• 133 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#101 Posted by TooWalrus (13127 posts) -

Sometimes you've got to buy used games- they don't stay in print forever. I generally stick to eBay though, I don't really care to give GameStop my business, and I hate peeling all of their god damn stickers off.

#102 Posted by TyCobb (1944 posts) -

@QuistisTrepe said:

@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 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.

I specifically noted I wasn't going to go into in-store credit vs cash. This was a high level overview and I said I wasn't going to get into low level details. This works just fine as a basis of a single game. I don't see you actually proving me wrong anywhere. Like I said, prove me wrong.

The reason why used games hurt just as bad a piracy is this -- the game bought and sold above directly resulted in loss of sales. Piracy on the other hand cannot always result in loss of sales and is impossible to even begin to calculate what kind of damage it really does to the industry. Many people download stuff just because they can. You cannot say that someone who downloaded a game resulted in a loss of sale. You can say that 90% of the time someone who bought a used game over a new copy did result in a loss. When a used game is just a few dollars less than the original, it is safe to say that the person would have spent the extra money had a used copy not been available.

I gave my examples and you are now just being an ass. Prove me wrong or just stop replying. You have your opinion and I have my mine. The only difference is I showed why I believe it negatively affects the industry.

#103 Posted by Svenzon (711 posts) -

I do most of my gaming on PC now, so used isn't really an option anymore. However, when I buy console games I buy some used games. Usually when a new game comes out and I can't afford it at release, the used copies will be very affordable by the time I've gotten money to buy them. I also work at a Gamestop, so my employee discount brings the cost down more. I stay away from used copies of multiplayer-focused games with online passes though.

#104 Posted by Slag (3897 posts) -

The big (and dead wrong) assumption the anti-used game crowd makes is that every used game sale takes away from sales they would have had otherwise. That has has never been empirically proven to be remotely valid. If anything it's the reverse as used games can help spread awareness of a brand to people who otherwise might not have tried the game.

The fault of this lies entirely with the publisher/retailer model. They are beyond stupid to demonize their customer base so, when they are the ones who created the situation in the first place.

The strict 60 dollar entry price prohibits true market pricing from ever happening and it makes it difficult for them to ever maximize their revenue. Most games are too high, but there are some like Halo/Call of Duty that probably could move just as many copies at an even higher price point. Steam has shown what can happen when you allow market forces to help shape the price, the devs, especially indie and smaller guys, actually make more money. A lot more money.

Sooner or later publishers are going to realize they are going to need to win the mindshare war instead of the day 1 sales, the important thing will be to get their game into people's hands and then make money off subsequent purchases like DLC etc.

Is what it is, but that's what works in most consumer products.

Whether it be printers, razors, brita water filters you name it. The smart companies know the war is won by getting as many people into your product as cheaply as possible and then turning them into regular customers.

#105 Posted by _Chad (960 posts) -

I generally buy games new. I do buy used games when you can no longer get the game new for a reasonable price.

#106 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4513 posts) -

I buy used games on occasion. I think the last one I bought used was Dishonoured. Glad I did, too. Game's a piece of shit.

#107 Posted by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@TyCobb said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

@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 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.

I specifically noted I wasn't going to go into in-store credit vs cash. This was a high level overview and I said I wasn't going to get into low level details. This works just fine as a basis of a single game. I don't see you actually proving me wrong anywhere. Like I said, prove me wrong.

The reason why used games hurt just as bad a piracy is this -- the game bought and sold above directly resulted in loss of sales. Piracy on the other hand cannot always result in loss of sales and is impossible to even begin to calculate what kind of damage it really does to the industry. Many people download stuff just because they can. You cannot say that someone who downloaded a game resulted in a loss of sale. You can say that 90% of the time someone who bought a used game over a new copy did result in a loss. When a used game is just a few dollars less than the original, it is safe to say that the person would have spent the extra money had a used copy not been available.

I gave my examples and you are now just being an ass. Prove me wrong or just stop replying. You have your opinion and I have my mine. The only difference is I showed why I believe it negatively affects the industry.

LMFAO

Prove you wrong? I demolished your entire argument. You didn't even have a valid premise from which to build any kind of credible argument in the first place. Your examples consisted of numbers and bullshit metrics built upon baseless assumptions for the reasons that I've already pointed out.

Your claim that legitimate business transactions that benefit all parties involved (also cited earlier) have the same effect as pirating content is so improbably idiotic.

I see now that it is impossible to have an intellectual discussion with you.

#108 Posted by Sinusoidal (1259 posts) -

@Fredddi43 said:

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.

Actually, the music and movie industries did blame the boogeyman of used sales back in the day. Nothing ever came of it because the consumers were never on their sides with the issue. I wonder what on earth is different about the video game industry that's making video game consumers take the sides of the publishers. I guess the industry should be happy it's got such a rabid - for no good reason - fan base.

