In Defense of Used Sales: The Industry as a Whole is Wrong

TheParanoidGamer writes: "Do I frequently visit Gamestop or some second-hand store looking for a discount off of the latest games? Yes, of course I do, and why shouldn’t I? Recently the industry has accepted this absurd notion that used games shouldn’t have the same basic features as brand new off the shelf products."

Before anyone tries to report this, I seriously encourage you to read it, before you pass judgment.


Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Godmars2902535d ago

Especially when you consider the indirect damage that's being done to the ability of a "first owner" to use the within supposed approved rights like sharing it. Using it on multiple systems that they own.

xyxzor2535d ago

Yes, that's another really bad issue.

sphinct2535d ago (Edited 2535d ago )

When I sell my car, the buyer is getting it used and the manufacturer isn't getting a dime. Can you imagine if Ford, Mercedes, or Toyota complained about that? Can you imagine these companies building something into cars that made it difficult to buy used? They would get sued. `Sorry, the brakes only work if you buy new. Other than that you have to buy a Break Pass.'

So...why is it okay for game developers to complain about used sales and think they are somehow magically exempt from the rules that govern every other industry?

xX-StolenSoul-Xx2535d ago (Edited 2535d ago )


Because They can. If you buy a game used your just causing furture strain on their Online Servers. Sure the person that sold the game is not online anymore and someone is taking their place but all his stats are still stored on the server and it puts it's strain.

It cost money to keep a server running. We're lucky enough not to pay for those servers monthly.

DoctorGrant2535d ago

Its like if you resold a car and the trunk no longer worked for the next person. Also like games, if you were to buy a car but if you want to use the reverse feature you'd have to pay an extra grand after you buy it. The only way to respond is to just not support such tactics with your money. (this applies to unlocking content already on the disk that you paid for)

Just think if Obi-Wan told Luke "this is your fathers lightsaber but he already used the unlock code for it sooooo you can play pretend... voom voom swoosh!"

slayorofgods2535d ago (Edited 2535d ago )

The game industry makes a ton of money off of games already, it is in no harm or showing any signs of a collapse and the developers even makes tons of money off of a desired career.

What confuses me most (when people argue for game pass)is why they would want and support something taken away from them. To not have game rentals or used games does not benefit consumers what so ever. The argument from people latley is they would happily pay more just because they hate game stop so much and that Gamestop is evil because it takes away from rich developers that could be even richer? This to me is very confusing.

gamingdroid2535d ago

***Sure the person that sold the game is not online anymore and someone is taking their place but all his stats are still stored on the server and it puts it's strain.***

Yes, those stats stored on the server is taking huge strain. /s

The stats hardly puts any strain on the server, let alone the fact that as long as the owner of the disc plays, more stats is being stored. The original owner can create infinite accounts so if another user does it, it doesn't really change anything.

This is not saving the industry. It's a bold face lie, the industry started to get you to believe in their agenda to nickel and dime you more.

radphil2535d ago (Edited 2535d ago )

"Sure the person that sold the game is not online anymore and someone is taking their place but all his stats are still stored on the server and it puts it's strain. "

If you worked with networking, it's very, very small in comparison to other things....Barely a blip.

If stats WERE a strain on the servers, then I would be worried for the online of that game, since the network would be 100x worse than people playing the game.

Bereaver2535d ago

Software is different from hardware.


Let's use the car reference. You have a car, and you use it for 100,000 miles. You sell it. The next owner will most likely not able to run it for 100,000 miles without having to do some repair work. And eventually, without a serious overhaul the car will just become junk. A car also costs around $10,000 to $25,000 (average).

Now, what is the difference between selling the car and not selling the car, or even letting people share the car? The car will still get mileage. It will still break down and eventually a new car must be purchased.

Software on the other hand. Never goes bad (unless you scratch it to hell like an idiot).

If you spend $1,000,000 developing a new car and nobody buys new models of it, you're doing something wrong. The same thing with a game correct?

But do you think the same thing about spending that $1,000,000 to have it passed around the world person to person? The car wouldn't last long so a new one would have to be purchased eventually. But the game could go on forever.

These rights are in place to help developers. They aren't there to hurt you.

Don't you want to increase developer profit to lower game costs and increase game quality?

radphil2535d ago (Edited 2535d ago )

"These rights are in place to help developers. They aren't there to hurt you. "

Still doesn't stop the idea behind it. They may not intend for it to hurt you, but on a different scale it can.

Thing is, this is a business practice. Nothing stated that we had to accept situations that they throw at us, nor are we obliged to as well. Their job is just like everyone else's. The people that do the actual heavy work of the game aren't the same ones that decide on these situations. The real ones that actually program, animate, etc aren't the same ones making these decisions. The only ones you're really "helping" are the higher ups, the CEOs, etc.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 2535d ago
xX-StolenSoul-Xx2535d ago (Edited 2535d ago )

Well i don't know about you but on the Ps3 we can share our stuff on up to 5 ps3 at the same time so i have no problem getting stuff like online passes on all my consoles.

It's not really bad for them to charge us for online passes when you're not really helping them by buying a used copy.
Plus that means you can get some really good deals on games since they go for cheaper if they have online passes so it's not all bad.

