SlashGear writes: "Used video games have become a desirable purchase for many industry fans. With prices coming in at substantially lower amounts than new alternatives, it simply makes sense to many people to buy used titles. The more you save, the more products you can buy, right?"
30°
10°
10°
30°
Ad 
20°
They've failed to speak up sooner so the only way they can respond is by offer a lesser product? Punish the people they're trying to tell to?
1) A game I can't resell (or sell WITH multiplayer access) automatically has half of its normal value. But they still charge $60.
2) It makes playing/starting a bigger hassle for new buyers, like myself.
Theres one fallacy of that argument. Being that those products have a shelf-life. They die and/or become obsolete; people will have to buy replacements.
So Ford wont see a penny from that used car sale, but guess what; eventually that car will die and need to be replaced by a new one(either from the seller who needs a replacement, or the buyer after the used car dies). Same for the computer, it will become obsolete and a new one will replace it.
Games 'theoretically' have the potential to last forever, so one disc can span far more consumers than those other products.
Not saying I agree/disagree with used games sales, but when a used ford car gets sold, generally a new ford car gets bought in its place. When an FF13 used disc gets sold; a new FF13 disc isnt bought in its place.
Not to mention vehicle makers have numerous ways to recoup the losses, including manufacturing parts for repairs (and conducting the repairs themselves), as well as getting their own hands into the used market.
Oh wait...no, I'm not. I gave them money to make the chair my property. What was once their property is now mine, a financial exchange all parties agreed on. Why should I give them a part of the money if I then choose to sell my property to somebody else?
Totally ridiculous.
As SilentNegotiator said, the price for a game should be AT LEAST half of what they're charging if they're not going to give us the full rights that we as consumers are afforded for actually owning a product.
Next games DO become obsolete. Sequels automatically make this happen, often when someone sells the first one its to buy the next one! So not only are used games promoting sales of new games but they are also exposing more people to the old game and maybe eccouraging that person to get the next game as well. All at no cost to the Dev.
until that car die out enjoy the usage and fun.
that is the purpose of used games. play,enjoy.be entertained til next new game of choice comes out.
theres alot of games that after you play it or platinum it (if ur into doing the trophy thing) its pretty much not needed, i.e. i love the assassin's creed, i play just for the story, once i beat one I'm done i don't want it anymore, i should be able to sell it.
and if you're late to a console gen and you're playing catch up on all the great games how are you to find the older games new? and yea they could put the as downloadable games but what if u don't have the internet?
let us buy used games if we want
To be against used games on principle means you have to be against all other used items, like cars, clothing, electronics, everything. Of course the games industry knew used games would be a factor of doing business, but so what? Go sell them electronically if you're so against the idea, and then noone can sell it used.
I almost see where you're coming from, but some of those counters are a direct result of the used game market(aswell as piracy, which really isn't even that different.)
DRM for example, would it exist if not for pirates and such?
If anything, DLC and DRM are reasons you should be against used game sales.(As they show the damage that the used game market has done to the industry.)
You cannot compare trading games with trading cars they are very different.
For one, Cars make money on a single purchase, games do not.
You should only be relating this to the likes of DVD's/Music/Blu-rays etc.
Now how many companies that you know who sell these items also sell used copies within the same store?
None. Nutta. Niche.
Yes you can find them at pawn brokers but that is far different from finding it at a major retail chain.
Try relating this to anything in the same vein and you will find only games do this. Devs/Publishers do have a reason to complain, it's much like how the bigger corporations lower their prices to squeeze out the lower ones.
It's gotta come to a stop eventually especially with game budgets rising in the near future (nextgen)
Games do cost more than $60 to make.
If second hand games were only found at pawn brokers and not at every game store then i'm sure you'd see that devs won't give a damn just like the movie/music industry.
If you have music and movie stores open around you they DO sell used copies of both. music inudstry doesn't throw a fit because the record companies barely give any money to the artists anyways, and are the only ones profiting off the sales. The artists make money with concerts and merchandise, or selling the disc themselves.
