#151 Posted by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@Lagaroth said:

I'm pretty sure CD Project Red owns GoG, so having that isn't really surprising.

I honestly didn't even know that until you and someone else pointed it out.

#152 Edited by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@Grimluck343 said:

@Jay444111 said:

"Digital distrubution is bad because when you buy a game from steam or a similar service, YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY OWN THE GAME. You are buying the rights to "play the game". You do not own it, and they can take it away anytime they want."

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do want to point out that this system has been in place with PC software for a long time. For instance, you don't own your copy of Windows or OSX, you just own a license for it.

The idea that publishers can "flip the switch" and you lose access to that game seems... sketchy at best. I would imagine that any sort of "always on" authentication would occur at the platform level, i.e. Microsoft or Sony would take care of it rather than the publishers themselves. So as long as xbox live and PSN (or SEN, or whatever the hell we're calling it now) exists you would be able to play those games. Hell, maybe it would work like Live Arcade games and the purchases attach themselves to your account and you just need to be logged in to play those games and it doesn't require an internet connection. Or it could work exactly like you said and then we're stuck in a real shitty situation. Of course, if a publisher comes out and says "Remember all of our games that you bought from us two years ago? Yeah, you can't play them anymore." would be a real quick way to ruin future sales, so we probably wouldn't see anything that extreme.

I guess my point is that there would be a "right" way to do it and a "wrong" way to do it. I don't buy games used, I play PC games primarily, so I don't really care one way or another, I just wanted to throw those points out there for discussion.

Yet Ubisoft is basically making sure that the flip switch CAN be turned off and thus, all copies are then unplayable. This also works with Steam as well. It's just that they don't make an effort at pissing customers off.

Hell, alot of Ubisoft titles were UNPLAYABLE for a while... just a few days ago... saying it isn't a problem yet isn't true, because it is a problem, right here and right now.

The only true digital only way to go is with GOG.com. However, they are too awesome so it is most likely that all companies like Microsoft and PSN wouldn't even try to be as awesome as that service which actually does give you a copy of a game instead of a license.

#153 Posted by Tennmuerti (8100 posts) -

@Jay444111 said:

@Tennmuerti: I find it funny that I basically destroy all points for a pure digital age and that is the best you can come up with. Pure digital is a horrid future to live in for a gamer.

You did? So sorry, i didn't see that anywhere. aaaaaaaaaw

I live in a pure digital fure. From up here everything seems awesome! The grass is green, you should come over and have tea and crumpets with me.

Love.

Tenn.

#154 Posted by Grimluck343 (1149 posts) -

@Tennmuerti said:

I live in a pure digital fure. From up here everything seems awesome! The grass is green, you should come over and have tea and crumpets with me.

I think if there wasn't such an awesome digital model like Steam all of this would scare the crap out of me. But you're right, from up here in the Steam cloud... shit's pretty fucking awesome. It's like iTunes, but for video games: it just fucking works. It's the magical future that we're living in right now.

#155 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@Tennmuerti said:

@Jay444111 said:

@Tennmuerti: I find it funny that I basically destroy all points for a pure digital age and that is the best you can come up with. Pure digital is a horrid future to live in for a gamer.

You did? So sorry, i didn't see that anywhere. aaaaaaaaaw

I live in a pure digital fure. From up here everything seems awesome! The grass is green, you should come over and have tea and crumpets with me.

Love.

Tenn.

Now, on PC, this is understandable. However, if consoles were to do this, it would be one of the worst things ever done. Imagine Ubisoft for a moment and their online service, now imagine that but far more horrid than anything that has come before on actual gaming consoles. That is a possibility that is threatening gaming to the point where I wouldn't put it past certain pubs to actually support such a broken system.

Personally, with my xbox live subscription, it literally feels like I am being used whenever I have to use it. The big three do not care about customers if they were to go this way. and customers would band together and buy a system that DIDN'T force them to be online, or have to buy NEW copies of games just to play them.

Imagine the original Assassins creed for a moment, have you seen an actual new version of this game on store shelves for a while? Another huge problem with all this is that game prices will SKYROCKET to the point where people, who are fucking rich even, will refuse to buy video games anymore.

Overall, it is a terrible, terrible future if the console way of doing things keeps up.

#156 Posted by clumsyninja1 (817 posts) -

I would love for the next gen consoles to stop playing used games, only new. Sure spend 55 dollars instead of 60, that smart!!!.

#157 Posted by Alkaiser (358 posts) -

There shouldn't be a collector's market for games. If someone wants to play, say, Earthbound on the SNES they should be able to play it for a reasonable price. In an age of digital downloading rarity shouldn't even be a factor. You shouldn't have to pay 200$ for a copy of Suikoden 2.

On the subject at hand however, I'm going to have to paint myself as 'that guy.' I haven't bought a game new for 60$ in years because in my opinion they simply aren't worth the price when I can wait 6-8 months later and get it for half price or less. I understand games are crazy expensive to make as it is now and it's only going to get crazier in the future, but I don't care about any of that. To me, a game like Symphony of the Night and Batman: Arkham City are of equal value to me in that they're both products that I play to have fun. One is 10$ and I get a great deal of enjoyment out of it and can play it over and over again, the other when it came out was 60$ and was alright but I didn't care about a lot of the extraneous stuff and the collect-a-thon crap was really boring to me and I didn't even care to finish it in the rental time that I had it in.

The size of a game or the prestige of a AAA class developer or cutting edge graphics that look a little bit better then everything else? Couldn't care less. For me, a fun game is a fun game regardless of whether it's 60, 30, or 5$ in a steam sale. And as someone who is admittedly a complete cheapskate when it comes to my hobbies, I'm going to go with a better value so I can pocket that extra 30-50 bucks and put it towards a car payment, or insurance, or simply the cost of living and having a roof over my head or being able to wear nice clothes or get a new pair of kicks. These things don't exist in a vacuum where video games cost Xbox dollars that can't be redeemed for anything else. They share value with the rest of your life. And life is full of things that'll take a bite out of your wallet.

#158 Posted by Grimluck343 (1149 posts) -

@Jay444111 said:

@Tennmuerti said:

@Jay444111 said:

@Tennmuerti: I find it funny that I basically destroy all points for a pure digital age and that is the best you can come up with. Pure digital is a horrid future to live in for a gamer.

You did? So sorry, i didn't see that anywhere. aaaaaaaaaw

I live in a pure digital fure. From up here everything seems awesome! The grass is green, you should come over and have tea and crumpets with me.

Love.

Tenn.

Now, on PC, this is understandable. However, if consoles were to do this, it would be one of the worst things ever done. Imagine Ubisoft for a moment and their online service, now imagine that but far more horrid than anything that has come before on actual gaming consoles. That is a possibility that is threatening gaming to the point where I wouldn't put it past certain pubs to actually support such a broken system.

Personally, with my xbox live subscription, it literally feels like I am being used whenever I have to use it. The big three do not care about customers if they were to go this way. and customers would band together and buy a system that DIDN'T force them to be online, or have to buy NEW copies of games just to play them.

Imagine the original Assassins creed for a moment, have you seen an actual new version of this game on store shelves for a while? Another huge problem with all this is that game prices will SKYROCKET to the point where people, who are fucking rich even, will refuse to buy video games anymore.

Overall, it is a terrible, terrible future if the console way of doing things keeps up.