The thing that really gets on my nerves is Dlc that's already on discs and the prices that come with them. Really? do i have to pay +$15 for something that's already on my disc? yeah right.

xyxzor2535d ago

You can't have it both ways though. Online passes are just another extension of these DLC practices. It just may not effect you directly.

Lich1202535d ago


"Gamers and consumers alike were asked to step up and defend the industry, however when it comes down to it; the industry doesn’t even come close to repaying the favor to consumers. It’s a complete and unadulterated double-standard."

They make you games, that you enjoy. Seems to me that they're holding up their end of the bargain.

gumgum992535d ago (Edited 2535d ago )

yes, but they had their sale when you bought the game for 60 dollars.Those games should be considered sold and done for and stop treating it like piracy because these used games were not stolen they were bought.

Lich1202535d ago

I understand your point and I can certainly sympathize. Im a gamer just like you. However the thing that bugs be about these articles is a seeming air of entitlement like these devs owe something beyond a solid gaming experience. While it could be argued that cutting features for used games is not delivering a quality experience there is the counter argument that even the top end game studios aren't exactly swimming in money. Unlike the RIAA argument where it was hard to feel bad for multi-millionaire artists, the fact remains that most devs make a relatively average sum of money for there hard work. As such I feel protecting their livelyhood is a positive thing.

hazelamy2534d ago

but they're overstepping the bounds of the bargain.
they no longer have the right to profit from our copy of the game once we bought it, it's our property then, not theirs.

koehler832535d ago

If used game sellers just gave a buck or two to the publisher for every used copy sold, the consumer wouldn't be getting screwed.

It's not an attack on consumers. We're just collateral damage.

Eventually the retailer will be irrelevant and it won't matter anymore.

thebudgetgamer2535d ago

as long as there are consoles retailers will remain important. console makers need retail more than retail needs them.

maniacmayhem2535d ago

Why should they? What other used selling business gives back to the original manufacturer?

Why is Gamestop all of a sudden an evil empire? How are they different from record stores or video stores that buy, trade and sell used goods?

xX-StolenSoul-Xx2535d ago (Edited 2535d ago )

That actually sounds good. Maybe we can see something like this in the future. But im doubtful.

BeOneWithTheGun2535d ago (Edited 2535d ago )

Careful what you wish for. Once all media is sold a la digital distribution, DRM will be a nightmare.

Say you download a new game and pay for it. Now your PS3 or 360 dies. With a hard copy you just toss in the disc to the new system and keep playing, maybe losing your save if you did not back it up. With a digital copy, you have to log on, call their support and try to convince them that it is you, the original purchaser and get your game reactivated.

What if it is 6 months later and you lost the purchase code? What if your email has changed? What happens if you do not have an internet connection? You are screwed.

slayorofgods2535d ago (Edited 2535d ago )


Since the NES days used games have been a huge part of the gaming industry. Why is it suddenly a huge problem now? The gaming industry still brings in so much profit as it is.

hazelamy2534d ago

if the publishers want a cut of preowned sales, they'll have to set up their own stores, because despite what they say, they're not actually entitled to anything from any preowned sales of their products.

they got their fair share when they sold the game initially.
and that is all they are legally entitled to.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2534d ago
thebudgetgamer2535d ago

since the video game started someone was buying games second hand, it never hurt the industry before why now.

another way the online generation has hurt as much as it has helped.

xX-StolenSoul-Xx2535d ago

Well, games nowadays cost way more money to make than they did last gen because they need a bigger staff. But also greed is involved.

gumgum992535d ago

but its their fault for making games more expensive at 60 bucks, and they are surprised when consumers aren't buying games as only new anymore??

Software_Lover2535d ago

People always throw the argument "buy all your games new we wouldn't have this problem". Well we wouldn't have this one but we would have another problem, devs making more crap games because everyone is willing to pay 60.00 for them. Used game sales are not hurting online. By the time most people buy used games they are down to 20-30 range.

Its not the whole 55.00 argument that people make. I haven't bought a console game in a while. Last console game I bought was Mass Effect 2. I'm "willing" to pay 60.00 for that game because its good, I get hours upon hours of enjoyment, every play through is different.

When dealing with consumers and their hobbies, the only thing that matters is price. Take the prices of these games down. Look at steam.......enough said.

Agent_00_Revan2535d ago

I'm sick of this argument. The game industry is the only place where you hear this whining and complaining. Toyota doesn't disable your radio unless you pay an extra fee when buying a used car. I don't have to pay royalties to the construction company that built my house when I sell it. Motorola isn't locking down my phone when I sell it to a second hand dealer after I upgrade.

So how is it that the greedy practices of the game industry have become accepted? It is becoming highway robbery. Charging extra to play online just because I didn't buy it new and sealed is bullshit. And don't even get me started on DLC already on the disc.

Yes, development costs went up this generation, but not to the point where it is acceptable to charge $60 for the game, $15 for the DLC Map packs, $5 for DLC guns, $2 for skins, & $10 just to play online if you bought it used. Especially if all that stuff was already on the disc, just locked.

Show all comments (44)
The story is too old to be commented.