Why do people argue against the used market?

Occasionally, usually in debates about the morality of piracy (which this thread is not about), people bring up the idea that selling or buying used games is wrong ethically (usually in the debate it is phrased as "worse than piracy").
 
This is ridiculous. It is your right to sell your property in the used market. Would you argue against or say it is immoral to sell your vehicle or house in the used market? Those industries have massive used markets, far larger than video game's. How is it any different? There is no harm to the industry, no money loss, just potential profit (potential because buying used is always an option). Why must people insist on being corporate shills and give away and argue against their own rights just to make multi billion dollar industries fatter?
 
As an aside, another thing that comes up in relation to this is that you never owned your games, not even boxed copies. Well, no. The license is talking about the assets, the intellectual property. You do not own those, you do own the physical disc. This means you can't take/copy the assets off of the original disc and burnt it to other discs and sell the burnt discs. You can not use the assets or intellectual property in your own project, which you could do if they were sold to you alongside the physical disc. This is exactly the same as books, movies and music. It is asinine to say you do not own the books, movies and music you buy, same as with video games.

well gamestop is a shitty store, so that may be part of it.

I generally neither sell my games, nor buy used games. But that might be because I'm 17 years deep into this whole thing.

And thus the digital future is born.

well gamestop is a shitty store, so that may be part of it.

1) "I'll just wait for a used copy so I can save $10-$15 on the purchase" = "bloo bloo bloo online-pass ripping me off"

2) "A used game is worse than a pirated game" - Countless developers and publishers, and the sad truth

If it's not on the store shelves, virtual or physical, go for it. If you're a cheap scumbag belonging to group#1 then you're part of the problem and the creation of online passes.

It has always struck me how anti-consumer the consumers of this industry tend to be.

1) "I'll just wait for a used copy so I can save $10-$15 on the purchase" = "bloo bloo bloo online-pass ripping me off"

2) "A used game is worse than a pirated game" - Countless developers and publishers, and the sad truth

If it's not on the store shelves, virtual or physical, go for it. If you're a cheap scumbag belonging to group#1 then you're part of the problem and the creation of online passes.

Well you have the right to buy used and sell used games but game companies also have the right to not cater to the used market.

Well when it comes to cars, a used car has actually lost value... it's done miles, there may be problems with it, parts worn e.t.c  So the option to buy new and used is actually a real choice, and the new one is still a viable option.
 
A videogame on the other hand doesn't deteriorate, there is no reason to buy new other than because you like them new for some reason, and therefore it can cripple the new market. 

Personally I think the used/rental market is a vital part of the industry.

@tsolless said:

@Laketown said:

well gamestop is a shitty store, so that may be part of it.

Why do people assume that you need to go through Gamestop? Are you so lazy that you have to use a middleman? Ebay, craigslist, friends and friends of, garage sales, flea markets, etc. There are sites to trade games as well if you are interested in that.

first of all, I sold some games to amazon so I'm not "lazy" I was just explaining that people, understandably, get annoyed with the largest game trade in place, and thus might be against selling in general.

@Laketown said:

well gamestop is a shitty store, so that may be part of it.

Why do people assume that you need to go through Gamestop? Are you so lazy that you have to use a middleman?  Ebay, craigslist, friends and friends of, garage sales, flea markets, etc. There are sites to trade games as well if you are interested in that.

It does though. Go into a gamestop, look at the used games. Most of them aren't in the original cases and are missing the manual. Most of the discs are scratched to shit as well which might not cause a problem now but might cause a problem more quickly in the future.
 
There is a perception of value of loss, same as with new vehicles once you drive them off of the lot. Is there a reason why the price should deteriorate ~30% when it is just driven off of the lot?
 
Also, the longer ago a game was released the less valuable it is, typically.

A videogame on the other hand doesn't deteriorate

@Laketown said:

well gamestop is a shitty store, so that may be part of it.

Why do people assume that you need to go through Gamestop? Are you so lazy that you have to use a middleman?  Ebay, craigslist, friends and friends of, garage sales, flea markets, etc. There are sites to trade games as well if you are interested in that.

If you're willing to pay >$30 for a mediocre game, you probably had too much money for your own good anyway.

@tsolless said:

@Laketown said:

well gamestop is a shitty store, so that may be part of it.

Why do people assume that you need to go through Gamestop? Are you so lazy that you have to use a middleman?  Ebay, craigslist, friends and friends of, garage sales, flea markets, etc. There are sites to trade games as well if you are interested in that.

I agree with this. Why pay full price for a game when I can beat it in a week for a $10 rental or cheap used purchase? That excludes games with really engrossing multi-player, but I can count on one hand how many of those types of games there are per year. I beat ME2, Red Dead Redemption, Dragon Age, and AC:2 all in one week each. Those are all fantastic games and they cost me less to FINISH than the price of one game at retail. It's a no frickin' brainer.

The same arggument can be made in favor of piracy.
 
I'm not against either, but people who claim to be against piracy and then proceed to go and buy all their games used are hypocrites. Bottom line is, while neither hurt the developer, neither support them either.