Now imagine a next gen console with a massive hard drive and a Steam like store front - or hell maybe it's just Steam on the PS4, not outside the realm of possibility. I think that's best case scenario here, while what you are describing is worst case scenario. You're not wrong, things could very well go that way and it would suck balls. But it could also go the exact opposite way and be completely kick ass.

Also, just throwing this out there, but you keep bringing Ubisoft into this. Are they doing stupid shit on the PC with their DRM? Hell yeah they are. Are their PC sales in the tank as a result? You bet. People aren't stupid, and the publishers really aren't either. If Ubisoft tried to pull that shit on the consoles and saw a 90% drop in sales on console games, they would just go out of business. Consumers won't buy their shit (just like has already happened on the PC) and they'll lose money.

#159 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@Grimluck343 said:

@Jay444111 said:

@Tennmuerti said:

@Jay444111 said:

@Tennmuerti: I find it funny that I basically destroy all points for a pure digital age and that is the best you can come up with. Pure digital is a horrid future to live in for a gamer.

You did? So sorry, i didn't see that anywhere. aaaaaaaaaw

I live in a pure digital fure. From up here everything seems awesome! The grass is green, you should come over and have tea and crumpets with me.

Love.

Tenn.

Now, on PC, this is understandable. However, if consoles were to do this, it would be one of the worst things ever done. Imagine Ubisoft for a moment and their online service, now imagine that but far more horrid than anything that has come before on actual gaming consoles. That is a possibility that is threatening gaming to the point where I wouldn't put it past certain pubs to actually support such a broken system.

Personally, with my xbox live subscription, it literally feels like I am being used whenever I have to use it. The big three do not care about customers if they were to go this way. and customers would band together and buy a system that DIDN'T force them to be online, or have to buy NEW copies of games just to play them.

Imagine the original Assassins creed for a moment, have you seen an actual new version of this game on store shelves for a while? Another huge problem with all this is that game prices will SKYROCKET to the point where people, who are fucking rich even, will refuse to buy video games anymore.

Overall, it is a terrible, terrible future if the console way of doing things keeps up.

Now imagine a next gen console with a massive hard drive and a Steam like store front - or hell maybe it's just Steam on the PS4, not outside the realm of possibility. I think that's best case scenario here, while what you are describing is worst case scenario. You're not wrong, things could very well go that way and it would suck balls. But it could also go the exact opposite way and be completely kick ass.

Also, just throwing this out there, but you keep bringing Ubisoft into this. Are they doing stupid shit on the PC with their DRM? Hell yeah they are. Are their PC sales in the tank as a result? You bet. People aren't stupid, and the publishers really aren't either. If Ubisoft tried to pull that shit on the consoles and saw a 90% drop in sales on console games, they would just go out of business. Consumers won't buy their shit (just like has already happened on the PC) and they'll lose money.

Oh, sweet, I love it when corrupt companies such as Ubisoft or 4Kids squirm... But thanks for relieving some tensions I did have with this system however. I must thank you for that. But still. I am very, very wary if they were to do this next gen, now the next gen after that I could understand. But right now it seems kinda... early to implement such a system. IMO at least.

#160 Posted by Grimluck343 (1149 posts) -

@Jay444111 said:

Oh, sweet, I love it when corrupt companies such as Ubisoft or 4Kids squirm... But thanks for relieving some tensions I did have with this system however. I must thank you for that. But still. I am very, very wary if they were to do this next gen, now the next gen after that I could understand. But right now it seems kinda... early to implement such a system. IMO at least.

You're right to be wary because you've brought up some valid points, things that even the guys on the Bombcast have talked about before. And next gen would probably be too early for something Steam like, but it wouldn't surprise me to see the next generation evolve in to something like that. Remember how the 360 and PS3 didn't have Netflix or Hulu at launch either. We just need to hope they do it right.

#161 Posted by hbkdx12 (779 posts) -

Read through the thread, lots of informative info and opinions that were presented well (for the most part)
 
Just curious, how does the gaming market and digital distribution differ from say, bookstores and digital distribution and why does it seem to succeed there?
 
With libraries and brick and mortar bookstores struggling to survive, why does it seem that people turning to kindles, nooks and e-readers are far more favorable than gamers and digital distribution? Is it because of the size of the content and it's delivery? (e-books and such are relatively small and can be downloaded pretty much anywhere with a wi-fi service)  Is it because there's no online interactive features with books as there is with games ala multiplayer?
 
Do people who purchase e-books actually own those books? Do they ever have to worry about those books being taken away from them? 
 
On the surface (atleast) there seems to be some type of similarity between the two industries and what it means to go digital. I'm just curious why it seems like it works well in one or some industries and not others?

#162 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@Grimluck343 said:

@Jay444111 said:

Oh, sweet, I love it when corrupt companies such as Ubisoft or 4Kids squirm... But thanks for relieving some tensions I did have with this system however. I must thank you for that. But still. I am very, very wary if they were to do this next gen, now the next gen after that I could understand. But right now it seems kinda... early to implement such a system. IMO at least.

You're right to be wary because you've brought up some valid points, things that even the guys on the Bombcast have talked about before. And next gen would probably be too early for something Steam like, but it wouldn't surprise me to see the next generation evolve in to something like that. Remember how the 360 and PS3 didn't have Netflix or Hulu at launch either. We just need to hope they do it right.

Right, but I actually never watch the bombcast or read much about this used debate much. This all is really from my own personal expierence with Xbox Live and it's DRM. I am under threat of losing everything if my email provider goes out and because of errors on windows live ID, I could literally lose everything and I could be charged for it because of xboxs moronic auto renewal idea.

Thankfully I am gonna change that soon and soon go strait to a silver account. I don't play many multiplayer games so why should I have it. But the thing is, is that I bought a shitton of live stuff and I have also had my account for three years now, and it is now all under threat and I literally cannot do anything about it.

I would take a eon to explain all this properly. But trust me... consoles and their current DRM systems are fucking hell currently, I cannot imagine what the next gen of consoles could do to piss us off more if they did the no used thing.

#163 Posted by Raven10 (1789 posts) -

@Tennmuerti said:

@Raven10 said:

I think piracy is morally wrong. It is stealing.

/sigh

You disagree in some way? You are taking a copy of something without paying for it. That makes it stealing in my book.

#164 Edited by ninnanuam (281 posts) -

@Tennmuerti said:

@ninnanuam:

  1. Yeah this sucks. Which is why i don't buy EA console titles that depend on their servers, but Steam made us all a promise that if it goes down, they will push DRM free patches. Their userbase will crucify them if they won't, with every person having invested thousands. (i know i'll buy a plane tiket and bring a torch, not an empty jest)
  2. Answer is services like GoG, check it out read up on it. All old technology is ultimately not unfalable. Do most people complain now that they can't easilly just play a SNES game on a whim, some people can but fact is most of us who owned old systems can't just play whatever game we want on them if at all. Digital Distribution has nothing if not eased our access to playing older games on newer systems, both PC wise and console.
  3. No one is banning used sales.

Im not trying to be an asshole but for your first point, you think all companies are going to be like Valve? Steam is the exception and not the rule. In addition I wonder how well that contract (i assume its a binding contact right?) would hold up in 20 years when Gabe has left and some total suit is in charge. Businesses change and most are more like EA than Valve.

what about the long term?