Seriously folks, keep forking over your $60 per game release to ensure EA keeps on winning its coveted "Golden Poo" award for being the worst company in America. That'll teach em!

Online
#109 Posted by Ben_H (3289 posts) -

For new games I only really buy stuff on PC so it is new only (except for the 3DS I bought, but there isn't a huge used market for it yet and I buy all my Nintendo stuff new usually). 
 
However, since I am building a SNES collection up right now buying used stuff is a bit of an inevitability. It is used or not at all.

#110 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

They are worse than piracy.

People who complain about pirates are amusing if they also buy used games, as neither of them give any money back. Let's not go into if trading in a game goes towards you buying a game new - you're still putting used games into circulation. And no I'm not going into the 'I bought used but then bought DLC' thing because that's so specific and is a per user basis, you can actually buy DLC on pirated 360 games too, so eh, should we also take that into account? No cus it's bullshit.

and before anyone jumps down my throat I don't give a fuck if you buy used or pirate. (I sometimes buy used myself if no online pass)

I'm just saying people should get off their high horses about people pirating while ignoring the bigger issue, if you love the industry as much as you claim when judging the unforgivable pirates you should take a harder look at used games. You don't have stores telling you to pirate, but you sure as hell have them asking you to buy used instead of new every time you go to the counter. (I have seen many people switch to the used copy - goodbye developer money)

Also, unlike piracy, a used game being bought over new actually IS a lost sale, because you can never prove if a pirate would have bought the game if piracy wasn't an option, but if someone goes to the counter with a new copy of Black Ops II and switches to a used copy for $5 cheaper that money is no longer going to the people behind the games' production. Simple.

Really if you buy a used game you are just paying 10x the amount you would if you bought a pirated copy from a market, and guess what? None of that money goes to the developer either way. So, what difference does it make?

Does it make me a bad person if I pirate a PS2 game instead of paying some grubby second hand store $10? Are you serious? Let's say it's a PS2 game that hasn't seen a re-release on PSN or a HD collection too, there's no moral ambiguity to this, I might as well just pirate it.

#111 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

I sell my games used online after I finish them, don't usually buy them used anymore thanks to the hassle of the online pass.

#112 Posted by Gerhabio (1975 posts) -

I mostly rent games.

Old games I'll buy used.

New games I just have to have I buy new, but these are few and far between.

#113 Posted by Sinusoidal (1259 posts) -

@Sooty said:

Does it make me a bad person if I pirate a PS2 game instead of paying some grubby second hand store $10? Are you serious? Let's say it's a PS2 game that hasn't seen a re-release on PSN or a HD collection too, there's no moral ambiguity to this, I might as well just pirate it.

Geeze. If it's only $10, why not pay the poor bastard running the grubby second hand store? His grubbiness makes him inconsequential? Dude's just trying to make a living in the industry.

Online
#114 Posted by TheHBK (5457 posts) -

They are for poor people like Kenny.

#115 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@Sinusoidal said:

@Sooty said:

Does it make me a bad person if I pirate a PS2 game instead of paying some grubby second hand store $10? Are you serious? Let's say it's a PS2 game that hasn't seen a re-release on PSN or a HD collection too, there's no moral ambiguity to this, I might as well just pirate it.

Geeze. If it's only $10, why not pay the poor bastard running the grubby second hand store? His grubbiness makes him inconsequential? Dude's just trying to make a living in the industry.

I mean stores like CeX, I dislike second hand stores because I know for a fact a lot of that stuff is robbed. My aunt's scumbag boyfriend used to rob people and trade their stuff in for cash at such stores. (He's in prison now, cunt)

They also seem to always smell of wet dog or old people.

#116 Posted by Village_Guy (2476 posts) -

Buying games used is one of the seven deadly sins, I think, aren't they? Whatever they are, they are bad, and I would rather support the developer than I would support some random store that makes money on selling games more than once.

#117 Edited by Sinusoidal (1259 posts) -

@Sooty: Ahh, so your decision to pirate games is based on your imagined moral superiority to your aunt's boyfriend who smells like wet dog.

Ironic... or something.

Online
#118 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@Sinusoidal said:

@Sooty: Ahh, so your decision to pirate games is based on your imagined moral superiority to your aunt's boyfriend who smells like wet dog.

Ironic.

Uhm, no, I said the stores smell like that. Which they do, gross.