The reason it is different is that when you go to a Ford dealership and enquire about a new Focus they don't try and talk you in to buying a 2 year old used for 10% less.

@Video_Game_King: Yes i suppose in the long run, but when it's only been a week since the game came out.. or even months, no it hasn't.

@tsolless I think the reason it is looked at differently than selling a car or a house is because some gamers love certain developers and want to do whatever they can to support them. Very few developers are multi million dollar companies that won't feel the blow of used game sales. You seriously can't say you give a fuck about the building materials manufacturers when you sell a house or the car companies when you sell a car. To make the comparison is honestly ridiculous.

If most people had this mindset, those games you love wouldn't exist because the publisher/developers wouldn't make money off of their games and would shut down. 

@tsolless said:

@Laketown said:

well gamestop is a shitty store, so that may be part of it.

Why do people assume that you need to go through Gamestop? Are you so lazy that you have to use a middleman? Ebay, craigslist, friends and friends of, garage sales, flea markets, etc. There are sites to trade games as well if you are interested in that.

Because they're the easiest and most prominent store to deal with, so of course people turn their hatred of GameStop's shitty policies into a hatred of the used game market when there's a ton of better ways out there (Goozex, for example).

Also, no need to call names, dude.

The phrase "worse than piracy" generally gets used within the context of money lost to the gaming industry. People aren't saying that it's morally wrong like piracy, just that it hurts the industry. I agree, you own your games and are well within your rights to sell them, and other people are well within their rights to buy them, but ultimately it does reduce the amount of money developers receive. People argue that if you like games, you should support the industry and to do that you have to buy games new and not save a few pennies by buying it used. Which is correct.

I 100% agree with the OP.

I'm a little confused how this'll work down the line, for example I've started buying games that were out a few years back from ebay, some from develpers/publishers that don't exist anymore.
 
Now the idea of being able to get a "new game" from a few years ago is silly, but normally developers/publishers go down the avenue of an online pass you can buy to download/unlock content day 1. Now in my previous example say the developer/publisher no longer exists, or the download service is gone, so it's no longer possible to get hold of this online pass. Does that mean that the content that should've been accessible is pretty much doomed?

I think it's ridiculous that people think you're scum for buying used. It's your property and you have the right to do whatever the hell you want with it (as long as it's legal). A lot of games out there aren't worth $60. Are students scum for buying used textbooks? Are people wrong for buying used DVDs? 

@cap123 said:

@Video_Game_King: Yes i suppose in the long run, but when it's only been a week since the game came out.. or even months, no it hasn't.

When the hell did you mention anything about a time limit? Also, given that there are tons of multiplayer-heavy games available for trade-in, it's still very possible to wear the disc down to the point that it takes nine hours to load Nuketown.

@MattyFTM said:

The phrase "worse than piracy" generally gets used within the context of money lost to the gaming industry. People aren't saying that it's morally wrong like piracy, just that it hurts the industry. I agree, you own your games and are well within your rights to sell them, and other people are well within their rights to buy them, but ultimately it does reduce the amount of money developers receive. People argue that if you like games, you should support the industry and to do that you have to buy games new and not save a few pennies by buying it used.

The movie, music and book industries has had to deal with the used market for years and haven't fallen apart, nor have there ever been complaints of buying it used being equivalent to taking money out of the mouths of poor developers. As much as it doesn't matter to me since I buy almost all of my games new anyway, why is the games industry some sacred cow where people need to actively be discouraged from buying used copies? It's hypocrisy.

@MattyFTM said:

The phrase "worse than piracy" generally gets used within the context of money lost to the gaming industry. People aren't saying that it's morally wrong like piracy, just that it hurts the industry. I agree, you own your games and are well within your rights to sell them, and other people are well within their rights to buy them, but ultimately it does reduce the amount of money developers receive. People argue that if you like games, you should support the industry and to do that you have to buy games new and not save a few pennies by buying it used.

The movie, music and book industries has had to deal with the used market for years and haven't fallen apart, nor have there ever been complaints of buying it used being equivalent to taking money out of the mouths of poor developers. As much as it doesn't matter to me since I buy almost all of my games new anyway, why is the games industry some sacred cow where people need to actively be discouraged from buying used copies? It's hypocrisy.

@SethPhotopoulos said:

@iAmJohn said:

@MattyFTM said:

The phrase "worse than piracy" generally gets used within the context of money lost to the gaming industry. People aren't saying that it's morally wrong like piracy, just that it hurts the industry. I agree, you own your games and are well within your rights to sell them, and other people are well within their rights to buy them, but ultimately it does reduce the amount of money developers receive. People argue that if you like games, you should support the industry and to do that you have to buy games new and not save a few pennies by buying it used.

The movie, music and book industries has had to deal with the used market for years and haven't fallen apart, nor have there ever been complaints of buying it used being equivalent to taking money out of the mouths of poor developers. As much as it doesn't matter to me since I buy almost all of my games new anyway, why is the games industry some sacred cow where people need to actively be discouraged from buying used copies? It's hypocrisy.

The game industry isn't as old as the other industries.