In response to your second point, yes DLC has made it easier to get older games I don't deny that, but there is a big difference in being able to get old games that I have to pay for again and playing something I have already purchased, and a hell of a lot of things are not available via DLC. I dont know about you but I still have access to my NES, SNES and Master System, and they all still work fine.I can play every mode in every game no problem, you know what a cant do? Play ANY of my original xbox games online. Because MS no longer supports the fucking system ...Its the canary in the coal mine.

Do you think that any DLC games you purchase on 720 will be transferable and playable on the 1440 (two gens away, and that's giving them some credit)? Or do you think console manufacturers will stop releasing new consoles. Or is more likely that they will try to get me to pay for the same content again, only this time they have the power to shut down my ability to play the original purchase and site some compatibility issue/or upgrade as the reason?

I can tell you right now that at every point in a new consoles life they will do an analysis of bad PR V.Profit and once they can get away with it they will shut old consoles down without a seconds thought. they and once you attach games to consoles or profiles and those systems die or services change good bye games. Single player or multiplayer it wont matter.

This doesn't even go into issues surrounding the inevitable decline of a big player, what happens when MS gets out of the game? or if you decided by pony up for Onlive? They never made Valve's promise, you lose everything.

#165 Posted by BaconGames (3416 posts) -

While I applaud the use of empirical evidence to dig deeper and consider the issue in a new light, the motivations pretty much compromise the main principle of using the evidence in the first place. Particularly that people arguing against used sales on a moral basis are ignoring the data but the OP turning right around and basically using a moral argument against them. Placing the negative value judgement on businesses doing what they do and essentially calling the game buying public sheeple all seem like moral arguments to me. Again love the alternative information empirically but the argument is more or less moralistic in a way I can't get behind.

I would say that overall the devs and pubs are advocating for what they see as a large market for themselves which is what they exist to do. However the consumers respond to whatever service works or does not in the variety of ways we've seen. People have different values for what companies to against used game sales and piracy and their loyalties are won with their purchasing actions. Piracy is certainly viewed as one of many responses to a company's actions but so is choosing to sell or buy used games. I support the consumer option of used games but I believe taking them out of the supply and not adding more. Pachter makes an interesting observation about the slight growth due to capital increase in the system but as a business I don't agree with GameStop thriving on that. Ultimately no one can stop the trade of used games legally except for structurally from the very beginning much like the relative difference in used game sales between PC and consoles. My guess is that gap is going to close toward the PC side of less used game viability.

I wonder, has any dev or publisher bought the used copies of its own games for redistribution?

#166 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@Raven10 said:

@Tennmuerti said:

@Raven10 said:

I think piracy is morally wrong. It is stealing.

/sigh

You disagree in some way? You are taking a copy of something without paying for it. That makes it stealing in my book.

Yet the original remains... It could be said that you are literally making a copy of a car and using it from then on.

I could go on about this. But I won't. Because I know no one can truly beat the Earthbound defense of pirating.

#167 Posted by vidiot (2737 posts) -

The real thing that began shooting warning shots in my head, is all this speculation that the next Xbox won't support used games. 
 
Perhaps the TC was a bit strong with his attitude regarding "you being wrong", but to his defense, I too am very uncomfortable in regards to the sheer lack of discussion regarding the future of used games and the current direction of digital distribution. It's like there's this giant train-wreck looming down the road, and everyone seems totally cool with it.  
It probably won't be something that's the sum of all fears: But I get the impression everyone is cool with a console that you can't play used games on, is only digital, and is draconian as hell. That's also propped up by reasoning that sounds more and more shallow every time it's brought up in the news. 

Regardless, I applaud the post and the discussion that is here.  

#168 Posted by Raven10 (1789 posts) -

@Jay444111 said:

@Raven10 said:

@Tennmuerti said:

@Raven10 said:

I think piracy is morally wrong. It is stealing.

/sigh

You disagree in some way? You are taking a copy of something without paying for it. That makes it stealing in my book.

Yet the original remains... It could be said that you are literally making a copy of a car and using it from then on.

I could go on about this. But I won't. Because I know no one can truly beat the Earthbound defense of pirating.

The fact that the original remains is the very reason it is stealing. When you buy a copy of a game you are buying ONE copy. That's the same as buying a single car. You didn't buy 10 copies of the game. So anyone who takes a copy from you is stealing. Those extra copies are not yours to give. You can't clone a car. There is only ever going to be one car. You can sell that car because you are taking that ONE copy you bought and giving it to someone else. That is the difference. As long as there remains only one copy then you are doing nothing wrong. When there start to be multiple copies that is when you have broken the law.

#169 Posted by ninnanuam (281 posts) -

@Alkaiser said:

There shouldn't be a collector's market for games. If someone wants to play, say, Earthbound on the SNES they should be able to play it for a reasonable price. In an age of digital downloading rarity shouldn't even be a factor. You shouldn't have to pay 200$ for a copy of Suikoden 2.

easily purchasable copies doesn't negate the collectablity, In my example i said that a used copy of The Great Gatsby first printing is available for $1000+ but you can still but a new sub $10.00 copy the cheaper version does not diminish the older versions worth just as DLC does not necessarily diminish and old games worth. But making used a game unplayable would make that copy worthless (an unreadable first edition of the great gatsby would be considered to be in very poor condition and would be worthless). we could discuss the reason older things/original copies retain value even when cheap alternatives abound but we would be getting off topic.

#170 Edited by darkdragonmage99 (740 posts) -
@Grimluck343:  Funny EA basically did that not that long ago shut down all of the multiplayer servers of the older games the online only games no less hasn't effected their sales so far.  
 
@Raven10:  Well not quite true all you need is the right parts and you can easily copy a car   well with the mechanical skill to do so. 
#171 Posted by Slag (4366 posts) -

The hatred for Used games has always amazed me as it so against the self interests of the gamer. Gamestop/EB hate I get but those arguing against used games seem to be arguing against consumer freedom itself. Going the route the publishers with various DRM controls want to go mean less value in your purchase and less freedom.

Should I not be able to resell/gift/loan/donate things I have purchased? Should I not be able to freely play something wherever I want without fear of some outside force turning it off at some point? Granted piracy itself is problematic for software, but used games are hardly piracy. It's one purchased copy being redistributed.

I like to help devs too, but I don't think used games are why things are so tight for them right now, and all banning used games will do is actually devalue physical games more (afterall their resale value will drop tremendously). If they want more money, then they need to add more value to their product, not take it away. The bigger problem for them is the gaming consumer has lots of cheap downloadable choice now. I have several friends who used to buy dozens 50-60 dollar games yearly and now just play IOS games like Angry Birds. The gap in quality is still there but it's a lot narrower than it used to be, and for many gamers the AAA titles aren't better enough to justify dropping 50 bucks on them especially the portable stuff. And since the average gaming consumer continues to get older, the lack of time those in our 30's have to game makes it even worse. Couple that with their rising costs and it's pretty obvious they need to change the way they do business.

Gamestop is the wrong boogeyman here for devs in my opinion.

I guess I also wonder why there is such hatred for used games and not rental. Afterall devs get nothing from gamefly, blockbuster or any of their ilk either and arguably more people use a single copy of a game from those services many more times than a typical used game (and to top it off the rental places eventually sell the copy).

The hatred for Used game just seems so irrational to me for a variety of reasons.