The video game industry is basically being run just like those companies. the publishers are the ones throwing the fit, because they are the oens that bought the game to turn around and sell. So they want every last dime they can. When Gamestop reports they just made millions of dollars and these companies saw none of it, suddenly its an issue. They are not going to come out and say "we simply want that money in our wallets" no they have to have a PR make it seem like a problem so you jump on their side. "Oh we are going to go bankrupt if we don't get that money!"
Like I said before. You get rid of used games, they will complain about piracy like everyone else. You get rid of that and they will blame something else. They won't be happy will you go up to EA and buy an EA game from them and ALL that money goes into their pocket, period.
Also you ignore that traded in games subsidise the purchase of new games for a lot of people, is it any co-incidence that game sales have dropped by around 10% since publishers stared to lock off parts of the game to used sales?
What about games that are out of print? Where are we supposed to get them?
Used car sales don't kill the car industry, used dvd's don't kill the movie business, used books don't kill the book industry, used furniture doesn't kill off the furniture business and used houses don't kill off the construction industry. What makes the games industry different to this?
When there's been a proper investigation that looks at the complex relationship between used games, consumers and new product that proves that developers and publishers are being 'hurt' then come back and make the case, otherwise this is just a finger in the air exercise.
Make no mistake this is why they want digital distribution, so they can restrict what you do with the product you've bought, one people join those dots any move towards that will result in failure.
car sales- When a car is bought from the manufacturer they immediately make their profit. The cost to make a car is covered in every individual sale. How long do people own new cars? At least a year?
dvd/blu-ray- Movies are generally profitable from theater revenue long before they're released on a disc. Look up any movie on wikipedia and you can see this.
books- It cost around 50,000 to publish a book? Not worth comparing.
furniture, houses- Same as car sales. When a single item is bought from the manufacturer they have already made their profit. They couldn't care less what happens to the product after that.
When are gamers going to understand that this industry is unique? The only way to see profit is to sell a large number of copies of a game. When you have games changing hands a couple times within the first month of release because of used sales it greatly reduces profits or kills profitability altogether.
I remember pricey games too, like the Atari...which by the way is no longer around....Just like all the pricey technology that has come and gone simply due to the price. Also 25 years ago the economy wasn't spiraling down the drain with gas prices sky rocketing passed 4 dollars a gallon.
And yes the industry still had issues. Companies were still struggling from time to time and companies were being bought out. In fact it was around 25 years ago that the entire game industry almost disappeared entirely....
I do agree with your casual experience note though. I feel games are going the wrong direction with phones, but also "hardcore" titles are WAY easier than they used to be. It seems like most (most) games are holding your hand the entire game....
@yabhero
If you can't afford to play 30 games then don't play 30 games :D
Well that was what I did anyway. But each person is different which is why I am not disagreeing with what you are saying.
For example here is one: http://www.youtube.com/watc...
This man runs his own game shop. In the video he tells you what he sells used games for, and how much he gives compared to Gamestop. Although the video is four years old, Gamestop is still the same.
So I wouldn't stop buying used games, I would only stop buying them from Gamestop.
It would suck for people like him, who really enjoy their job, and who really only relies on used items to make him the most money, to have to stop doing what he enjoys and close his shop.
What about used books and dvds? The only arguement I find logical is the use of online passes even though I hate them and find them extremely flawed. I find them somewhat acceptable because they ensure that people who did not pay for the product new can not cause them to lose money from them using their servers but even that is a weak arguement imo.
if someone bought fifa 12 new and the money went to EA then they sold it for cash or exchange then its fair game....BUT when you go to buy the game new yourself the shop always offers you a pre-owned copy for cheaper to make more money. if gamestaion has a pre-owned copy they always try and sell that first as it has more profit.
if EA is selling there title in your store then do NOT sell your invalid DLC-less version for cheaper for the consumer to turn around and say i hate Multiplayer activation codes.
i buy my games new direct from the company. no matter where i buy from i get a code which is redeemable on steam or origin which takes full advantage of my new,paid in full,thanks for supporting the industry GAME.
i don't mind selling my old games as long as the companies don't promote pre-owned to make a bigger profit.
if your company is closing down because EA,Capcom,Microsoft and activison are mad for not selling there games and borrowing too much product......then FUUUU.
gabe newell i love you for not making me pirate and offering a reasonably priced gaming lifestyle.