As if that makes it any less hypocritical.

people just want money for their games. i understand selling it because it's yours. i thought this was gonig to be about the prising on the used games. i think that $5 off a used newer game is a rip off. i know gamestop gets profit from the $20ish they get.

Playing devil advocate here but I believe people are against used games because it is less money going to the less developers/publishers. The more money that goes to developers/publisher the more/better games they can make and the less likely the company will go bankrupt.

Personally I wait, 1 month - 1 year to buy games (unless i really want it) because the price untill the game on sale where i purchase it for $10-$30. Its funny because gamestop will still charge more for there used version then most games you can find on sale.

I don't argue against the used market. I argue against used game buyers complaining. If you don't pay the dev, you shouldn't expect to get 100% of the game. 

@Sir_Lizardman said:

Playing devil advocate here but I believe people are against used games because it is less money going to the less developers/publishers. The more money that goes to developers/publisher the more/better games they can make and the less likely the company will go bankrupt.

Personally I wait, 1 month - 1 year to buy games (unless i really want it) because the price untill the game on sale where i purchase it for $10-$30. Its funny because gamestop will still charge more for there used version then most games you can find on sale.

Unless you're buying a game that is selling well and the retailer will undoubtedly be buying new copies of it once they sell out their stock, what you're doing is just as bad as buying it used. The way these companies make money is by selling a ton of copies to these stores; if it doesn't sell well, the stores aren't going to buy more copies. Waiting for it to go on clearance is essentially the same thing as buying used, except neither the store nor the publisher/developer gets any money, whereas buying it used means the store gets money but not the publisher/developer.

And this is why the entire anti-used argument is so completely and utterly stupid.

It is not people, it is the industry. Publishers worry about the used game market because they are losing a profit opportunity when someone gets a game used. The only reason they care now because they are that much more hungry for money then before. 

@i77ogical said:

I don't argue against the used market. I argue against used game buyers complaining. If you don't pay the dev, you shouldn't expect to get 100% of the game.

Let's say I get a used game for €10. Then, if I'm interested in the multiplayer aspect of the game, I'll have to pay another €10, give or take, to access the "online pass" or however they want to call it. If those €20 I've just spent on that game are less than the price of getting it new, I don't see the problem. I understand maintaining servers and stuff can be expensive, so if that "online pass" somehow pays for those costs, I won't be complaining.

On the other hand, locking out single player content like Bethesda plans to do with Rage is a completely dick move. The dev has already made its money out of the original purchase and the single player needs no maintenance like multiplayer servers. This specific variant of the "€10 bucks more if you brought it used" is especially greedy on the part of the developer and hurtful towards the consumer.

@tsolless said:

@SomeJerk said:

1) "I'll just wait for a used copy so I can save $10-$15 on the purchase" = "bloo bloo bloo online-pass ripping me off"

2) "A used game is worse than a pirated game" - Countless developers and publishers, and the sad truth

If it's not on the store shelves, virtual or physical, go for it. If you're a cheap scumbag belonging to group#1 then you're part of the problem and the creation of online passes.

So would you argue against me selling my car or house? My property? Are you such a shill? Come on, come up with an actual argument for why I shouldn't be able to sell my property that belongs to me.

No, because cars, houses and properties aren't games.

@iAmJohn said:

Waiting for it to go on clearance is essentially the same thing as buying used, except neither the store nor the publisher/developer gets any money, whereas buying it used means the store gets money but not the publisher/developer.

How do you figure?

The answer to your question is simple, when a game is bought used no money goes back to the developer or publisher. Some people have a problem with that.
 
If the same pricing structure that applies to a new sale applied to a used one, publishers and developers would have a lot more more money. Which in turn would (hopefully) inspire them to produce more varied games because they would be able to comfortably deal with a loss if it happened. That's how I like to look at it anyway.

The big difference between the used market for cars, homes, etc. and video games, movies, etc. is that a contractor that builds a house or a car maker makes their profit on each new sale. Video games cost $50,000,000 to make and sold at $60 new meaning to recoup costs a publisher has to sell "x" many copies to break even where if a contractor builds a house he has already got a contract that guarantees him money, there is no way for him to lose money unless he is a bad contractor and gets fired/sued. If Ford sells a car for $10,000 they make a profit on the car because it only cost them $6,000 to make it. Because video games require such a large upfront investment any possible money not going towards recouping that cost (used games, piracy, etc.) is bad for publishers. And this is why you see publishers making sequels or unoriginal games that are similar to the competition (ie. MW clones).

I am not saying used games are evil, I think they hold an important place in the market. But saying used games does not hurt the industry as a whole is wrong because if a company loses money they'll either make a game that is very standard and won't take risks or they will have to shut down like GRIN or Factor 5. I am not saying used games are the sole reason for loss of revenue but they do play a role in that.

The used market isn't the problem it's the people complaining about online passes. You don't give them any money, they don't give you all content. Simple as that. If you want the game cheaper, deal with it.

Because developers get shut down constantly when their good games do not sell well.

Games are creative media. Like all other creative media, I prefer to pay the creators.