#172 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

That's all well and good, but DEVELOPERS ARE NOT GETTING PAID FOR THEIR WORK. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

If Gamestop would just pay for the used sales, it'd be fine. It's good for the consumer, but fucking TERRIBLE FOR THE DEVELOPER.

You do know that FINISHING A GAME doesn't make you any less of a prick who used that shit without paying the guy who made it.

And you cannot, CAN NOT, compare the fucking movie industry to the video game industry. Hollywood is MILES AND MILES AND MILES bigger than the video game industry. There, it is the difference between Brad Pitt making this many millions instead of that many millions. In the gaming industry, used sales and piracy, which affect the developer and publisher in identical ways, can mean the life or death of a studio, even if they do great work. Can you imagine what'd happen to Double Fine if their games ended up pirated and sold used in any significant way? They've been struggling despite doing kick ass work for quite some time.

As far as I know, most positions in a developer top out at about $200,000 a year. And that is absolutely on the high end. Most positions even with 6-7 years only yield to less than half that, around 90k a year. That's enough to get by on, yes. But it doesn't take much to start a studio down the path of cutting wages and cutting positions.

Yes, $200,000 is a decent bit of money, but it's the CEILING for most developers. That's like, the lead on a major title. Yeah, there are a few 1% folks in our industry, bit it's a few legends and the people at the heads of companies like Nintendo and Sony. There are plenty of people out there in the industry that DON'T make 200k a year.

Like it or not, you need to pay for the shit you get. Nothing is free. That's why the consumer pays for a used game, and gets a used game. However, used games aren't a problem because you sell your games like you sell your old textbooks. Their a problem because of Gamestop, and idiots who buy a used copy for $5 less a week after the game came out.

60% of the money Gamestop makes is from used games. 60% of sales don't give SHIT to the people who work to build the game you claim you have a right to acquire with no regard for how it affects them.

The argument I wish people would listen to is this: If you were asked to give up 60% of your wages, you'd be fuckin pissed, would you not? If 60% of the work you did, you did for free?

But people fucking laugh when they hear that. It's ridiculous how fucking retarded and ignorant and self-centered people can be.

Thank god we're on the verge of Digital Distribution on consoles. As a PC gamer it feels damned good buying from Steam, because I know the money goes to the developer. Ie, the people who worked to bring you the game you now feel almost entitled to.

#173 Posted by Deleth (250 posts) -

@Tennmuerti said:

Consoles are catching up to PC.
Ever so slowly.

PS: Also I find your Isaac Asimov quote usage disgusting.

His whole post is pretty much reassuring himself that that what he's doing isn't causing the developers more damage then let's say piracy. And he's basing it on false assumptions and data, that is mostly made up to convince people to keep buying used games. Saying people would've more money to spend on games alone shows that he has either no idea what he's talking about or is misleading people on purpose.

Those "6%" higher sales if anything mean that people in fact spend less money on games and are able to buy more games that way. Which in turns mean that the developers have to put out MORE games to get the same ammount of money. Let's say you sell something for 5$, the consumer has 50$ and bought 10 pieces. That would mean you had to put out 10 pieces to make the max profit.

If you would sell the same stuff for 2,5$, your sales would go up by 100% because you would end up selling 20 pieces, but you'd still only make 50$ dollars. While having to produce twice as much of whatever you're selling. Doubling the production costs on your side.

Sorry but people who buy used games are worse then pirates. Pirates wouldn't have bought the game anyway, those peoples would have. Putting a middle men in between somewhere who charges money on his own, does neither help the one who actually puts out the product nor the consumer on the long run.

It's just throwing money at someone who isn't involved the production, developement or anything else regarding the product you're buying and pretty much lives like a leech sucking the people who actually are producing whatever you're buying dry. People who buy used games, should be set on fire.

#174 Edited by Canteu (2821 posts) -

For a used copy to exist, a new copy must have been sold. The developer was paid their money for that single copy.

They have no entitlement to be getting paid any more than once per copy. Even if you make something, it no longer belongs to you once you have sold it.

The developer/publisher has nothing to do with the second transaction. They did not organise the sale, promote said product for sale, price said product or transact the sale.

This "debate" seems only to be exclusive to games for some reason. Consider any other consumer product in existence, once it is sold, the creator gets the money and hears nothing of it after that, regardless of how many times it is re-sold elsewhere.

There are hundreds of games that I have bought second hand, that if I could only get full price new, I would have simply never bought them. And there are also hundreds of times when buying a used game I would buy the next game from that developer new, at full price, which I wouldn't have done if I hadn't played the previous game.

#175 Edited by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@Tennmuerti said:

And I will repeat agian because you seem to have missed the point of my post entirely: I am not saying PC is dead, piracy killed it, bla bla. I am saying that piracy was one of the biggest factors in the decline of PC gaming in the past years, certainly of more effect then rise of DRM (draconian DRM only started to appear after the rise of widespread internetpiracy). As for the current situation Steam/GoG I in fact stated that we have a resurgence in spite of DRM and piracy due to the superb business models they have adopted (which is what by the way the person I was replying to was denying) . But just because PC games these days are doing much better does not mean piracy is not still affecting it in a major way. One only has to look at PC sales vs. console sales numbers vs. numbers of how many times a game was pirated on the PC.

I understood you the first time, I merely disagree with your take on the impact of piracy on PC gaming while pointing out that both will continue to coexist. PC gaming didn't decline because of piracy. PC gaming like any other platform had a period of transition, a changing of the times and more competition from the console gaming boom of last generation, as well as a dearth of quality content. Call me biased, call me ignorant, call me what you will. but I have always believed that piracy has been overblown and that pirates never counted as real customers in the first place, therefore, they are not lost sales. While running the risk of comparing piracy to used games, the effect is the same, that is to say, little to no effect on sales numbers. Much of time, it's the best advertising one can get.

I would strongly argue that PC gaming has had a resurgence for a handful of reasons: a surge in computer ownership meaning there is a bigger market than ever before, super convenient delivery systems like Steam, shoot, even Facebook, and with that a bigger variety in terms of genre, while delivering gaming experiences that still are not completely viable on consoles.

And yet, all of this while piracy or the purchase of a used game is still just a simple few clicks away.

#176 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

I don't like used games because Gamestop is shit and I just want everyone to be Steam.
 
So if publishers want to get up in arms about it I am behind them 100% but only for my own selfish reasons.

#177 Posted by laserbolts (5322 posts) -

@Deleth said:

@Tennmuerti said:

Consoles are catching up to PC.
Ever so slowly.

PS: Also I find your Isaac Asimov quote usage disgusting.

His whole post is pretty much reassuring himself that that what he's doing isn't causing the developers more damage then let's say piracy. And he's basing it on false assumptions and data, that is mostly made up to convince people to keep buying used games. Saying people would've more money to spend on games alone shows that he has either no idea what he's talking about or is misleading people on purpose.

Those "6%" higher sales if anything mean that people in fact spend less money on games and are able to buy more games that way. Which in turns mean that the developers have to put out MORE games to get the same ammount of money. Let's say you sell something for 5$, the consumer has 50$ and bought 10 pieces. That would mean you had to put out 10 pieces to make the max profit.

If you would sell the same stuff for 2,5$, your sales would go up by 100% because you would end up selling 20 pieces, but you'd still only make 50$ dollars. While having to produce twice as much of whatever you're selling. Doubling the production costs on your side.