That depends who you are, I have an uncle who says he hasn't bought a game since the n64 days, has pirated them all. I know someone else who has bought zero, read that zero, zilch, nada games for his 360...yet owns bout a hundred of them. All pirated.
And think of the industries that are guaranteed to make loafs of money off your car purchase. You have to get it registered, you have to get insurance, pay for gas, upkeep, etc.
Meanwhile, there are no hidden costs to a game except for optional DLC.
Used game = Sold to customer, customer sold their own copy
Pirated game = 99% of the time pre-release leak, no sale at all
Please.
This has nothing to do with the money they supposedly make every year. (That's like saying it was okay to rob a bank because you left a couple million.)
This is about getting what is rightfully yours. I mean, why the hell should Gamestop get the bulk of the money made from a product they had no hand in creating? Especially when that money was supposed to go to the devs/publishers who actually did spend years creating the games you love.
When you get your paycheck, do you not want to get every cent you worked for? Or do you want it to go some random guy who doesn't even work there?
And don't give me that "propaganda" bullsh!t. Because let's be honest here, you're only pro-used games because it saves you a couple bucks(consequences be damned.)
You can follow Gamestop into the sun if you want, but don't start complaining when all of your favorite game companies are gone. And the few left standing have to nickel and dime you into oblivion just to make up the difference.
First, buying and selling used stuff is legal so your analogy about robbing a bank is completely irrelevant to everything.
Second, making movies and games is not sure profit so you shouldn't expect to always have a check waiting for you.
And third, if the industry is making millions of dollars a year, even much more than any other gen then this is prove enough that the used games sales aren't affecting the industry that much. This is just the publishers greed. They see how much money Gamestop is making with the used games and they want some of that on top of the DLC.
Facepalm.
You're the one not making sense buddy. As you missed every single one of my points.
Firstly, the legality of selling used games wasn't the point of the analogy, at all. The point was that: It's not okay for devs to lose money just because they make a certain amount every year.(you might have gotten that if you weren't so busy worrying about semantics.)
I guess a better analogy would be : It's not okay to dock a rich person's paycheck just cause they'll "still make millions". Happy?
Secondly : Again, you've missed the point of my apparently complex analogy. The point was : Anyone who buys "Game A" should be paying the developers of "Game A". Not some greedy ass corporation who do nothing but hurt the industry.
And third : Are you blind? Have you not noticed the millions of dollars companies lose from the used game market? And again, you're agrument is, "they makin da millions". Well to that: See my first point.
Here's some common sense for you.
Developers have jobs only because they can make the publishers money. The less money they make for a publisher, the harder it is for them to keep their jobs.
That little piece of common sense applies to everyone who works for someone else, to the kid taking orders at the Burger King drive-thru right up to CEOs. You might not be making all the money, but if you're not making enough money for person who's paying you, you're as good as done.
Your comments are soooo way off base. The devs make their money off of sale A from a retailer new. After that they aren't entitled to squat. If this was the case then you could say pawn shops owe stihl a certain percentage every time they sell a used chainsaw, or Jared Jewelery every time they sell a diamond.
Its not "following into the sun", its getting the best deal. This goes to whether its at Gamestop, BestBuy used, or Amazon.
That's exactly my point. they made their money when the game got sold new. If the want to keep their jobs they need to make better games. Just some common sense for ya!! This gen got worse and worse. Each game that comes out wants to be call of duty, and they succeed by releasing a buggy glitch filled short 5-6 hour game. Then have the gall to blame used sales when it doesn't sell. Some more common sense for you, if it didn't sell well new what makes them think it sold used? My examples are dead island, vanquish, enslaved, and quantum theory to name a few. Like i said common sense isn't so common now a days.
