by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@TyCobb said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

@TyCobb said:

I'll say it again. Used games are just as bad a piracy.

That has got to be the most insanely idiotic claim I have ever read on any message board anywhere. I'm genuinely unsure if you're merely trolling. I've rarely encountered a premise so intellectually bankrupt as that one. I'm troubled somewhat that there are those who would be so willing to sacrifice their own property rights for some corporation that couldn't give a shit about them.

Really? That opinion is "intellectually bankrupt"? First off, what property rights are you talking about? You do not own the game when you buy it from a store. You merely own the plastic case and the plastic that was used to make the disc. You do not own the data on the disc. Game companies have said it many times before that you don't. On disc DLC ring any bells? I am sorry, but there is something wrong when a company can purchase a game for a few dollars and then undercut the new one by just a few dollars. They made money selling it new, buying it back for a couple of dollars, selling it at practically new price, then possibly doing the same process all over again with the same game. I honestly don't see why that should be allowed when you don't own the data.

Let's make a quick scenario and you tell me where I am wrong in the fact that used games don't put some sort of dent. Of course these numbers arbitrary, but probably a fair estimate.

  • WEEK 1
  • New game is released for $60. GameStop buys for $45 a unit. Made up number, but probably about right for their size. (Mom and Pop Shop probably would pay $50-55)
  • It sells 1,000,000 copies in the first week.
  • $60,000,000 went into the system.
  • Publisher @ $45,000,000 / GameStop @ $15,000,000
  • WEEK 2
  • Let's say 50,000 units are sold back to GameStop for $30. (Not going into the whole cash vs in-store credit. Too low level for this.)
  • GameStop @ $13,500,000
  • Week stats are in: 500,000 games sold and the 50,000 used units were also sold at $55.
  • Publisher @ $67,500,000 / GameStop @ $23,750,000 - The publisher has already lost an estimated 50,000 sales because GameStop was cheaper by $5. That's a possible $2,250,000 they didn't get in the first week.
  • This time a total of 80,000 copies were sold back to GameStop since the game has been out for 2 weeks and more on the market.
  • GameStop @ $21,350,000
  • WEEK 3
  • Third and final example week. Game sold 300,000 units. GameStop sold another 80,000 used units.
  • Publisher @ $81,000,000 / GameStop @ $30,250,000 - Another $4,400,000 possible loss.
  • The publisher in 3 weeks just lost an estimated 180,000 units for a possible total of $6,650,000.

Now I am sure I will get lots of shit for how wrong this is, but honestly, I don't think I am far off. Yes, these numbers are arbitrary and only act as if GameStop is the sole retailer, but can you honestly tell me with a straight face that over the course of a game still being produced and shipped to retailers, that they aren't hurt by used game sales? Well then I say bullshit to you sir/madam and I want you to show me how they are not. A game still having new copies available on the shelf over a 1 year period definitely gets screwed by used game sales. Especially when we are talking about games that may not have all that much replay value. Sure it had a 15 hour+ campaign, but if there's nothing more than that and a possible requirement of it to sell X copies in order for a sequel to be funded. I am not saying you shouldn't be able to sell used games to people, but on a massive scale for a new game it hurts.

And you conveniently left out that the store credit handed out by the retailer is typically used towards another copy of a new title. But this would undercut your entire argument, so I can see why you leave this out. Your examples also assume that 100% of the copies published would have been sold if used games weren't an option and this is never the case, making your examples pretty much DOA as far as this discussion goes. A new game that goes unsold isn't a loss for the developer, especially when the developer/publisher already got paid when those copies got shipped to the retailer.

The property rights I was referring to is the Doctrine of First Sale, which I'm pretty sure you have used at some point.

Oh by the way tiger, you still haven't explained how used games are just as bad as piracy. So let me see if I've got this straight, purchasing a new game and then reselling it to someone to use that money towards a copy of another new game is as bad as someone downloading an .iso file to play on a modded console and are in fact that same thing? Wow, that's just.............extraordinary.

#100 Posted by Lysergica33 (517 posts) -

@RenegadeDoppelganger said:

@Lysergica33 said:

@RenegadeDoppelganger said:

@Lysergica33 said:

I'm not a huge fan of buying used. I mostly try and only buy games that I feel certain will provide me with entertainment to years to come, and I want those copies to be fundamentally mine. I took the plastic wrap, so it's my shit.

I have no problems buying used though. I occasionally buy a few cheapies if I'm feeling bored. Used games are a great boon when it comes to stuff like that.

As far as how buying used affects the industry? I couldn't give two shits. The Publishers that are currently monopolising this industry are all rich as hell and don't need any more of my money to stay afloat. I owe them nothing, I owe the industry nothing. You don't get a carpenter coming up to you when you're trying to sell a table and chairs you bought off him saying HEY I NEED A PORTION OF THE MONEY YOU MAKE SELLING THAT TO HELP ME STAY AFLOAT, do you? No, of course you fucking don't, that'd be absurd, because once you've bought the item, it's your property and you can do whatever you want with it. You can feed it to your cats, you could play frisbee with it... Hell, you could even pop it into your gaming machine of choice and actually PLAY the damn thing! OR... You could sell it on or trade it in, and you should be able to do all of this without some suit and tie wearing schmuck with dollar signs in his eyes leaning over your back going "hey, we deserve a cut of that!" and if you think they have ANY right to act the way they do over used games, you're a moron.

Except that you don't technically 'own' the games you've purchased, you own non-transferable licence to play them. Those enormous legal prompts you receive when installing games state that they are not selling you their entire game part and parcel and waiving whatever rights they had over it (like a carpenter would a chair he sells), they are issuing you a licence to own and and install the the game for the purposes of playing it, but nothing else.

Quite frankly I don't really care what the small print has to say about my ownership of the product. In the real world the case, manual and disk sit upon my shelf in my current place of residence. Whether the legal jargon says I own it or not doesn't really matter to me because legal jargon is full of shit. Sorry bud.

It's cool, no need to apologize. Just know this mentality is the cause for publishers current obsession with launch DLC, tiered pre-order bonuses, collector's editions, online passes, crippling DRM, and a general bad attitude towards owners of used games. It's real easy to chalk it up to the greed of 'Big Pub' but the consumer bears some responsibility for the current state of the industry.

Yes, the consumer does bear some responsibility for the current state of the industry. You know why? Because people buy into the launch DLC's, the tiered pre-order bonuses, the shitty collectors editions and games with online passes. I, however, do not. I buy my games brand new from whatever place will get the dev the most money that I can still get a physical copy from. I buy games I believe to be worth supporting and rarely, if ever, buy Ubisoft, Activision or EA games. I don't think I'm the one that needs to be held accountable here. I respect video games as an art-form and don't want to see them pissed on and take action to make sure I am not a person that is contributing to the consistent stream of urine that pollutes our collective swimming pool.

But that doesn't change that I view my games as being MY games. I bought them with the money that I worked for, therefore they're mine. Most laws are completely full of shit and the laws in place that essentially allow us permissions to play games rather than allowing us to truly own them are full of shit too. So I ignore them.