Sorry but people who buy used games are worse then pirates. Pirates wouldn't have bought the game anyway, those peoples would have. Putting a middle men in between somewhere who charges money on his own, does neither help the one who actually puts out the product nor the consumer on the long run.

It's just throwing money at someone who isn't involved the production, developement or anything else regarding the product you're buying and pretty much lives like a leech sucking the people who actually are producing whatever you're buying dry. People who buy used games, should be set on fire.

I disagree entirely with your post. How is buying used worse than piracy? Saying they weren't going to buy it anyways is not a good thing to base that argument on. I am not pro used games and to be honest I buy my games new but how can you think that buying used is WORSE than piracy?

#178 Posted by Example1013 (4834 posts) -

@Deleth said:

@Tennmuerti said:

Consoles are catching up to PC.
Ever so slowly.

PS: Also I find your Isaac Asimov quote usage disgusting.

His whole post is pretty much reassuring himself that that what he's doing isn't causing the developers more damage then let's say piracy. And he's basing it on false assumptions and data, that is mostly made up to convince people to keep buying used games. Saying people would've more money to spend on games alone shows that he has either no idea what he's talking about or is misleading people on purpose.

Those "6%" higher sales if anything mean that people in fact spend less money on games and are able to buy more games that way. Which in turns mean that the developers have to put out MORE games to get the same ammount of money. Let's say you sell something for 5$, the consumer has 50$ and bought 10 pieces. That would mean you had to put out 10 pieces to make the max profit.

If you would sell the same stuff for 2,5$, your sales would go up by 100% because you would end up selling 20 pieces, but you'd still only make 50$ dollars. While having to produce twice as much of whatever you're selling. Doubling the production costs on your side.

Sorry but people who buy used games are worse then pirates. Pirates wouldn't have bought the game anyway, those peoples would have. Putting a middle men in between somewhere who charges money on his own, does neither help the one who actually puts out the product nor the consumer on the long run.

It's just throwing money at someone who isn't involved the production, developement or anything else regarding the product you're buying and pretty much lives like a leech sucking the people who actually are producing whatever you're buying dry. People who buy used games, should be set on fire.

This is retarded. You have no clue what you're talking about. You skimmed the OP. You should quit while you're not too far behind, before you get embarrassed on a public messaging board.

#179 Posted by Atary77 (502 posts) -

I can buy used books, movies, music CD's, and even cars and the makers of those things don't care.

Why should the video game industry act any differently about video games?

#180 Posted by sins_of_mosin (1556 posts) -

A whole 6% increase that he estimated? Wow. I think devs/pubs rather have people buy new and let that 6% float in the toliet. There is a need for used because not everyone can afford new but that still does not make the dev/pub wrong when they say they are losing money from it. Far as I'm concerned, all the MP passes and new game DLC codes is the fault of used games, not piracy.

#181 Posted by Tennmuerti (8100 posts) -

@QuistisTrepe said:

@Tennmuerti said:

And I will repeat agian because you seem to have missed the point of my post entirely: I am not saying PC is dead, piracy killed it, bla bla. I am saying that piracy was one of the biggest factors in the decline of PC gaming in the past years, certainly of more effect then rise of DRM (draconian DRM only started to appear after the rise of widespread internetpiracy). As for the current situation Steam/GoG I in fact stated that we have a resurgence in spite of DRM and piracy due to the superb business models they have adopted (which is what by the way the person I was replying to was denying) . But just because PC games these days are doing much better does not mean piracy is not still affecting it in a major way. One only has to look at PC sales vs. console sales numbers vs. numbers of how many times a game was pirated on the PC.

I understood you the first time, I merely disagree with your take on the impact of piracy on PC gaming while pointing out that both will continue to coexist. PC gaming didn't decline because of piracy. PC gaming like any other platform had a period of transition, a changing of the times and more competition from the console gaming boom of last generation, as well as a dearth of quality content. Call me biased, call me ignorant, call me what you will. but I have always believed that piracy has been overblown and that pirates never counted as real customers in the first place, therefore, they are not lost sales. While running the risk of comparing piracy to used games, the effect is the same, that is to say, little to no effect on sales numbers. Much of time, it's the best advertising one can get.

I would strongly argue that PC gaming has had a resurgence for a handful of reasons: a surge in computer ownership meaning there is a bigger market than ever before, super convenient delivery systems like Steam, shoot, even Facebook, and with that a bigger variety in terms of genre, while delivering gaming experiences that still are not completely viable on consoles.

And yet, all of this while piracy or the purchase of a used game is still just a simple few clicks away.

As far as I can tell our only disagreement seems to be the extent of the effects of piracy. I have no issue with this. But I continue to stand by my opinion, based on a lifetime of observation and being part of the industry as a past pirate and as a consumer, seeing home developers close or change their tracks, and now being tangentially involved by passing paperwork. Main deference between now and 5-10 years ago is Steam found a way to compete with free on a relevant scale. My origianl comment only took issue with a person claiming that "DRM killed the PC market".

@Deleth said:

@Tennmuerti said:

Consoles are catching up to PC.
Ever so slowly.

PS: Also I find your Isaac Asimov quote usage disgusting.

His whole post is pretty much reassuring himself that that what he's doing isn't causing the developers more damage then let's say piracy. And he's basing it on false assumptions and data, that is mostly made up to convince people to keep buying used games. Saying people would've more money to spend on games alone shows that he has either no idea what he's talking about or is misleading people on purpose.

Those "6%" higher sales if anything mean that people in fact spend less money on games and are able to buy more games that way. Which in turns mean that the developers have to put out MORE games to get the same ammount of money. Let's say you sell something for 5$, the consumer has 50$ and bought 10 pieces. That would mean you had to put out 10 pieces to make the max profit.

If you would sell the same stuff for 2,5$, your sales would go up by 100% because you would end up selling 20 pieces, but you'd still only make 50$ dollars. While having to produce twice as much of whatever you're selling. Doubling the production costs on your side.

Sorry but people who buy used games are worse then pirates. Pirates wouldn't have bought the game anyway, those peoples would have. Putting a middle men in between somewhere who charges money on his own, does neither help the one who actually puts out the product nor the consumer on the long run.

It's just throwing money at someone who isn't involved the production, developement or anything else regarding the product you're buying and pretty much lives like a leech sucking the people who actually are producing whatever you're buying dry. People who buy used games, should be set on fire.

Oh boy. I really don't want my statement or name associated with the above stance.

#182 Posted by Example1013 (4834 posts) -

@MordeaniisChaos said:

That's all well and good, but DEVELOPERS ARE NOT GETTING PAID FOR THEIR WORK. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

If Gamestop would just pay for the used sales, it'd be fine. It's good for the consumer, but fucking TERRIBLE FOR THE DEVELOPER.

You do know that FINISHING A GAME doesn't make you any less of a prick who used that shit without paying the guy who made it.

And you cannot, CAN NOT, compare the fucking movie industry to the video game industry. Hollywood is MILES AND MILES AND MILES bigger than the video game industry. There, it is the difference between Brad Pitt making this many millions instead of that many millions. In the gaming industry, used sales and piracy, which affect the developer and publisher in identical ways, can mean the life or death of a studio, even if they do great work. Can you imagine what'd happen to Double Fine if their games ended up pirated and sold used in any significant way? They've been struggling despite doing kick ass work for quite some time.