Even if the whole retailer thing is true..., that doesn't change anything. Think about it: If there was no used game market, everyone would have to buy a new copy of the game. Which means that retailers would have to order MORE copies. So the devs have still lost money.
Next, It's widely known that devs don't make a cent off used games. So let's do some math shall we.
If one person buys the game new and returns it, and another buys that same copy used and then returns it, and yet another person buys that copy used. Three people have played(and even owned) the game, but the developers only saw that first person's $60. (The rest went completely to the store selling it used.)
That doesn't seem so bad, until you multiply this by 100,000.
So now you have a game that 300,000 have played (and owned) but the devs only got money from 100,000 of the people. Which at $60 a pop leads to a loss of 12,000,000 dollars in revenue.
Here in lies the problem, I never said the devs don't make any money. But that they lose a lot of the money there were supposed to make to piracy and used game sales. Now if you can't agree with that simple fact then, you're just out of luck.
Nice sidestep.
Throw all the math out you want, they're still making the initial $60 off the game that they were planning on. Now if they had to cut the initial retail down to say $30 or even 45$, then they may be losing money. But they're not losing anything at $60 as they're still making the initial amount off the consumer. What the consumer does with it from that point on is their prerogative as its their property now. If anything buying used is introducing someone to their product that they wouldn't have paid full retail for anyway. Its advertisement, and maybe they'll like it so much they buy the next entry or something else by that dev at full value.
Then to lump selling/buying used into the same group as piracy and call it fact? Trust me man, I'm not the one here thats out of luck. Seriously get a clue.
Work on your reading skills. I never lumped used games into any group with piracy. I simple said that both cost the devs money. Is that not true? Of course it is. So How am I the one that needs a clue? (If anything, you need a clue on reading comprehension.)
And as if you can talk about sidestepping. You totally avoided my point so you could go on some tangent about the initial $60 bucks. Ignoring the money lost from the resell of that product.
Like I said. If 2 people buy the game, one new and the other used. The devs only see get $60 bucks as opposed to the $120 or so they were supposed to get. And that's a loss no matter how you slice it.
For every person who buys the game used that's one less person who would have bought that game new. And since devs don't see any money from used game sales, that translates into a lost sale.
I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this but I'm out of bubbles so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, I guess.
I'll use my last one too (sigh)
Since we're on the topic of reading comprehension you should have seen that I was countering your point, Im sorry you couldnt understand. This is where your argument fails, try to stay with me:
Every game starts out new.
Its not like some fairy comes in, waves a wand, and a game is suddenly used for half price at gamestop. That is what you're not comprehending. So the devs arent losing anything, they still make there initial money off of EVERY copy of the game. Maybe its not everyone else that isn't getting it.....food for thought.
have a bub+
you two have seem to be the only people I've seen so far that hit the nail on the head.
dev's get paid for doing a job which is developing the game. they don't get anything after the game is completed and it's not like they work on commission so the fact that dev's are hurting has much to do with the greed of the publisher and not used game sales.
i honestly want to know how much of a cut of the profits is EA and other publisher are giving the dev's from DLC and online passes that they milk out of gamers then tell me again why used games are hurting developers.
My point has clearly gone over your head.
A developer can build a fantastic game. They can get paid well for it. But if it doesn't sell what the publisher wants it to, the publisher isn't going to bother with a sequel, meaning the developer doesn't get their next project. Case in point: Mirror's Edge. Thankfully, DICE has Battlefield to fall back on. No ME sequel in sight.
The real kicker in all of this is you blame the devs by saying "they need to make better games". Tell that to Bizarre Creations or Black Rock, makers of Blur and Split/Second. Those were fantastic racing games that didn't sell enough. Sales weren't good enough, and now those studios are shut down. EVERY last new copy sold would have helped.
