# "Used games are evil! >:O"



## CaptainCool (Aug 24, 2010)

so, more and more publishers and producers seem to jump ontop of that "the used games market is evil"-bandwagon...
the guys at THQ went so far as to say that they feel cheated on by people who buy used games



> I don't think we really care whether used game buyers are upset because new game buyers get everything. So if used game buyers are upset they don't get the online feature set I don't really have much sympathy for them.
> 
> That's a little blunt but we hope it doesn't disappoint people. We hope people understand that when the game's bought used we get cheated.



whats your opinion on that? do you buy used games? is it ok in your opinion that the publishers release games with coupons that activate online features but people who buy the game used have to pay an extra fee to get those features?


in my opinion they should think about WHY people resell their games.
take dantes inferno as an example: the game is TERRIBLE! the gameplay blows, its ugly as hell, an obvious god of war ripoff and you will forget the story one week after completing it...
why would anyone want to keep a game like that in their collection?


----------



## Runa (Aug 24, 2010)

put simply, the era of piracy is catching up to our generation...we stole andpillaged and the big corporations didn't get enough, so they're trying toscrew us and pawn shops/reselling places out of work.  YAYYY! More corporate greed!


----------



## Zaraphayx (Aug 24, 2010)

Runa said:


> put simply, the era of piracy is catching up to our generation...we stole andpillaged and the big corporations didn't get enough, so they're trying toscrew us and pawn shops/reselling places out of work.  YAYYY! More corporate greed!


 
Wanting something for nothing is every bit as greedy as wanting more for something than it's worth.

No?


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 24, 2010)

CaptainCool said:


> why would anyone want to keep a game like that in their collection?


 
Because game companies tend to think we're all consumerist sheep who think having the latest games is more important than things like games being worth playing or the first sale doctrine.

Truthfully, though, when you have current-events consumerist trend-following like Justin Bieber, Hannah Montana, and the Twilight Saga in both print and movie forms; combined with historical consumerist trend-following like Atari's Swordquest series, Hannah Montana's equally manufactured pop star father Billy Ray Cyrus, and Sonic '06; you can't really blame them for thinking not enough people care.

Then again, they also thought not enough people cared about the easily predictable fallout when Spore was cracked, stripped of the very thing that was supposed to prevent Internet piracy, a DRM system with among the most draconian policies ever, and pirated all across the 'Net most of a week before the game's release, too.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Aug 24, 2010)

Well, companies always want to make more money. They will always tell you to buy from them in some way or other, may it be true or not. In some cases the online features really exist only in new unused games.
Some horrible games, won't be wanted to be kept in the collection, but who would want to buy them? Who would buy a used Dante's Hell? Or buy it at all?

I buy only new games. Half of them are from steam, half of them from boxes, on the shelves of computer stores. And I buy almost only shooting games.


----------



## Lapdog (Aug 24, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> historical consumerist trend-following like Atari's Swordquest series...


 JEEZ, It's been a while since I heard about THAT. 

I just think that when people get bored of their games, they try to get some money back for it. I just find that greedy. As in, you spent your money for it, now live without that money. It was your choice to spend it, now deal with it. I also hate how used games are always cheaper than new ones. I think that's just cheating the system abit.

I also buy my games from steam, I don't like having a HUGE collection of discs on some shelf. Keep it simple and digital, that's my gaming motto.


----------



## Kajet (Aug 24, 2010)

I like used games, $50 is way too much for some games, but 5-20 is far more reasonable.

Of course if devs would START MAKING STUFF WORTH BUYING AT $50 THEN MAYBE I'D FUCKING BUY IT!


----------



## Skittle (Aug 24, 2010)

I'm broke. I get double discounts on used stuff (I work at GameStop). Used makes more sense to me. Also, some games you just can't buy new anymore, mostly older PS2 games. I buy new when I feel it is necessary to buy new, and I will pre-order it as well. 

Not to mention, it is nice to check a game out before buying it. 7 day policy for returns on used stuff for people is nice.


----------



## Tycho (Aug 24, 2010)

Dear THQ and anyone else who bitches about used games:

Fuck you.  With a crooked broomstick.  Go cry some fucking more.

This industry is a bunch of fucking crybabies and finger-pointers.  Nearly as bad as the movie and music industries.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 24, 2010)

Do book publishers complain about the used-book market?


----------



## Minuet (Aug 24, 2010)

Dear developers:  You can complain about the used game market when all of the old obscure titles I'm looking for can be purchased new.

(Currently trying to find _Rule of Rose_; also toying with the idea of acquiring a Sega Saturn one day so I can play _NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams_ since the PS2 rerelease was Japan-only and I've heard the Wii sequel wasn't very good.)


----------



## Tycho (Aug 24, 2010)

Minuet said:


> Dear developers:  You can complain about the used game market when all of the old obscure titles I'm looking for can be purchased new.
> 
> (Currently trying to find _Rule of Rose_; also toying with the idea of acquiring a Sega Saturn one day so I can play _NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams_ since the PS2 rerelease was Japan-only and I've heard the Wii sequel wasn't very good.)


 
If you get a Saturn get the Panzer Dragoon games too.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 24, 2010)

Minuet said:


> Dear developers:  You can complain about the used game market when all of the old obscure titles I'm looking for can be purchased new.
> 
> (Currently trying to find _Rule of Rose_; also toying with the idea of acquiring a Sega Saturn one day so I can play _NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams_ since the PS2 rerelease was Japan-only and I've heard the Wii sequel wasn't very good.)


 
this isnt really about old games. those arent in stock anymore (at least as new games) so they cant make money with those anymore, anyway.
its about new games or games that are still new and still in stock at retailers.
its their own fault for milking players for money. i mean, didnt activision say that they think they sell their games to cheap? they made more than 1 BILLION with modern warfare 2 and they sell their games too cheap?

its also kinda the fault of those players blindly following certain genres and developers though i guess. they buy anything they throw at them (like 14â‚¬ map packs for games consisting of 5 maps, 2 of which are just remakes of old ones...). 

the industry really needs to stop being all about money again. but with most people just blindly accepting their stuff without saying anything i kinda doubt this will happen any time soon =/
i kinda prefer nintendos approach right now though. they are clearly profit oriented as well but its not as obvious and im still a happy customer there 



Tycho said:


> Dear THQ and anyone else who bitches about used games:
> 
> Fuck you.  With a crooked broomstick.  Go cry some fucking more.
> 
> This industry is a bunch of fucking crybabies and finger-pointers.  Nearly as bad as the movie and music industries.


 
this kinda sums it all up X3


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 24, 2010)

I buy the vast majority of my games used.