As far as I know, most positions in a developer top out at about $200,000 a year. And that is absolutely on the high end. Most positions even with 6-7 years only yield to less than half that, around 90k a year. That's enough to get by on, yes. But it doesn't take much to start a studio down the path of cutting wages and cutting positions.

Yes, $200,000 is a decent bit of money, but it's the CEILING for most developers. That's like, the lead on a major title. Yeah, there are a few 1% folks in our industry, bit it's a few legends and the people at the heads of companies like Nintendo and Sony. There are plenty of people out there in the industry that DON'T make 200k a year.

Like it or not, you need to pay for the shit you get. Nothing is free. That's why the consumer pays for a used game, and gets a used game. However, used games aren't a problem because you sell your games like you sell your old textbooks. Their a problem because of Gamestop, and idiots who buy a used copy for $5 less a week after the game came out.

60% of the money Gamestop makes is from used games. 60% of sales don't give SHIT to the people who work to build the game you claim you have a right to acquire with no regard for how it affects them.

The argument I wish people would listen to is this: If you were asked to give up 60% of your wages, you'd be fuckin pissed, would you not? If 60% of the work you did, you did for free?

But people fucking laugh when they hear that. It's ridiculous how fucking retarded and ignorant and self-centered people can be.

Thank god we're on the verge of Digital Distribution on consoles. As a PC gamer it feels damned good buying from Steam, because I know the money goes to the developer. Ie, the people who worked to bring you the game you now feel almost entitled to.

It must be hard to play games with such serious myopia.

#183 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -
#184 Posted by ddensel (383 posts) -

Criticism of used games is ridiculous.

If I buy a TV at a pawn shop, should Sony get a cut of that purchase? What if I trade a paperback novel for something else? Should John Steinbeck's estate get a lil something? If I purchase an item, it's mine. I can sell it, trade it, or destroy it, whatever I want to do, it's my property. In the current era of disc based games, I buy a physical disc that I can resell. The future may be different, but this is the way it is now.

Bringing Gamestop into the argument just puts a mean face on the whole situation. Personally, I'll continue to buy cheap used games from them. Games that were purchased originally for $60, when the developer was compensated for their work. They get paid by the copy, not the user.

#185 Posted by Deleth (250 posts) -

@Example1013 said:

This is retarded. You have no clue what you're talking about. You skimmed the OP. You should quit while you're not too far behind, before you get embarrassed on a public messaging board.

"Hi, my name is Example1013! I buy used games and feel offended by your opinion. And since I can't come up with any actual arguments I will instead resort to calling you names and other nonsense that has nothing to do with the topic... derp."

@laserbolts said:

I disagree entirely with your post. How is buying used worse than piracy? Saying they weren't going to buy it anyways is not a good thing to base that argument on. I am not pro used games and to be honest I buy my games new but how can you think that buying used is WORSE than piracy?

Most Pirates wouldn't have bothered to buy the game in the first place. So the developers did not in fact lose money they would otherwhise have made. But if you buy an used game, you're paying actual money for it. Without the option to buy the game that way, you would've bought it directly from the publisher/developer. You were willing to pay money. But instead of giving said money to the ones who developed and or distributed the game, you gave it it to a leech that etablished itself in between.

Game resellers are pretty much the "middle man" in this case. You could easily compare it to someone buying stuff very cheap on another country while paying the people who produce it far to less then going on and sell the stuff in another country very high prizes making lots of money in the process. But unlike game resellers, that person at least etablished trade routes, ships the whole stuff and so on. Yet said practice is constantly criticized and not something that's harmfull both to the producers and the consumers.

In the case of game sellers it's even worse, because unlike in other fields they don't do a thing at all. They simply sit there, waiting for people to trade in their used games and resell them afterwards. They make money from the work of someone else, harming the developers in the process costing them lots of money each year. You guys merely refuse to acknowledge it because for the time being you might've to pay 1-5$ dollars less. Completly ignoring that you're on the long run harming the industry who actually produces the games you enjoy.

#186 Posted by laserbolts (5322 posts) -

@Deleth: What do you base the point of people who pirate a game weren't going to buy it anyways? If there is one option to pay 60 bucks for something and another to get it for free most people would choose the free route. Unfortunately the free route in this case is entirely illegal. Sometimes people are hard up and saving 10 bucks on a game can make a difference. Now you can argue that if you are that hard up than you shouldnt be buying games but thats just the way it is for some people. Listen i'm not defending used game sales as I do not personally support it by any means but to argue that downloading a game illegally is better than going to a store and choosing a cheaper option is absurd. The only arguments you have that are backed up by actual fact is that the people that make the games wont make any money off of used sales much like they wont from piracy. The they wouldnt buy it anyways argument is moot because you dont know that.

#187 Edited by Beluga (17 posts) -

I’ve only skimmed this topic, so some of this stuff has no doubt already been said:

  • The only substantive difference between buying a used copy of a game and pirating it is that the retailer gets some easy profit, and you maybe help keep a retail clerk employed. Publishers and developers would probably actually prefer you pirate the game, because at least you’re not helping GameStop/Best Buy/[retailer] keep their parasitic business model going — the consolidation and ubiquity of these retailers gives them a lot of bargaining power that warps the industry in consumer-unfriendly ways (why do you think XBL/PSN digital games are always weirdly expensive?).
  • Physical media is different than most physical goods because it has no inherent value (the physical aspect probably costs $0.04 to make) — it makes more sense to think of the disc as a license to play the game (this fact becomes abundantly clear when you install a game — the disc is just a content key). Selling a used game is more analogous to setting up a throwaway iTunes account, buying a copy of a film, then selling the credentials to the account.
  • I hate the pedantic hand-wringing about the difference between copying and stealing. They may not be exactly the same thing, but that doesn’t mean piracy isn’t wrong. “Stealing” is as good a term as any to describe it — you’re illegally obtaining something you haven’t paid for, at the expense of someone else.

Edit: Another argument I hate is “publishers are making record profits, so obviously used games and piracy aren’t hurting.” First of all, the industry is growing, and growth can hide a lot of systemic problems. But more importantly, piracy and used games can hurt in ways that aren’t just quantifiable by profits:

  • The PC versions of many games are an afterthought, because the sales just don’t justify it. Even the PC sales of PC-first games like Battlefield 3 and Skyrim just aren’t in the same league as the console versions. PC gamers complain about it, but it shouldn’t be a surprise.
  • Publishers will lean more on safe mass-market sequels when they’re the games that can be guaranteed to make money. If every used game sale was a new game sale, break-even success would be a lot easier to reach, and a lot more risk-taking, unique, quirky games would be green-lighted. This same fact applies even moreso in the film industry.
#188 Posted by Example1013 (4834 posts) -

@Deleth said:

Hi, my name is Deleth, and I have a thesis. But instead of using well-established processes to prove my thesis, I decided instead to ignorantly spout off on a public message board with literally zero facts to back up anything I said. I also didn't even read the full original post I was replying to, making me look even stupider.

Come back when you've spent 5 minutes researching new game sales vs. used game sales. You're the one trying to prove a point, which means the burden of proof is on you, not me. I've already taken the minuscule amount of time out of my day to help gather support for my position; all you've said is "hurr durr I have an opinyun, u disagreee so u must be butthurt".