You say "each game that comes out wants to be call of duty, and they succeed by releasing a buggy glitch filled short 5-6 hour game" but you fail to realize that's the reaction to the problem, not the cause. If riskier, niche games were more viable, we would see more of them. More new sales would make that happen. Developers have to resort to games that they think have broader mass market appeal so they can sell more new copies.
You prefer to just blame developers even though plenty of quality developers have closed up shop or been stuck on sequels because it's what the devs need to do to guarantee a publisher comes back for another project. Ever wonder why it's sequel after sequel? It's because sequels are the safe bet. If each used sale was a new sale, that's just one more reason publishers have to take a chance on new IPs.
Your whole idea that a quality game like Enslaved wasn't hurt by used sales is just flat out stupid. You don't know the percentage of sales that were used. Let's say used sales were 10% of what new sales were. That would have been 50,000 more copies sold. If it was 20%, it's 100,000 sales. That's a big difference when Namco was shooting for one million sales.
The less a game sells, the more important each copy sold becomes. THAT is common sense.
Common sense is just going right by you!! I don't know how old you are, so ill just say this. Have your parents ever sold a car they no longer used? If so then tell them i need my cut of the money they received. See i work making cars and really think i deserve money from that sale!!! See common sense dictates that if you do something for one you have to do it for all, right? Well ill be waiting for the money. If the publishers determine the amount sold then the devs need to bring that to their attention. They make the game, they should have an idea how well it will sell. Used games are just a cop out for bad games. Case in point Enslaved. the Dev went multi to sell more games, but we all know what happened. A crappy game and a lot of finger pointing. Only they should have pointed the finger at themselves. The new DMC will be the same IMO. Contrary to popular belief on this story, bad games do exist as well as bad developers. But I'm gonna go ahead and say that i hope used games do take a dive, not go away but just go down a little bit. After that whenever a game comes out that does poorly i want to see what you and the devs blame it on then. My guess piracy would make a sharp return then, huh?
Lulz. Comparing video games to cars? You want your cut from a car sale? Uh, you realize that practically EVERY last used car sold means that someone is going to buy a new one, right?
Nobody is going to buy a new car when they have one that already works fine. The used industry doesn't hurt new car sales. If someone couldn't sell their car, they would just use it until it's no longer worth repairing, the car would be junked, and they'd buy a new car.
That isn't true for the game industry. I would never own more than one car at a time. I would own more than one game at a time though. That's why I have 300 games sitting on the shelf next to me. Know anybody with 300 cars in their driveway? Hell, know anybody that owns three cars?
Basic common sense. Say a car's lifespan is fifteen years.
No used cars? Two people both keep their new cars for 15 years. Two new cars sold.
With used cars? The first guy sells his car after five years to the second guy. That second guy keeps the car for ten years. Meanwhile that first guy buys a new car. Two new cars sold.
Two cars sold either way. The used industry doesn't make a difference to the new car industy. That's why auto makers don't care. Very few people will ever own more than one car because it's far to expensive and basically pointless. It's an industry driven almost entirely on need and the fact that eventually, every vehicle needs to be replaced, unlike games.
Plus, nobody buys a 2005 Ford Focus and expects it to run like a 2012 model. But everybody buying a copy of Call of Duty 2 from 2005 expects the experience to be the same in quality in 2012 as it was in 2005.
People that don't see the major differences between video games and cars are the last people that should be preaching "common sense".
Sorry, but you're not getting any cut of the money my parents received from selling their car. Because all that money was spent on their new car. If they couldn't have sold the car, they wouldn't have bought a new car. The guy that bought my parents used car would have just bought a new car. My parents selling their used car didn't result in a loss for you. At all.
Now, can you find me one person who would never buy a new game, just because they couldn't sell an old one? No, you can't. There isn't a gamer on this planet that would buy one game, and never buy another because he can't sell the second.
As if your failure to understand the basics of the used car and game industry wasn't enough to prove your lack of common sense, you failed to acknowledge or even dispute any point I made, and you continue to bring up Enslaved, a game you call bad, but got an 80-82 Metacritic average.