----------



## mystery_penguin (Aug 24, 2010)

CaptainCool said:


> this isnt really about old games. those arent in stock anymore (at least as new games) so they cant make money with those anymore, anyway.
> its about new games or games that are still new and still in stock at retailers.
> its their own fault for milking players for money. i mean, didnt activision say that they think they sell their games to cheap? they made more than 1 BILLION with modern warfare 2 and they sell their games too cheap?
> 
> ...


Valve FTW.


----------



## Waffles (Aug 24, 2010)

Used games are a good way of stimulating the video game economy because people buy old games no longer made, and it could lead them to sequels or other similar games. Used games have to start somewhere, yes?


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 24, 2010)

Lapdog said:


> JEEZ, It's been a while since I heard about THAT.


 
I mentioned Swordquest because Atari thought they could balance games that were rushed, crap, and buggy as all get-out with the then-equivalent of online extra features (mail-order contests) and have instant success.  The mess was such a colossal failure (surpassed only by the infamous E.T. cartridge) that the final game of the four-part series was never even written.


----------



## Waffles (Aug 24, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> I mentioned Swordquest because Atari thought they could balance games that were rushed, crap, and buggy as all get-out with the then-equivalent of online extra features (mail-order contests) and have instant success.  The mess was such a colossal failure (surpassed only by the infamous E.T. cartridge) that the final game of the four-part series was never even written.


 ^ Look at AVGN's review of the swordquest series for more in-depth info and comedy.


----------



## Fenrari (Aug 24, 2010)

If it weren't for gamestop's used games, I'd probably have nothing to play...


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 24, 2010)

most of my games were used as its cheaper to get a used game.
Online games or games that have online multiplayer I tend to get the real deal if I plan to go online.


----------



## Tao (Aug 24, 2010)

At this point, people buy old used games for out of date consoles more than they do used new games :V


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 24, 2010)

ITT: People don't read the OP and think that it's a thread against buying old used games and not newer games that were JUST traded in not too long after release.


----------



## Tycho (Aug 24, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> ITT: People don't read the OP and think that it's a thread against buying old used games and not newer games that were JUST traded in not too long after release.


 
The difference being?  Used game changes hands.  The fact that they're not cashing in on the second sale is what they're whining about, correct?  Too fucking bad.  I reserve the right to foist their crappy games back onto the place that sold it to me so that someone else can suffer like I did but for less money.


----------



## Minuet (Aug 24, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> ITT: People don't read the OP and think that it's a thread against buying old used games and not newer games that were JUST traded in not too long after release.


 
Sure, developers want to kill the used game market because they're upset about newer games, but if they succeed, won't that make it even harder than it already is to find the old ones, too?


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 24, 2010)

Tycho said:


> The difference being?  Used game changes hands.  The fact that they're not cashing in on the second sale is what they're whining about, correct?  Too fucking bad.  I reserve the right to foist their crappy games back onto the place that sold it to me so that someone else can suffer like I did but for less money.


 Yes, that's what they're whining about. But with the cases that people keep talking about in the thread, the publishers don't give a shit because those games aren't for sale anymore.



Minuet said:


> Sure, developers want to kill the used game market  because they're upset about newer games, but if they succeed, won't  that make it even harder than it already is to find the old ones,  too?


 It depends on how they try to "kill" it. I doubt they would try to completely destroy it, because they should realize that it does some good. With things they're currently doing, like giving only new games online bonuses/online things, it won't matter because old games aren't going to stay online anyways. Even if they did want to destroy it, they can't restrict OFFLINE content because not everyone has online.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 24, 2010)

The difference is exactly what those who did read the OP (including Tycho) pointed out:  Game companies want to destroy the doctrine of first sale because they see a purchase of a used copy of a game as a lost sale of a new copy of that game, never mind that they already got their money from that used copy when it was new.  They want games to be things easily spoiled instead of gracefully aging, or at least to be treated that way.

In other news, Ford, GM, Chrysler, and Toyota declared today that the used car market is entirely responsible for the decline in new car sales, and they're pushing for the Obama administration to order every single used car crushed and destroyed, beginning with the 1969 Chevrolet Corvette and the 1969 Ford Mustang. :V


----------



## Captain Howdy (Aug 24, 2010)

If they keep making half-assed shit games, and selling them for 60USD a pop, then they can go fuck themselves. (See the 3/4ths of games made in the last 3 years) 

I bought Mercs 2 - That was the last game I'll probably ever buy, and was the first game of this new generation that I've ever sold.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Aug 24, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> In other news, Ford, GM, Chrysler, and Toyota declared today that the used car market is entirely responsible for the decline in new car sales, and they're pushing for the Obama administration to order every single used car crushed and destroyed, beginning with the 1969 Chevrolet Corvette and the 1969 Ford Mustang. :V


I can see this conflict turn very violent very easily. This will also kill the Obama administration if they are stupid enough to pass it.


----------



## Fenrari (Aug 24, 2010)

What about out of print games?


----------



## lupinealchemist (Aug 24, 2010)

Fenrari said:


> What about out of print games?


Unless there's a service that sells every game ever made, I'll stick to my emulators.


----------



## Fenrari (Aug 24, 2010)

lupinealchemist said:


> Unless there's a service that sells every game ever made, I'll stick to my emulators.


 
My point was what do these companies expect us to do with games they're not doing remakes of?


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Aug 24, 2010)

I don't mind used games sometimes. 
Saves a few bucks.

Tho if the bonus is really worth it for a new game I might get it.


----------



## Nineteen-TwentySeven (Aug 24, 2010)

TL;DR This is why I don't fucking buy movies anymore. The last movie I bought was new still wrapped in plastic, never touched by human hands, 50% off, total $10, missing an entire scene in the middle of the movie cause it was corrupted or something. Not dust, not a scratch, just shoddy construction.
Although the last used movie I bought (store going out of business), $5, not a hiccup. Go figure...

Also why I love Steam so much. Never have to go to the game store, never have a DVD that I have to worry about getting scratched.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 25, 2010)

lupinealchemist said:


> I can see this conflict turn very violent very easily. This will also kill the Obama administration if they are stupid enough to pass it.