#189 Posted by Example1013 (4834 posts) -

@Narwhalist said:

I’ve only skimmed this topic, so some of this stuff has no doubt already been said:

  • The only substantive difference between buying a used copy of a game and pirating it is that the retailer gets some easy profit, and you maybe help keep a retail clerk employed. Publishers and developers would probably actually prefer you pirate the game, because at least you’re not helping GameStop/Best Buy/[retailer] keep their parasitic business model going — the consolidation and ubiquity of these retailers gives them a lot of bargaining power that warps the industry in consumer-unfriendly ways (why do you think XBL/PSN digital games are always weirdly expensive?).
  • Physical media is different than most physical goods because it has no inherent value (the physical aspect probably costs $0.04 to make) — it makes more sense to think of the disc as a license to play the game (this fact becomes abundantly clear when you install a game — the disc is just a content key). Selling a used game is more analogous to setting up a throwaway iTunes account, buying a copy of a film, then selling the credentials to the account.
  • I hate the pedantic hand-wringing about the difference between copying and stealing. They may not be exactly the same thing, but that doesn’t mean piracy isn’t wrong. “Stealing” is as good a term as any to describe it — you’re illegally obtaining something you haven’t paid for, at the expense of someone else.

Edit: Another argument I hate is “publishers are making record profits, so obviously used games and piracy aren’t hurting.” First of all, the industry is growing, and growth can hide a lot of systemic problems. But more importantly, piracy and used games can hurt in ways that aren’t just quantifiable by profits:

  • The PC versions of many games are an afterthought, because the sales just don’t justify it. Even the PC sales of PC-first games like Battlefield 3 and Skyrim just aren’t in the same league as the console versions. PC gamers complain about it, but it shouldn’t be a surprise.
  • Publishers will lean more on safe mass-market sequels when they’re the games that can be guaranteed to make money. If every used game sale was a new game sale, break-even success would be a lot easier to reach, and a lot more risk-taking, unique, quirky games would be green-lighted. This same fact applies even moreso in the film industry.

Man, someone should probably call the CDC, this cluelessness is an epidemic.

#190 Posted by Beluga (17 posts) -

@Example1013 said:

Come back when you've spent 5 minutes researching new game sales vs. used game sales. You're the one trying to prove a point, which means the burden of proof is on you, not me. I've already taken the minuscule amount of time out of my day to help gather support for my position; all you've said is "hurr durr I have an opinyun, u disagreee so u must be butthurt".

Really? It kind of seems like you’re doing exactly what you’re accusing him of: hurling snarky, ad hominem insults at people giving arguments that you don’t agree with.

#191 Edited by SoldierG654342 (1766 posts) -

If developers knew what the hell they were doing in regards to DLC they could make more money off of used sales than new.

#192 Posted by phish09 (1109 posts) -

So, you're saying I'm RIGHT about used games?

#193 Posted by Example1013 (4834 posts) -

@Narwhalist: It's not my responsibility to make sure you're informed about what you're arguing over. I'd assume anyone who can manage to type out a sentence in a forum is capable of doing google searches, besides what info the OP generously provided. But since I can tell neither you nor anyone else with your opinion even knows what to search for, I'll humor you guys this once.

Basically, you assume the null hypothesis, and work to disprove it. The null hypothesis is that used game sales don't hurt developers. Now we take a look at sales data.

Quoted directly from Pachter (he's a professional analyst, so I think he's a citable source on this info):

"The vast majority of used games are not traded in until the original new game purchaser has finished playing - more than two months after a new game is released - typically well beyond the window for a full retail priced new game sale.”

So most of the new-game money publishers get is made in the first couple months, and most of the used-game money resellers get is made after that first couple months. They both make tidy profits off sales, since the market windows are fairly mutually exclusive. This does not disprove the null hypothesis. To be honest, that only takes 30 seconds of reading, but if you don't believe me, look up the money made off new units sold on any recent game. The numbers are easily available with a quick google search. I did this earlier, and the results support Pachter's statements. Used-game-market sales info is a bit harder to find, but the burden of proof isn't on me, so if you want to try and make a good case, you should spend some time finding those numbers, at least for GameStop, if not also possibly eBay and Amazon numbers. A good place to start might be Pachter's article itself.

There are other less scientific points to make that support my position (although they don't lend specifically to the process I just outlined): for instance, who's getting all pissy over used sales? And who's implementing online passes and DRM? Is it the developer, or the publisher? Do the devs even see a dime of new-game-sales money after two months? Probably not. Bonuses are likely already paid (although I can't speak with any certainty on this matter), because money. So now what does that leave you with? It leaves you with multiple giant, evil, faceless corporations fighting over profits from the secondhand market that devs wouldn't see a dime of. Now stop de facto defending EA, Ubisoft, and Activision for being money-grubbing assholes playing off people's sense of loyalty and wake up to the fact that used game sales are a good alternative to investing a good sum of money into something you may not even like (GameStop allows 1 week for a full refund on all used games, no questions asked, so if you don't like it you can literally just bring it back, unlike new games, where they'll only exchange it for another copy).

#194 Posted by Beluga (17 posts) -

@Example1013 said:

So most of the new-game money publishers get is made in the first couple months, and most of the used-game money resellers get is made after that first couple months. They both make tidy profits off sales, since the market windows are fairly mutually exclusive.

You assume this is the natural order of things, and not a result of the way the marketplace works right now, but more to the point, this doesn’t prove anything, or tell us anything that isn’t already obvoious. Of course the revenue made from a game is going to decline after the period immediately following its release, and of course used game sales are going to increase as people finish the games and trade them in. Whether or not the game is being sold new at full retail price is immaterial here — even at a fraction of the original price, publishers still make money on game sales (at least until the retailer isn’t just clearing out stock).

@Example1013 said:

There are other less scientific points to make that support my position (although they don't lend specifically to the process I just outlined): for instance, who's getting all pissy over used sales? And who's implementing online passes and DRM? Is it the developer, or the publisher? Do the devs even see a dime of new-game-sales money after two months? Probably not. Bonuses are likely already paid (although I can't speak with any certainty on this matter), because money. So now what does that leave you with? It leaves you with multiple giant, evil, faceless corporations fighting over profits from the secondhand market that devs wouldn't see a dime of. Now stop de facto defending EA, Ubisoft, and Activision for being money-grubbing assholes playing off people's sense of loyalty and wake up to the fact that used game sales are a good alternative to investing a good sum of money into something you may not even like (GameStop allows 1 week for a full refund on all used games, no questions asked, so if you don't like it you can literally just bring it back, unlike new games, where they'll only exchange it for another copy).

The thing is that most developers don’t bankroll their games out of pocket — the development is paid for by the publisher. Publishers may take a bunch of the long-tail revenue, but they’re not middlemen in the same way retailers are. If publishers don’t make enough money on a game to justify the resources put into it (and funding the development of a game is no small expense or risk), they’re not going to fund more, and they’re going to get more and more risk averse. Stuff like digital distribution and crowd funding is starting to change the funding model, but only a little bit.

Treating both publishers and retailers as evil middlemen fighting over profits at the expense of developers is a false equivalency, or at least a gross oversimplification.

Also, I’m not buying the null hypothesis framing: the fact is that none of us have granular enough raw data, or the time to sit down and do a thorough statistical analysis of it. You say you have data that you went out of your way not to link to, but unless it’s of a kind I’m not familiar with (i.e. not just earnings calls and NPD data), it’s not enough to prove anything. To me, in this kind of debate, the “null” hypothesis should be the obvious conclusion, which is that when money made from a game sale goes entirely to a retailer, it’s worse for the developer.