Not only that, but you ignored my examples of good, content rich games that didn't sell well and my point that new sales lost to used sales could have helped a game's overall sales, encouraged the publisher to fund a sequel, and kept the studios in business so the developers could "get THEIR money while making games" as you put it.
"Lulz", in trying to argue my point, you made your point then contradicted yourself. You claim that after X amount of years a person will buy a NEW car, why would they if they can go out and buy a used one. Same as a game, why do i need to buy a NEW game when i can get a used one cheaper? See that's how common sense works my friend. Yes people will buy new, but they will buy used if given the chance thus taking away the new sale. If it works with one why not the other? Can't have it both ways! Yes i keep bringing Enslaved up because that dev kept crying about sales not being enough for heavenly sword, so what did they do? They went multi and well everyone knows the rest. Perfect example of a BAD game selling bad imo, but its used games that get the blame. Now that is stupid!!
Now to address your points...
1. Blur and Split second were fantastic games, in your OPINION. I tried them, I didn't like them. Now it may come as a shock to you but the world doesn't revolve around you!! Your OPINION is not FACT!!!
2. Developers follow the money my friend. That's why they all try to copy COD. Not cause of used game sales. Almost all devs and publishers have a "me too!!!" mentality, and can't understand when their game flops. Yes alot of developers closed shop this gen. Used sales? Or bad games? Ill let you handle that one. What's your OPINION?
3. Now some more common sense for everyone my friend. The devs who made heavenly sword, their first game sold what 1.5/2 million copies? enslaved sold what 500k/750k? I hope when capcom picked them up they weren't thinking " yeah we got our billion dollar game here!!!" that's not common sense, common sense would have made them run for the hills! ! My guess is they went with the lowest bidder! Like some people here keep repeating " you get what you pay for!"
5. Oh and mirrors edge!!! "Lulz" i can't believe you went there as an example. How could that shining example of the perfect game flop? Surely it was used games right? It couldn't have been a extremely, extremely crappy game right. No, no that's not common sense.
Now try to counter my points instead of contradicting yourself. "Lulz"
Wow.
I never argued WHY someone wouldn't buy a used car. I was arguing that auto makers don't care about used sales, because in the end, it doesn't affect them. You know why I was saying auto makers don't care? Because of your idiotic assertion that because you work in the car industry, you're owed something for each used car sale, as if a used sale is a lost sale.
You said... "Yes people will buy new, but they will buy used if given the chance thus taking away the new sale."
This right here proves you can't understand basic logic and you COMPLETELY missed my point.
Let's try again...
People NEED cars. Cars get old. Cars need replacing. Whether a car goes through one owner or ten owners, the vast majority of cars will get used throughout their life by somebody. It's a fact.
Used car sales don't affect new sales number. They just affect who owns the old cars and who's buying the new cars.
My aunt buys a new car every five years. If she couldn't sell her old one, she wouldn't buy the new one. The person that would have bought that used car would instead buy the new one.
Again, auto makers don't lose new sales because of the used industry.
Game makers do. All cars become worthless after a certain number of miles. Does a video game become worthless after a certain amount of playthroughs? Nope.
If I couldn't sell my copy of Mass Effect 3, I'd still buy a copy of Max Payne 3. If I couldn't sell my Ford Focus, I sure as hell wouldn't buy a new car.
Common sense.
Now, onto you addressing my points.
1. You call Enslaved bad and treat it as if it's fact. Yet you tell me Blur and Split/Second being good is my opinion. You base your whole argument on opinion, pass it off as fact, then explain the whole opinion versus fact thing to me. Talk about being a hypocrite.
At least I had favorable Metacritic averages to back me up on the games I mentioned. You had nothing to back you up when you called them bad. The general consensus is that they are all good.
2. Developers do follow the money. Maybe they would try new stuff more often if there was more money to be made in a game like Enslaved, Blur, and Split/Second. Unfortunately, there isn't so they go with the "me too" copycat crap.