The ":V" is a sarcasm cue.  In this case, I was completely fibbing in order to draw an analogy.



Californian_Calico said:


> Also why I love Steam so much. Never have to go to the game store, never have a DVD that I have to worry about getting scratched.


 
The lack of physical media has its own drawbacks.  For example, based on the experience of an Internet friend (yeah, I know), Valve won't let you recover games stolen from you if your Steam account gets compromised, even if they acknowledge that your account was indeed compromised by a clever scammer, so you'll have to purchase your Steam games over again if that happens.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Aug 25, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> The ":V" is a sarcasm cue.  In this case, I was completely fibbing in order to draw an analogy.


I was always curious what ":V" meant.


----------



## Waffles (Aug 25, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> The lack of physical media has its own drawbacks.  For example, based on the experience of an Internet friend (yeah, I know), Valve won't let you recover games stolen from you if your Steam account gets compromised, even if they acknowledge that your account was indeed compromised by a clever scammer, so you'll have to purchase your Steam games over again if that happens.


 However, Steam does have a customer service/help service that can get you your account back in a few seconds. Friend got hacked, yet his account was safely his again in less then 20 minutes with a new password.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 25, 2010)

Waffles said:


> Friend got hacked, yet his account was safely his again in less then 20 minutes with a new password.


 
Sans games, in my friend's case.  About $300's worth.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 25, 2010)

lupinealchemist said:


> I was always curious what ":V" meant.


 it have heavy use here cause of WhiteNoise, one who keeps this forum supplied with Sarcasm


ArielMT said:


> Sans games, in my friend's case.  About $300's worth.


 wait...how come I kept my games when I was hacked?


----------



## Runefox (Aug 25, 2010)

If I'm buying a game, then it's going to be new. Even if used copies are already bought and paid for, that's the point - They've already been paid for. If I were looking at buying a used game, in the developer's case, I'd be just as well off pirating it. The developer sees none of the money from second-hand sales, and thus they have in effect lost a potential sale in many cases when the used copy is sold alongside new copies. One can argue that this perpetuates the software as a service model, and I agree - However, I choose to support the developers I like if the game is good. You won't ever find me buying an Ace Combat game second hand, for example, unless it's out of print. At the very least, an agreement or programme for major retailers to provide portions of revenues from used game sales (in exchange for, say, extra bonus material for the retailer's copy of new games) would be a fair compromise.

Unlike movies where theatre dates and home video dates are separated to prevent exactly this sort of thing, the game industry has no standards in place to prevent used game sales of trade-ins or whatever on *day zero*. A lot of potential revenue is lost because someone thinks they can save $5 at EB/GameStop on a used copy versus new. I saw this exact thing happen with Halo 3 when it launched. One compromise for this would be a street date restriction on used sales from major retailers for new release games.

Of course, you could bring up another media that has this same problem and thrives (well, sort of) without any such limitations - The book industry. However, production costs (and consumer prices) are orders of magnitude lower for a novel or other book than they are for a video game.

EDIT: On that note, I'm pretty sure you can't steal Steam games unless you don't get the account back (or if you get VAC banned, that's a bad thing too, but you'll still have your games). They're tied to the account; The only thing you can actually do is gift extra copies of something to another account. You can't transfer purchased games to a different account as far as I'm aware.

EDIT2: There's a very good reason why I feel I should take the side of the developers here, and that's because while studios like ActiBlizzard and EA rape their customers left and right, companies like Namco-Bandai and Sega are struggling financially simply because they more or less _aren't_ trying to rape their customers. The more they suffer, the more eminent the idea of less innovative games becomes. Even today, the amount of money being risked on experimental projects is very low, and existing franchises (like Command & Conquer) are being generalized for extra revenue or killed off entirely for being unprofitable. Coming back to the example of Namco-Bandai and Ace Combat, the new games in the series, Joint Assault and Assault Horizon, are both attempts at generalizing an already very accessible game to maximize profit margins, and chances are, with falling revenues and tighter restrictions, series such as this could die out entirely. Of course, Valve isn't in any danger of any of that anytime soon. Unlike 3D Realms, they decided to actually release a few things and a killer app (Steam) before sitting on their laurels playing MMO's all day.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 25, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> wait...how come I kept my games when I was hacked?


 
*Shrugs*  I did say it was an Internet friend, but I'm led to believe it was real by the fact that she raised the money to buy the games back with sketch commissions, and that she has a history of keeping her word with regular art commissions.

Edit: In your case, did the hacker fail to change the password reset/recovery email address before the account was recovered?


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 25, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> *Shrugs*  I did say it was an Internet friend, but I'm led to believe it was real by the fact that she raised the money to buy the games back with sketch commissions, and that she has a history of keeping her word with regular art commissions.


 well the games are BOUND to the account, so I wouldnt think getting hacked would make you lose all your games, but maybe the games the hacker bought thru your account as some have their paypal/Credit card bound to the account for quick buying.


----------



## FyrbornXTG (Aug 25, 2010)

I don't mind used games but if I can I like to check them out for scratchs and such,.and if they dont work or something you usually can get another copy,.or if not you hope your not out that much money,.or you can be an ass and sell it back to another place,.I just hate when used games dont have instructions or even there original box,.what the hell do people do eat them,.I mean i'll buy old games from like goodwill or other thrift stores cause they cost just a few dollars,.I just bought ultimate MK3 and beavis and butthead for the snes 2dollars each and sega game of Super Hydlide book/and box,.for 2.


----------



## Metal_Skunk (Aug 25, 2010)

I buy new copies of games from companies I like and are known to make my $60 worth it. I usually will stay away from used games if I can, since I just rent games to see if I like them. But if I want to get into a series, like Bioshock where a used copy is less than $20 and a new copy is still at $50-60, then I will lean toward the used copy so I can save my money for the new game in the series. But if companies really want my $60 then they need to stop shortening game length and make some innovative gameplay, other than multiplayer deathmatches. *cough* Activision *cough*


----------



## Dan. (Aug 25, 2010)

Well seeing as I buy all of my games used off Ebay as long as they don't have special first time online features, then I would buy as new game. Still off Ebay though...