My decision to pirate old games such as Yakuza 2 is fueled by this reason:

I cannot buy Yakuza 2 new. Anywhere. It is not possible. Developers and publishers don't get any of that money, so why should I pay some second hand store? (it's not a little guy store either, it's part of a huge chain here)

I still bought games like Persona 4 new as it's in print, and newer entries in the Yakuza series. (3, 4, Kenzan) so, what's the problem again?

and it's not imagined moral superiority, I have never stole anything in my life. I don't break into people's cars and take their GPS/Radios. (great, now someone is going to say that piracy is the same as theft)

#119 Posted by Phished0ne (2475 posts) -

Renting > Used

I never buy used games anymore since i started renting regularly. it may be as detrimental to devs as buying used, but here is the way it goes for me:

1) Rent console game

2)play single player during the rental

3) (If i finished it) Is the Multiplayer worth paying for the game? (if i didnt finish it) does it deserve a re-rental or a purchase to finish the single player?

This works great for me, i couple it with the idea that after getting the rental period i will never buy the game used. If I rented the game and played it enough to consider buying it I ALWAYS buy it new. Even if its a sale price or something. That way the decision i have to make is another rental(to save money) or buy the game(if i can afford it/i feel its deserving). But developers need to start getting smarter about ways to combat used games. Im still waiting for the Multiplayer-only 20 dollar off Modern Warfare disc to come out. I would imagine a lot of people purchasing used copies of FPS games are mostly trying to get it for cheap because they just want the multiplayer.

#120 Posted by murisan (1119 posts) -

Worse than piracy. If you're going to go buy a game used, you are worse than pirates in my eyes.

#121 Posted by mandude (2667 posts) -

The only reason I buy games new is because they're guaranteed to work, and I can rest assured that they weren't previously used as coasters. I don't see why some people feel that I should have some sort of obligation towards developers (and publishers) outside of the law, especially when they don't seem to oblige me with less-than-exorbitant prices.

As long as they want to make the claim that piracy is theft, they should have no problem with the resale of these (apparently) physical goods.

#122 Posted by believer258 (11554 posts) -

@QuistisTrepe said:

@TyCobb said:

@QuistisTrepe said:

@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 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.

I specifically noted I wasn't going to go into in-store credit vs cash. This was a high level overview and I said I wasn't going to get into low level details. This works just fine as a basis of a single game. I don't see you actually proving me wrong anywhere. Like I said, prove me wrong.

The reason why used games hurt just as bad a piracy is this -- the game bought and sold above directly resulted in loss of sales. Piracy on the other hand cannot always result in loss of sales and is impossible to even begin to calculate what kind of damage it really does to the industry. Many people download stuff just because they can. You cannot say that someone who downloaded a game resulted in a loss of sale. You can say that 90% of the time someone who bought a used game over a new copy did result in a loss. When a used game is just a few dollars less than the original, it is safe to say that the person would have spent the extra money had a used copy not been available.

I gave my examples and you are now just being an ass. Prove me wrong or just stop replying. You have your opinion and I have my mine. The only difference is I showed why I believe it negatively affects the industry.

LMFAO

Prove you wrong? I demolished your entire argument. You didn't even have a valid premise from which to build any kind of credible argument in the first place. Your examples consisted of numbers and bullshit metrics built upon baseless assumptions for the reasons that I've already pointed out.

Your claim that legitimate business transactions that benefit all parties involved (also cited earlier) have the same effect as pirating content is so improbably idiotic.

I see now that it is impossible to have an intellectual discussion with you.

For some reason, I've been included in this quote tree, and at least now I have something to say:

STOP BEING A FUCKING CUNT.

You didn't demolish his argument. You threw out some motherfucking words that are full of unverifiable bullshit.

"Yeah, but... but... people who buy used games then turn around and sell them to get brand new ones!" What are you, naive or just stupid? People who will spend $55 on a game instead of $60 might trade in their old games for another one, but they're trading it in for another used one. Those people rarely buy new games.

Now, I'm not against used games so I feel like I'm playing something of a devil's advocate here, but stop spewing bullshit. You just look like an ass.

#123 Posted by isomeri (1216 posts) -

I think I've bought less than 10 used games in my life. Recently I haven't bought any. I buy all my cheap games from Steam.

#124 Posted by Corvak (830 posts) -

What it boils down to, is that if I had missed out on Valkyria Chronicles, an out of print game only available used - I would have been pretty sad.

The argument about costs to maintain online play would make sense, except that the publisher was paid full price for every single copy of their game. Used sales only really hurt them within the first few months of release. Though personally, if I want to play a lot of online, i'll probably pre-order anyway.

I suggest a compromise, between publishers and retailers - a length of time following a game launch in which used games cannot be sold, unless the publisher does not provide enough new copies to meet demand. The length of this period would be decided through negotiation, by people who know more about sales numbers than I. Retailers that agree to this could then be given online passes to hand out to used game buyers for free.

#125 Posted by MrOldboy (868 posts) -

I pray they exist in 5-10 years.