It's hilarious that you chalk all sales failures up to "bad games" but you completely refuse to acknowledge that used sales play SOME part in low new sales. I never said used sales are the SOLE issue. But if it wasn't an issue, it would help a developer achieve higher sales. It doesn't matter if it is one more sale or a million more sales. Every sale counts.
3. Ninja Theory didn't get to make Enslaved 2 like they wanted to. So now they are stuck working on whatever any publisher will give them in order to stay in business. Maybe if Enslaved sold better, it would have encouraged Namco to give them the green light on Enslaved 2.
5. (Because you skipped #4 for some reasons.)
Mirror's Edge was extremely crappy? More hypocrisy.
There. I countered all your points. Directly. And for added lulz, I pointed out your hypocrisy and lack of reading comprehension.
Have a nice day.
I have never bought a $50 or $60 PC game since Steam happened. Why would I? I wait for sales. I did buy Torchlight for $19.99 but that's about the only full price PC game I've ever bought and probably the only one that I ever will buy.
If that's what devs and publishers actually want from me, then great because that's what I'm doing on the PC side of the market.
Did EA, Activision or some other hard-up pub pay this guy to promote their agenda for him?
Really?
$60 for six-hour FPS games you'll play once and never again?
What the heck happened to video game writers championing the consumer? Have they all gone down the drain for supporting the corporatist agenda? REALLY?
Also, Modern Warfare 2 was still $50 when Modern Warfare 3 came out.
Also talk about hurting the industry, as long as there's been a video game industry there has been used game sales.
Okay, let me rewrite your point with the one I was trying to make...
"Also talk about hurting the industry, as long as there's been a video game industry there has been PIRACY. "
Both instances result in a person possessing a game which the publisher/developer didn't see a dime for.
True, whatever store you bought the game from got paid, and that does put the transaction a bit above piracy morally. But in the grand scheme of things, it has nearly the same impact on the industry as a whole.
= People acquiring goods that the original creators did not profit from.
I'm not saying that used games == piracy here, just that there are parallels... At least from the perspective of the content developers.
Edit:
Also, that both have been around since the dawn of gaming, and the industry has continued to grow and thrive despite it. So all of this talk about either ruining the gaming industry is a little over-exaggerated.
The difference is that used game was once bought new, so the dev/publisher did see that money.
The pirated game, NO ONE saw any of that money.
So there is a big difference in your comparison.
Say person A buys a game new, then sells it off to Gamestop or wherever, then say it gets traded back again and maybe another half dozen people own it over the life of the game.
Then look at person B who buys a game (PC for the sake of the argument here) takes the game home, downloads a crack for it and makes copies for half a dozen of his friends.
Tell me how there is such a huge difference between these two specific scenarios. I know places like pirate bay put copies in the hands of way more people, but piracy is piracy.
We know exactly how it is going to end:
Games will no longer come in a physical format after the next generation. And according to current rumors even for next gen they are going to get locked.
So screw these silly articles about the morality of buying used games.
Having people tell me what I can and cannot do with my own property because (essentially) the money doesn't go to someone else (being the devs) is a bit daunting. I mean, no one would complain if I bought a pre-owned television set or something.
The videogame industry and its fans are the most devoted in the biz.....devs know that fans in the videogame industry are very loyal to the point that they would defend anything the industry say.....they are using your loyalty in this issue though......its simple........Do you see the Auto industry making a fuss about used cars and used car salesmans??? nope! are u by this very logic saying you will also never resell or trade in your car? its the same in this espect....but honestly ......these scumbags are so greedy that there even useing your loyalty....makes me sick to my stomach listening to some people defend these developers....
I don't see Honda and Ford locking down vehicles to people's identities so that those vehicles can't be sold. I don't see furniture manufacturers crying because a sofa can be owned by multiple people throughout its existence.
If Sony and Microsoft do somehow block used game sales, it will probably backfire and lead to the whole "You don't own software, you license it" bullcrap being completely reversed.