----------



## Tycho (Aug 25, 2010)

Equating used-game buying to piracy is, for lack of a better term, STUPID.  Buying a used game is effectively nothing more than the legitimate transfer of a license to play a game.  Piracy is "something-for-nothing" - a copy of a game is made at minimal expense to anyone (except the game publisher) and distributed, potentially flooding the market with pirated copies and completely killing the market for legitimate sales of that game (keep in mind that this scenario that I am proposing is WORST-CASE and that piracy generally does not COMPLETELY destroy game sales nor does it bring publishing giants like EA to their knees or anything).  With a used game, there is one disc that changes hands, and anyone NOT in possession of that disc must procure their own, new or used.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 25, 2010)

It's amazing how everyone loves the free market until they feel like slaves to it, and by slave I mean anyone not making the kind of gain they feel *entitled* to rather than what they can *earn*.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 25, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Equating used-game buying to piracy is, for lack of a better term, STUPID.  Buying a used game is effectively nothing more than the legitimate transfer of a license to play a game.



From the developers' point of view, there is no difference. You have the game, but they haven't been paid for it; As far as they're concerned, you may as well have just pirated it. I'm not equating it to piracy in general - Just the point that in either case, the guys behind the game don't get paid. You could argue "BUT BUT BUT THE USED COPY HAD TO HAVE BEEN BOUGHT FIRST", which is true, but the used copy would have been bought to begin with - It had to have been in order to be there on the used shelf at all. Especially in cases where the game is brand new and used copies are sitting right next to the new for $5 less at major retailers, that seems to me like a major kick to the balls, eating into the sales of a game at the most critical point of release. It's one of the major reasons why digital distribution methods like Steam are becoming so popular.

I'm pretty sure developers have no quarrel with random Joe Sixpacks selling games to their friends, but the major issue is with places like EB/GameStop, whose business model relies on buying back games for pennies on the dollar and selling them for close to full retail with incentives left and right to buy used instead of new (like EDGE cards that knock an additional 10% off the price of a used item). Used copies of brand new games show up on the shelves right next to the new either on or very near release day. Anyone looking at buying the game might be very tempted to save that $5 by buying used, which directly affects the revenues generated at launch, the most critical point where revenues recoup the cost of development.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 25, 2010)

When I'm looking for a game I will prefer it new -- I have a very strong insistence on the manual coming with it, and I will often dismiss used copies outright (even if it's a title I was otherwise wanting) if the manual's not included with the package.  Heck, happens so often I can pick up an empty case and immediately tell if the manual's in there or not.  Don't even have to open it up.

The argument against first-sale is problematic.  What if you play a game through at a friend's house?  It's their copy, and you're not exactly donating your $50 to the industry for the right to play it.

If we want to take it to extremes new games shouldn't offer multiple save files and everyone should be purchasing their own individual copy to play a title.  Oops, you just killed off party games.

And obviously, any game that is "off the market" the companies can't complain about.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 25, 2010)

Stratadrake said:


> The argument against first-sale is problematic.  What if you play a game through at a friend's house?  It's their copy, and you're not exactly donating your $50 to the industry for the right to play it.


Yeah, but I'm pretty sure what they're targeting with this kind of talk are companies like EB/GameStop who sell used alongside the new in neat rows for $5 or $10 less than retail (after purchasing them for about $5) and urge people not only to trade in their games, but to buy used, as well. Business practices like this absolutely do cut into the sales of new games. I'm pretty sure, like piracy, they don't care much about the average Joe Sixpack who gives a game to a friend for $20 or a pack of beer.



> And obviously, any game that is "off the market" the companies can't complain about.


Yeah. I'm of the opinion that such "abandonware" is free reign for piracy, as well. If the company can't profit from it, they can't complain about it unless you do.


----------



## Tycho (Aug 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> From the developers' point of view, there is no difference. You have the game, but they haven't been paid for it; As far as they're concerned, you may as well have just pirated it. I'm not equating it to piracy in general - Just the point that in either case, the guys behind the game don't get paid. You could argue "BUT BUT BUT THE USED COPY HAD TO HAVE BEEN BOUGHT FIRST", which is true, but the used copy would have been bought to begin with - It had to have been in order to be there on the used shelf at all. Especially in cases where the game is brand new and used copies are sitting right next to the new for $5 less at major retailers, that seems to me like a major kick to the balls, eating into the sales of a game at the most critical point of release. It's one of the major reasons why digital distribution methods like Steam are becoming so popular.
> 
> I'm pretty sure developers have no quarrel with random Joe Sixpacks selling games to their friends, but the major issue is with places like EB/GameStop, whose business model relies on buying back games for pennies on the dollar and selling them for close to full retail with incentives left and right to buy used instead of new (like EDGE cards that knock an additional 10% off the price of a used item). Used copies of brand new games show up on the shelves right next to the new either on or very near release day. Anyone looking at buying the game might be very tempted to save that $5 by buying used, which directly affects the revenues generated at launch, the most critical point where revenues recoup the cost of development.


 
Give incentives to purchase a game new.  REAL incentives, not toy figurines or limited-edition cards for CCGs no one plays or special posters to slap on your wall to prove how much of a tool you are.  That's how they should fix their problem.  That, and take a cue or two from Steam.  Digital distribution cuts costs and kills the "onoez buying used is ebil" problem they whine about.



Stratadrake said:


> And obviously, any game that is "off the market" the companies can't complain about.


 
Reminds me, I need to go acquire the Wizardry games.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 25, 2010)

I just wanna expand on Tycho's point a bit. One of my favorite games, ever, Resident Evil 5, I wasn't waiting *a day* longer than necessary to play that, as I'd been salivating in anticipation of it since RE 4. There's no way I'd have bought it used, and since I like it as much as I do, despite having played it to death, no one will be buying _my_ copy used. On the other hand, since its core gameplay is some of the best _in the world_, I also don't really feel any pressing need to buy its DLC either, though I might, _at some point_. I'd actually much sooner spend the money it all costs on a few cheaper, fresher downloadable games though.

Now, ultimately, what's better for both me as a gamer/consumer _and_ the games industry as a whole *and* the economy, spreading my wealth around to a bunch of companies, or spending it all on one, and for one game at that? I know the creators of RE 5 are some true artists and from the outset never intended to create a "killer app" or anything like that; they knew their game stood on its own two feet and would sell, DLC be damned. *Capcom* though, it's like they have the same attitude a lot of big companies have: "we sold you one kick ass product, so you should throw more money at us for more of the same rather than us have to keep making kick ass products" ... When _is_ RE 6 coming out, anyway?