#195 Posted by eclipsesis (1242 posts) -

i love used games, around march i usually pick up all the games i had interest in but never bought at used prices. And i can not count how many times that has led to me buying the sequals brand new when they come out. Don't let people sat on their ivory towers tell you any different. You know what i even support piracy in a sense, i've never really done it my slef all that much, but the fact is it stops publishers from extorting the customer because they know the customer will always find an alternative. Also do people remeber copying floppy's it didn't seem much of a big deal back then so why now. How have the publishers managed to convince customers to side with them?!?

#196 Posted by Example1013 (4834 posts) -

@Narwhalist: You agree that most of the money is made in the first couple months. Well, that means one will be able to tell if a game is successful or not in the first couple months. The publisher will already have either a successful game and a big pile of cash or an unsuccessful game and a bunch of red tape by the time GameStop starts really making its money. Publishers already are ridiculously risk-averse. Last year's big releases were a sequel, a shooter sequel, a shooter, a shooter, a shooter, a shooter sequel, a sequel, and another sequel. Saying some pithy from used game sales would be used to do anything but line pockets is ridiculous. Unsuccessful titles rarely move used units anyways (nevermind new units), so it's not like that's hedging losses or anything. And ultimately, developers don't see an extra dime of support.

This is, of course, besides the fact that, if you make GameStop pay, now everyone on Amazon, Craigslist, and eBay has to pay, despite the fact that few of them are making any profit at all. And what about rare, valuable games? How do you judge the fee on a $10,000 copy of Zelda or whatever it was? I can give you several strong arguments as to why used sales affect absolutely nothing and are actually pro-consumer and helpful for the industry, while you can only come up with a weak "well, the publishers may not make as much money because of used sales, which means they might be less willing to fund shit than if they had all the oodles of cash from everyone buying new (or getting a cut of used)".

#197 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@ddensel said:

Criticism of used games is ridiculous.

If I buy a TV at a pawn shop, should Sony get a cut of that purchase? What if I trade a paperback novel for something else? Should John Steinbeck's estate get a lil something? If I purchase an item, it's mine. I can sell it, trade it, or destroy it, whatever I want to do, it's my property. In the current era of disc based games, I buy a physical disc that I can resell. The future may be different, but this is the way it is now.

Bringing Gamestop into the argument just puts a mean face on the whole situation. Personally, I'll continue to buy cheap used games from them. Games that were purchased originally for $60, when the developer was compensated for their work. They get paid by the copy, not the user.

Just because that copy was bought once doesn't mean shit, that copy is supposed to be a user, maybe a few users within a community/family/household. But used copies being sold by Gamestop is totally different. There are studios that because of used sales and or piracy, have gone under. Because enough people didn't pay them but paid someone else almost the same damn price for their game. When a new user experiences that content, it's a lost sale, period, end of story. The idea that paying for something once is enough to pay for it being used an infinite number of times by an infinite number of owners is ridiculous.

You wanna sell a used copy as a person, fine. But Gamestop makes wayyyyyyyy too much money that could be going to funding new games, new risks. Used games should not go away completely, but they should be regulated to some extent. Yes, once the user has that thing, they can do whatever they want with it. But regardless of what you say, if you like a game, and you want the developer, the people who did all the work on that game, to get something for it, you have to buy new. You should support developers if you play their games. I don't care if it's too short or has ugly DLC. If it was worth buying, pay the people who made it not the fucking company ripping you off by charging 10 times what they paid for it.

The problem mainly is that a large corporation that is probably responsible for a huuuuuuge percent of used game sales.

Support develepors. You want to be paid for your work, pay others for their work if you enjoy the benefits of it.

If you can't afford games, you have bigger problems. And you can always wait for the price to drop. Platinum games are usually $20 and big popular games tend to go there in a decently quick run. Buy used games when they are ACTUALLY way cheaper than the new $60 game. And if you have the money, buy games new. It's the right thing to do. No, used games are not evil. But Gamestop IS a shitty business that rips off the content creators AND its consumers. I buy new from them 100% of the time because I will never fuel their bullshit.

#198 Posted by DrDarkStryfe (1117 posts) -

People have the right to sell what they have purchased. Gamestop is just like eBay, Craigslist, or the Amazon Marketplace, a middleman in the transaction.

I also believe that game companies have the right to curve used sales in their own ways. If the public does not approve of their tactics, then they can choose to vote with their dollar.

#199 Posted by sopranosfan (1935 posts) -

Here is my reasoning. If I can't sell it do I truly own it? If I don't own it am I willing to spend $60 on it? My answer to both is no.

If the games sold digitally new in the $20-30 range then I would maybe consider digital games only but history says that Sony and Microsoft aren't interested in this as is proved most recently with the prices of digital games for the Vita.

#200 Posted by Sgykah (95 posts) -

When I buy stuff, I do it partly to support a developer I like, and partly to vote with my wallet. I refuse to buy a single activision game new because of how activision treats developers and customers. This is my stand.

By buying new, I'm actually making sure that the developer will get bank rolled for their next project. Whether it's a day 1 purchase, or 4 months down the road.

With that said, I dislike gamestop. Gamestop is not an advocate for the consumer, they are a waste of mall space that could be used for stores like pinkberry. Seriously, if you like games (even used ones), you should hate gamestop. They are thieves, more interested in making sure you walk into their store, so they could get a 60% mark up on a used game.

The OP seems to have a hard on for numbers (and insulting people who disagree with him/her). Here you go, numbers: MW3 is 4 months old (I know it's an activision game, but it's a great example). The new game sells for $60 at gamestop. The used game sells for $55. On ebay, you can pick up MW3 used for $42. On amazon, you can buy MW3 for $40; right now, today. If you're going to spend $40, why would you not support the developer so that the publisher has a reason to bank roll future projects from that developer? Do you just prefer to vote with your wallet for gamestop? Do you like their employees? Their banners? Do you just hate activision (like I do - seriously, I'm probably going to buy Prototype 2 used from ebay so that activision does not get a penny from me; I hate them, and any developer that lets them publish their game isn't smart enough to get my money)?

I digress. When it comes to buying new versus buying used, cost can be made a non-factor if you are patient and spend some time shopping around; it's called being a smart consumer. And as a side effect of purchasing new, you support the people who will or will not bank roll the next game based on the performance of this one. So please, if you like this passtime, support the people who support the games you like to play. This basically gets rid of a big part of the OP argument that "used games cost too much for my poo' ass".

The OP argument has only one other worthwhile leg to stand: Basically, it's easy to argue the value of the game you're buying is diminished by the requirement of an on-line pass. But just because it's easy to argue that doesn't mean it's right. As a consumer, if you sell directly to another consumer who has to pay approximately $10 for an on-line pass to activate their game, you can make sure they buy your game by building that $10 into your sell price. I'm pretty sure you could still make more money back than you would if you "sold" it back to gamestop (I use that term loosely, it's more like giving it back to gamestop). And hey, now that you've sold this used game to another user, who understands that full functionality will require an investment of $10 more, I'm sure they can decide if the full functionality is worth it or not. Oh and they still paid less than getting it from gamestop, and they have the option of supporting the publisher, who supports the developer. This $10 argument can be made for gamefly too: rent the game, keep it for as long as you like, and if you want the extra stuff, $10 more.