My friends and I rarely buy duplicate titles and instead choose to share them. Why? Because $60 is a TON of money. If they want to actually make the kind of profits that movie studios make, they should simply lock in their current hardware and not upgrade it for 20 years.
Releasing a console every 5~6 years is steadily becoming a stupid business model because game consoles are becoming so powerful. At a certain point you have to look at game development costs in relation to CPU and GPU capabilities and make a tough decision.
PlayStation Orbis and Xbox Durango need to hang around for a few decades. THEN we'll see game developers selling up to 50 million copies on blockbuster titles.
Let's say used games are no more. I'm not going to buy most of games then because I can't sell them back. Most games are not worth full, day 1 price for me because: they are too short, I'm not interested in their multiplayer part or they simply don't have multiplayer. That means from 5 to maybe 20 hours of gameplay. No chance I'll pay full price for that. Then I wait till price drops, probably between 3 months up to a year. That's a lot of lost income for the publisher but I don't care. I'm not a charity to support people who can't do better. I get my money for doing my job well and on time. Why should it be otherwise for them?
Which is why I think everyone should study business and marketing to a basic degree. I know artists and programmers aren't typically seen as business savvy, but game publishers could definitely get cut out of a big chunk of the market if large established studios simply band together to create their own publishing teams.
The other issue is maintaining public stock, which is very risky in that you have to show monetary growth every single quarter rather than a growth in quality.
No.
Can it get any more simple?
Devs don't DESERVE to get paid when I sell my game. They got paid when I bought it from them new. And it's not hurting the industry.
Just... stop it.
Were as 10 years ago it wasn't really a problem but now with Kids and house, its quite hard to justify paying full price for certain releases which in many cases you wont get your moneys worth out of.
Many games now are not even worth the full RRP if it were not for the Multiplayer portion of some games..
WHY?
if i sell a game i bought and whoever bought it off me sells it on again, why does the publisher deserve a cut?
what other industry gets that?
if they want to profit from used sales, they need to do what these stores do and buy the games off people.
if they want to profit, then they have to give us a return on our investment.
remember, the stores have to do that first, all this bullshit about pure profit is just industry propaganda, they have a higher profit margin, but it's not pure profit.
tell me why they deserve to keep getting paid, when they got their fair share when the game was sold new.
does a builder get a cut when you resell a house they built?
does an author get a cut when you resell a book they wrote?
does a painter get a cut when you resell a painting they painted?
does anybody else get a cut when you resell something they made?
i can't think of any other product that gets that kind of deal.
this is greed, pure and simple, they had it so good for so many years and now that things are slowing down after a worldwide fucking recession, that gaming weathered much better than most industries, they don't like it and want to get back to the way it was.
my message to the publishers?
well tough, you had it better than most, but now the hard times are starting to hit you as well.
well it's hard to feel any pity for you when everybody else has had it far tougher for far longer, and you're trying to screw them out of their legal rights over their own property they purchased.
you wanna profit from preowned sales, you've got to buy the games off the people who bought them first before that happens.
set up your own stores.
then you can make a profit from preowned.
EBAY!!!!
Don't really understand some of the comments complaining that developers don't get a cut when they are selling 2nd games. Of course they don't. Are you trying to say that if I bought a movie, and casually sold it to a friend, I should be sending some of the producers the money I got?
If they release their games cheaper from the start, they get A LOT more day one sales. It 'll take the CoD, FIFA, ... devs a bit longer to get their money out of it. But it's as sure of a bet as always AND the smaller games will also be sold more. Imagine a Rayman Origins, Enslaved, ... sold at 25€ from day one?
But then i look at the comments section and realise, hey at least theres a few of us out there with some (un)common sense. Now only if those other people would listen... and not regurgitate the same unproven and totally destroyed points over and over.
Gamers, eductate yourselves because what you allow to happen as a collective will shape the future of gaming.
http://theparanoidgamer.com...
The biggest bonus of it has been mentioned here. I like to trade in my old games and get new ones. I didnt pay a dime for Skyrim and maybe 30 bucks for BF3 when they were released.