ITT No one really wants to actually work for a living, except crazy people who want to make a kick-ass game that doesn't need DLC and that people won't even _want_ to trade/sell. Problem is, they all work for people who don't want to work for a living!


----------



## Azure (Aug 25, 2010)

No game that has been released in the past decade has been worth it's New price, of usually over 50 dollars, and sometimes with a privileged pre order fee. Except the Orange Box. Why? CONTENT. In the future, everything is going to be "DLC" which is just a nice fancy acronym for "Shit we held out from the game and expect you to pay for to experience". Want that extra quest or two? $29.95 you stupid fuck, hand it over. I'm looking at you Dragon Age. Not that Dragon Age was a good game at all. Morrowind is way better, and far older. I'll pay full price for things that are worth my money, and not full price for things that aren't.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Aug 25, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> No game that has been released in the past decade has been worth it's New price, of usually over 50 dollars, and sometimes with a privileged pre order fee. Except the Orange Box. Why? CONTENT. In the future, everything is going to be "DLC" which is just a nice fancy acronym for "Shit we held out from the game and expect you to pay for to experience". Want that extra quest or two? $29.95 you stupid fuck, hand it over. I'm looking at you Dragon Age. Not that Dragon Age was a good game at all. Morrowind is way better, and far older. I'll pay full price for things that are worth my money, and not full price for things that aren't.


 
Ever heard of World of Warcraft? The game that perpetually costs 180USD a year + The cost of wasted time + The cost of the 40USD expansions (30USD for the game, and + 40USD for BC, + 40 for WotLK + 40 for Cataclysm) that come out every few years or so.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 25, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> No game that has been released in the past decade has been worth it's New price, of usually over 50 dollars, and sometimes with a privileged pre order fee. Except the Orange Box. Why? CONTENT. In the future, everything is going to be "DLC" which is just a nice fancy acronym for "Shit we held out from the game and expect you to pay for to experience". Want that extra quest or two? $29.95 you stupid fuck, hand it over. I'm looking at you Dragon Age. Not that Dragon Age was a good game at all. Morrowind is way better, and far older. I'll pay full price for things that are worth my money, and not full price for things that aren't.


 
And "The Market will decide" that's a bad idea, with a second crash of the entire fucking industry.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 25, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Give incentives to purchase a game new.  REAL incentives, not toy figurines or limited-edition cards for CCGs no one plays or special posters to slap on your wall to prove how much of a tool you are.  That's how they should fix their problem.


 
What would you consider "real incentives" to buy a game new versus used? What industry actually does this? This sounds like unwarranted self-importance, to me. When you, for example, buy a DVD new, do you get content that you wouldn't get if you got it used? If you bought a book new, would you get content you couldn't have gotten if you got it used? Fact of the matter is, it's a product that's being sold - They shouldn't have to give you any incentives to buy it other than you want it. The fact that used games are lined up right next to the new ones not even a day after release should tell you that there's a major problem with how games are sold today. Hell, in the case of DVD's and Blu-Rays, you wouldn't even see used copies of those lined up on the shelves of a store that sells them, either, neither would you see used books sitting on the same shelf as the new ones at a book store.



> ITT No one really wants to actually work for a living, except crazy people who want to make a kick-ass game that doesn't need DLC and that people won't even want to trade/sell. Problem is, they all work for people who don't want to work for a living!



I'd consider places like EB/GameStop selling used copies of games that they got for $5 at $55 when the new game is $60 and pushing the used copies endlessly to be more of a "no one really wants to actually work for a living" than the game industry wanting to crack down on that. These companies profit *ridiculously* from these sales, and the game industry itself sees none of it, and furthermore, their costs are minimal. Their profit margins are HUGE. But no, ignore that, fuck the developers, they're the real thieves in the game industry. If they wanted to stay relevant, *they'd sell their games as used!*

Has it ever occurred that perhaps the major reason why digital distribution and DLC are becoming so widespread is because it's possible to profit even from used sales because of it? People bitch and moan about it, and then they go out and buy used games, where none of the price they pay actually goes to the developers. The developers are sitting back, watching one sale service a dozen people where it could have been at least half a dozen actual sales if there had been a restriction on the street dates for used copies, or hell, even if they had an agreement to receive profits from used sales. So what do they do? They devise schemes to make back the money they lost on those nonexistent sales by releasing DLC and by shortening the actual games. It's a vicious cycle, just like with DRM and piracy. EA's already doing it with Project Ten Dollar. How much do you want to bet it'll spread?


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 25, 2010)

Also, (I may be wrong since I don't have specifics) one of the things that _makes_ the used games market popular (for the retailers) *is* the very fact that retailers don't pay publishers a dime for it.  The retailer's profit margin on new game sales is _extremely_ slim -- games cost $50+ not because of markup by the retailer, but because of the cost the publisherretail markup, but because the publishers charge that much for it themselves.

TLDR:
- Publishers hate 'em because they don't profit off of used game sales.
- Retailers love 'em because they don't profit off of new game sales.

And there's only so much money to go around.


----------



## Kangamutt (Aug 25, 2010)

Well one aspect we should be looking at, is what CAUSES there to be so many used, recently-released games on the shelves of Game Stop/EB in the first place: the culture of the gamers. Most friends I know that play, HARDLY ever keep their games! They play it, keep it a week or two, beat, and trade it in to buy the next. It's all being perpetuated by this throwaway culture. There's nothing keeping the games on the shelves of most players' game collections. While THQ is trying to do something to keep games there, their way is a total dick move on part of the more frugal players who can't afford a $60 game, because a huge chunk goes to the retailer, and the publisher, leaving a small amount to the actual developers. So there are a couple things that could be changed to alleviate this issue, but THQ and other developers are going to have to face this fact: the secondhand market will NEVER go away. And if games are going to be sold secondhand as a horridly watered down version of the original product, is that it could ruin possible future buys on brand new games. A kid with little money could pick up a game of a series used, like it, and scrimp and save to buy a new copy of the latest installment. But if it's some watered down version following THQ's idea, the game could look like utter SHIT, and turn him off from the series entirely.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> What industry actually does this?