Playing video games is extremely expensive. Frankly I feel publishers need to start catering to customers more. With as easy as it is to pirate games they need to treat their customers a lot better. I've skipped on games that had weird DLC schemes, online passes, etc. I just dont feel that the games are worth dealing with that shit. There are exceptions since sometimes you want to play a game and there's only one way to play it.

But when the next next gen consoles come out I fully expect them to come with even more hefty "buy it new" codes. Going as far as being serials like on PC.

My assumption is that it would become a system like steam. Buy the retail game, put the disc in your Xbox 1080 and it'll require you to install from the disc or download the game. Either way it'll require the serial to be entered before install or download. The still need the retail discs for users that aren't connected and for those whose bandwidth isn't that great.

The fear for me though is that the console makers with have ecosystems where the pricing isn't as variable as steam. Look at how cheap you get some games on steam for, the indie bundles, the steam sales, the daily/weekend sales. Do you really think Microsoft and Sony will be this customer friendly with their pricing? Highly doubt it. So then 2 year old games will still cost $30 unless you can get one of the few remaining retail copies that stores are clearing out.

If I were a console maker though I'd wait for the other competitors to make a move first on this.

#126 Posted by Ares42 (2546 posts) -

I can't help but think about how I used to pirate every single game when I was younger because they were all way too expensive to buy. If cheaper used games allow people to get used to buying games instead of pirating, that can't really be a bad thing? The whole situation is way more complicated than that though. The big question is "why is there such a big market for used games?". If you sit down and think about that for a bit you might come to realize that the problem is just as much the developers/publishers fault (and no, the solution to the problem isn't to put in gateways like online-passes etc).

Games are just made to be way too disposable, they want you to play a game, finish it and buy a new one next week. That way they make more money. But this also creates the "problem" of a used market. Basically they want to have the cake and eat it too. If the industry stopped making disposable games that we would much rather hang on to and come back to the used market would shrivel, but so would their normal sales too. The idea that they should be allowed to make disposable products and also deny re-sale is just absurd.

As for my own purchases, I tend to buy a few used games every year, but it's mostly because finding a new copy is way harder or because I at one point sold my game and realized I wanted to play it again :P

#127 Posted by Solidsnak (119 posts) -

At this point I pretty much only buy used games for old systems, stuff that I missed the first time around. For the new stuff I just wait until the prices drop after a few months or show up on steam for drastically reduced prices.

#128 Edited by ShatterShock (70 posts) -

I saw everbody should enjoy used games to the fullest, because in a decade or so all the new games will be digital downloads and/or locked onto cloud servers making the debate over used games and Gamestop pointless.

(Used game boxes are the worst though. How people can treat a $60 product so horribly is beyond me.)

#129 Posted by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@believer258 said:

STOP BEING A FUCKING CUNT.

You didn't demolish his argument. You threw out some motherfucking words that are full of unverifiable bullshit.

"Yeah, but... but... people who buy used games then turn around and sell them to get brand new ones!" What are you, naive or just stupid? People who will spend $55 on a game instead of $60 might trade in their old games for another one, but they're trading it in for another used one. Those people rarely buy new games.

Now, I'm not against used games so I feel like I'm playing something of a devil's advocate here, but stop spewing bullshit. You just look like an ass.

FUD and ad-hominems, I see the white flag has been raised as you don't appear to have any further argument to offer. Oh, and how exactly am I spewing bullshit? If I were wrong, then why do millions of new games still get sold every year? Console game sales are still putting up around $8 billion year-to-date in a recession, even as we near the end of this console generation to boot. It's pretty difficult to see used games as hurting developers with numbers like that. You're grasping at straws just for the sake of keeping an argument going and it shows.

I'm not being a cunt just because you cannot seem to grasp such a simple concept as used games cannot be available without having been purchased new at some point. The business model as it stands works and it benefits both the consumers and the game industry.

#130 Posted by BlatantNinja23 (930 posts) -

@awesomeusername said:

@Rainbowkisses: They're gross because

  • Publishers/devs make no money from them.

Except that when you buy a new game at somewhere like gamestop, your money isn't going to them either. They already got paid when they shipped their discs to gamestop or whatever third party distributor they are going through.

The only way they actually get your money is if you buy from their own site (most cases it's the same price as everywhere else so they actually get more money) , or it's a digital distributor like steam.

#131 Posted by jdh5153 (1034 posts) -

I'd rather have all games be downloadable with no physical copies. No one bitches about not being able to buy used games on Steam, people would get over it on consoles as well.

#132 Posted by Cerevisiae (75 posts) -

They have their place. But overall, PC sales are the better way to go. Green Man Gaming, GOG, Amazon, Steam, and Gamer's Gate can have some crazy awesome deals.

#133 Posted by nintendork666 (203 posts) -

Most of the games I buy are older so I have little choice but to buy used. However, if a game I really want comes out I'll not only buy it new, but I'll likely pre-order it too.