Ones that intend to survive in the long term, and I think that's especially true of an industry heavily dependent on software, an increasing amount of which is open-source. Games are entertainment. People make games to entertain people _for free_ as it is. They don't *need* to be paying upwards of $50 for the games they're currently playing _in addition_ to those, they just like them enough that the extra cost is worth it. They really, really want to keep that extra cost worth it. The industry crashed once already, and it took *very* little to make it happen. Consumers are more forgiving of the gaming industry nowadays, but not really by that much. Hell, it's still debated whether or not they've really become "mainstream". They're not doing themselves any favors with the attitude they've taken since the advent of things like DLC.



			
				Runefox said:
			
		

> This sounds like unwarranted self-importance, to me.



Because feeling entitled to customers' loyalty and continued payments for essentially the same product after a healthy chunk of change has already been put down for it are not at all unwarranted self-importance.



			
				Runefox said:
			
		

> The fact that used games are lined up right next to the new ones not even a day after release should tell you that there's a major problem with how games are sold today.



Or maybe it suggests a problem with _how they're made?_ I don't think there's much coincidence that a lot of these games are the ones I rent first and decide aren't really worth a purchase.



			
				Runefox said:
			
		

> I'd consider places like EB/GameStop selling used copies of games that they got for $5 at $55 when the new game is $60 and pushing the used copies endlessly to be more of a "no one really wants to actually work for a living" than the game industry wanting to crack down on that. These companies profit *ridiculously* from these sales, and the game industry itself sees none of it, and furthermore, their costs are minimal. Their profit margins are HUGE. But no, ignore that, fuck the developers, they're the real thieves in the game industry. If they wanted to stay relevant, *they'd sell their games as used!*





			
				Runefox said:
			
		

> Has it ever occurred that perhaps the major reason why digital distribution and DLC are becoming so widespread is because it's possible to profit even from used sales because of it? People bitch and moan about it, and then they go out and buy used games, where none of the price they pay actually goes to the developers. The developers are sitting back, watching one sale service a dozen people where it could have been at least half a dozen actual sales if there had been a restriction on the street dates for used copies, or hell, even if they had an agreement to receive profits from used sales. So what do they do? They devise schemes to make back the money they lost on those nonexistent sales by releasing DLC and by shortening the actual games. It's a vicious cycle, just like with DRM and piracy. EA's already doing it with Project Ten Dollar. How much do you want to bet it'll spread?



_Some_ DLC is understandable as part of the *calculated* risk, and some is even worth its weight/price, but reducing entire games to barebones for the same cost of a full game, or even at a reduced price is just stupid, and it *will* backfire if people don't want to buy the game in the first place because of it.

No one is entitled to anything, whether its content or profits, and creating an inherently adversarial and even hostile business relationship is basically encouraging people to exercise their right to take their business elsewhere - or not spend their money at all... Which btw, they're becoming more inclined to do _anyway_.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 25, 2010)

> Ones that intend to survive in the long term, and I think that's especially true of an industry heavily dependent on software, an increasing amount of which is open-source.


What. So basically, you're saying that game developers should provide incentives to buy new games because they're competing with their own software in the aftermarket? And what, competing against *open source games*? Seriously? Are you even listening to what you're saying, here? I don't even think I need to go through the rest of your post.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that used games are a natural part of the industry. Well, people read a book and sell it, people watch a DVD and sell it, but you don't see them stacked on racks next to the brand new copies in stores, do you? You seem to have passed over that particular point. I'm not actually saying that selling a game to a friend of yours or buying one from a friend of yours is bad, I'm saying that the vast sea of used games that are shoved in your face the moment you step into an EB or GameStop is insane. They're major retailers for video games, and yet I'd hazard to guess that 75% of their operation is in the used market, particularly in picking off new releases and reselling them. *Game developers are creating games that are then resold by people who had no hand in the process and had no stake in its success or failure, and yet are turning massive pure profit on it, multiple times, without any going back to the developers.* You don't see anything wrong with this? Are you kidding me?

And as for free games, yeah, sure. There's free-to-play games that are ad-supported or that take payments for extra perks in-game, and there's crapware like what's often ported to the Wii and iPhone/iPad/iOS that amount to not much more than Flash games, but seriously, there is a *major rift* between Peggle and Mass Effect. Both have their place, and both provide varying levels and lengths of enjoyment. You can't compare "free" and especially not open source games to big budget titles.

To be honest, this whole argument smacks of the console vs PC argument, where one camp wants the other to die off for whatever reason, even though they have a mutual relationship wherein if either were to spontaneously leave, it would result in the stagnation of their respective markets.


----------



## Tycho (Aug 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> What would you consider "real incentives" to buy a game new versus used? What industry actually does this? This sounds like unwarranted self-importance, to me. When you, for example, buy a DVD new, do you get content that you wouldn't get if you got it used? If you bought a book new, would you get content you couldn't have gotten if you got it used? Fact of the matter is, it's a product that's being sold - They shouldn't have to give you any incentives to buy it other than you want it. The fact that used games are lined up right next to the new ones not even a day after release should tell you that there's a major problem with how games are sold today. Hell, in the case of DVD's and Blu-Rays, you wouldn't even see used copies of those lined up on the shelves of a store that sells them, either, neither would you see used books sitting on the same shelf as the new ones at a book store.


 
I'm not into video gaming to be a motherfucking altruist.  Make a new game worth my $60 or I'll fucking wait and spend less on a used copy.  You don't like the way that works? Change your fucking business model.  Adapt or die.  You want to resort to bullshit like shortening games and releasing expensive DLC? Fine, but don't expect to see a damn dime of MY money for your shit, your _deus ex machina_ solution to the ever-changing face of video game marketing and sales.  Developers do some great work.  I buy new when the game is THAT GOOD and/or when enough of my peers buy it that it behooves me to keep up with them.  About half of the time I have regretted it.  You know what I admire greatly? Devs like Bay 12, Data Realms, the people behind the Humble Indie Bundle, etc.  Those people deserve my money.

Also, I'm not going to pay extra *just* to have an OFFISHUL BIG NAME FRANCHISE game.  I'm not gonna pony up extra and take it in the shorts just because it says "StarCraft" or whatever.  Fuck you.  The game has to stand on its own merits, not on its NAME.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 25, 2010)

I like how my points are ignored so you can just spew random bullshit about altruism and the worth of your dollar. Whatever, dude. I'm not going to take this one any further, because I'm sure your time can be better spent on something more deserving. I know I've already spent enough time repeating myself and getting ignored because HOLY SHIT BIG COMPANIES ARE EVIL AND YOU SHOULD ONLY GIVE YOUR MONEY TO THE SMALL GUYS. Because really, if big companies wanted to stay relevant, they'd just sell their games used in the first place, right?

I'd just like to restate once again that the only thing I'm railing on is the *immediacy* and *visibility* of the used game market as it stands in major retail stores and the fact that they can reap the profits of multiple sales of the same item without actually having done any work and without passing any of that to the developers. Whether you're a ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH moron who thinks that big companies can afford to keep shitting out high-grade games in perpetuity whether you pay for them or not or you're actually sane, that shouldn't sound right to you either way. I *do not* agree with the idea of crippling a game for anyone but the original purchaser, but I *also do not* agree with the idea that retailers can get away with what they do considering the budgets that go into producing most games today. I believe that the developers and publishers have a point where it comes to used games and their relationship with the market.


----------



## Tycho (Aug 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> I like how my points are ignored


 
WHAT POINTS

You are a complaining apologist for the VG industry.  That's all there is to it.  You "explain" things as if I should be COMPELLED to march in step with the industry's drumbeat.  You talk to me as if I am some derelict steward for the industry who has been LAX in his DUTIES and has allowed the POOR DEVS to come to financial harm.  You can put as much icing on that lump of shit as you want, it'll never be a cake.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 25, 2010)

Tycho said:


> WHAT POINTS


 
Yeah, exactly. Anyway, have fun with another industry collapse.

I love how the developers are the greedy ones in all this.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 25, 2010)

Tycho said:


> WHAT POINTS
> 
> You are a complaining apologist for the VG industry.  That's all there is to it.  You "explain" things as if I should be COMPELLED to march in step with the industry's drumbeat.  You talk to me as if I am some derelict steward for the industry who has been LAX in his DUTIES and has allowed the POOR DEVS to come to financial harm.  You can put as much icing on that lump of shit as you want, it'll never be a cake.


 Tycho. 

He _did_ have legitimate points. I'm not saying they're right, it could definitely be argued either way, but you're too busy raging to see them. Go calm down or something.


----------



## Tycho (Aug 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Yeah, exactly. Anyway, have fun with another industry collapse.
> 
> I love how the developers are the greedy ones in all this.


 
They're not greedy, they're DUMB.  The publishers are the greedy ones (and also DUMB).  Charity to idiots (even highly talented idiots)? No.

(By the way, for a little extra fuel on the PC vs. console war: until recently consoles were the turf of big fat publishers and dev houses and a complete no-fly zone for lower-profile folks like Data Realms, Bay 12, etc. etc.  The console is the embodiment of EVIL in the game industry because of the SHEER POWER it gives big publishers and console makers and takes from pretty much everyone else.)


----------



## Runefox (Aug 25, 2010)

Tycho said:


> They're not greedy, they're DUMB.  The publishers are the greedy ones (and also DUMB).  Charity to idiots (even highly talented idiots)? No.



So you're fine with giving charity instead to the retailers who do none of the work and yet reap more raw profits on reselling their works used than the developers/publishers do by selling them to begin with?

HAY GUISE NICE JOB ON THAT GAME BUT HEY I'M NOT GONNA PAY YOU FOR IT LAWL EB HAS IT FOR $10 CHEAPER USED THEY GET ALL MY MONEY ROFL


----------



## Tycho (Aug 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> So you're fine with giving charity instead to the retailers who do none of the work and yet reap more raw profits on reselling their works used than the developers/publishers do by selling them to begin with?
> 
> HAY GUISE NICE JOB ON THAT GAME BUT HEY I'M NOT GONNA PAY YOU FOR IT LAWL EB HAS IT FOR $10 CHEAPER USED THEY GET ALL MY MONEY LAWL


 
They CHOOSE to work through these middlemen.  In the day and age of online sales they have the options of digital distribution and direct-from-publisher sale.  Fuck, they could sell VIA CATALOG AND PHONE ORDER and skip the retailers if they so desired, but that's less efficient.

It should be noted that there is NO good reason to sell MMO software via brick-and-mortar retailers.  None.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 25, 2010)

> They CHOOSE to work through these middlemen.


Really, these middlemen are well-entrenched by now. Pulling your games from their shelves means less exposure, and even then your games can end up in their used bins. That's not really much of an argument.



> In the day and age of online sales they have the options of digital distribution and direct-from-publisher sale.


Have you noticed that many HAVE been doing exactly that? And that this in itself has caused some people to shit themselves because if the DRM servers go offline they're fucked (among other complaints, including the *lack of used market*)? Look especially in the case of the Nintendo Wii and DSi, where digital purchases are tied irrevocably to a single console rather than an account. Broke your Wii? Lose your games. Want that nifty new black Wii? You're selling your digital content along with the white one.


----------



## Tycho (Aug 25, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Really, these middlemen are well-entrenched by now. Pulling your games from their shelves means less exposure, and even then your games can end up in their used bins. That's not really much of an argument.



And HEAVENS FORBID they expose themselves any less than they already do, right? With all those fucking ads they PLASTER over magazines, TV, the Internet?  Wonder how much money they hemorrhage on advertisement diarrhea.  Best advertising is word-of-mouth.  Well, best if you're not selling shitty games that no one in their right mind would recommend to friends.



Runefox said:


> Have you noticed that many HAVE been doing exactly that? And that this in itself has caused some people to shit themselves because if the DRM servers go offline they're fucked (among other complaints, including the *lack of used market*)?


 
First off, online distribution makes the used market moot and obsolete.  Offer games online at prices suitably less than a hard copy would cost (or even a USED hard copy), and the demand for cheaper used games decreases.  Second, the DRM crackdowns as of late are fucking OBSCENE, unwarranted and ultimately ineffective.  Steam lets you play offline.  The fact that the other morons don't, won't or can't do the same is not Steam's fault and it isn't MY fault.

And you still haven't provided an argument against "direct from publisher" buying other than "lack of exposure", the concept behind which is fallacious and outdated.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 25, 2010)

Tycho said:


> And HEAVENS FORBID they expose themselves any less than they already do, right? With all those fucking ads they PLASTER over magazines, TV, the Internet?  Wonder how much money they hemorrhage on advertisement diarrhea.  Best advertising is word-of-mouth.  Well, best if you're not selling shitty games that no one in their right mind would recommend to friends.


Once upon a time, there was a game console from a respectable company named Sega. They called it Saturn. When they released it, they decided not to advertise it very much, and only to offer it to select retailers. Gamers across the land scarcely knew it existed, and in turn, word of mouth was a major factor in its advertisement.

Then Sony Playstation came along with massive fanfare and advertising, available in stores everywhere.

*Spoiler alert*: The Sony Playstation won.

It's still relevant today because, like then, not everyone is a complete geektard reading gaming blogs every day like we are.



> First off, online distribution makes the used market moot and obsolete.  Offer games online at prices suitably less than a hard copy would cost (or even a USED hard copy), and the demand for cheaper used games decreases.


Yes, but many people are suitably pissed that they can't sell their games when they're done with them as the current retail model (that thing we're arguing about) seems to promote. You can't trade up for the next big title after you've wiped the floor with the one that came before it. Enough people seem to do this to make it a valid point. For that matter, yes, I do agree what digital distribution makes a lot of things better, but with regard to console-based gaming, the state of transferring titles between console revisions and even consoles in the same generation forward or between consoles on the same account is very much in flux and not at all solid. When the next X-Box or Playstation is released, will you be able to transfer forward your digitally-downloaded games to the new console? Will you be able to redownload them if something happens after the new console is launched? While Microsoft and Sony have by and large moved to an account-based system for transferring games between consoles, you still cannot transfer games between accounts (and not on Steam, either), and Nintendo still has an incredibly draconian policy that doesn't seem like it's going to be changed anytime soon, which means that an entire market sector is locked down.



> Second, the DRM crackdowns as of late are fucking OBSCENE, unwarranted and ultimately ineffective.  Steam lets you play offline.  The fact that the other morons don't, won't or can't do the same is not Steam's fault and it isn't MY fault.


They're mostly scared shitless about piracy because it's the buzzword of the day and, like the music industry, the cause of everything that ails the gaming industry. However, I'd hazard to guess that more profits are actually lost in used sales than are lost in piracy, especially for games with online components.

And this one I wasn't gonna touch on because I figured my opening bit was enough, but just in case...



> And you still haven't provided an argument against "direct from publisher" buying other than "lack of exposure", the concept behind which is fallacious and outdated.


Put it this way: If you were looking for a DVD, would you go to Universal Pictures and buy it from them there? If you were looking for a music CD (which you wouldn't because hey, digital is already all the rage in music), would you go to Sony BMG? If you were looking for a book, would you go to McGraw-Hill?

The answer, of course, is no. Again, these are unreasonable expectations. There are dedicated stores for these kinds of things, and that's why Steam is so popular as a digital distribution method for games versus pretty much any other out there - It's pretty much the de-facto digital distribution provider for PC games. Same as XBL is the de-facto (and de-jure) provider for X-Box Live games, PSN for Playstation Network games, WiiWare/DSiWare for Wii/DSi games, and so on. Same holds true for brick and mortar. You've gotta go where people expect you to be, not hide away somewhere and hope people will look for you.


----------



## Tycho (Aug 25, 2010)

Part of the reason (likely no small part) the Saturn floundered was Sony's remarkable ability to get publishers and devs on board for their machine and KEEP them on board.  Sony plucked SQUARESOFT from Nintendo's hands, which is no mean feat, and monopolized them and many other popular publishers/devs.  Sega was STILL weak after the lackluster overall reception of the Sega CD and the horrific flop of the 32X.  Saturn relied heavily on in-house Sega titles from Virtua Fighter to Panzer Dragoon to Nights into Dreams, as did Nintendo.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 25, 2010)

They didn't really have all those devs on board when they first launched - Remember, Sony was a new player in the arena, and not even Sony proper were confident in the project's ability to succeed. It was borne of the failed partnership between Nintendo and Sony to produce a CD add-on for the SNES (which subsequently fell through when Nintendo decided to drop Sony for Philips, a foreign company, which also fell through). The job they did with promoting it not only to the general public but also internally and to third-party developers speaks volumes about Sony's ability to market (read: Advertise) their gear. And market they did.

And remember, too, that when the FFVI 3D demo was revealed, everyone thought it would have been an N64 game before FFVII was announced for the PSX. Nobody expected Squaresoft to jump ship like they did, which again shows how well Sony was able to market their console. Just because that was well over a decade ago doesn't mean that the same basic principles don't still apply. If people don't know who you are or what you're selling, they have no reason to seek you out.


----------



## slydude851 (Aug 25, 2010)

I could partly agree with them because people who buy used games or rent them through Gamefly or the like, they're not purchasing a whole new copy from the actual developer.  Take Modern Warfare 2, when it came out the first day, many many people bought it and that racked Infinity Ward and Activision.  Now that there are people who no longer want it and have sold it to game stores for some credit to buy new games.  The game store receives that money and not the company who made it.  When someone walks in to purchase that used game in the game store, the game store receives the money and not the company again.

I think it's nice to get games at a lower price than, say, *$60* unless it is something really worth getting.  So to sum up, used games are AWESOME (as long as they work 100% lol).


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Aug 25, 2010)

So let me see if, sifting through all of Runefox's TL;DR, I've got the gist:

-thinks a retailer should purposely obscure all their used games and make people less likely to buy them.
-thinks smaller game designers making games for web/iPhone/iPad and the like are, by design, no potential future competition with console/PC games.
-thinks people have an inherent need for big budget games with big price tags for *entertainment*.
-doesn't see the irony of holding that view while admitting that an increasing amount of console games _amount to_ these cheaper games.
-thinks if there's a second game industry crash, the blame will fall squarely on consumers' shoulders for choosing cheaper, saner alternatives for their *entertainment*.
-wants to tell consumers what to do, wants to tell retailers what to do because we're both wrong, but the developers/publishers are infallible.
-seems to be suffering from the same cognitive dissonance most eastern Canadians experience when they've been on the internet a few years as these views run almost diametrically opposed to our cultural values, but... *looks down to the states, west to the more Conservative provinces, then back down to his shriveling penis* ... *They've got guns...* :-(


----------



## Runefox (Aug 25, 2010)

Wolf-Bone said:


> -thinks a retailer should purposely obscure all their used games and make people less likely to buy them.


Mmhmm. Or rather, allow for a certain period of time to pass before, y'know, tossing exactly the same thing up for sale that the original developers won't profit from. It's like releasing a DVD on the same day as a theatrical release for a movie.



> -thinks smaller game designers making games for web/iPhone/iPad and the like are, by design, no potential future competition with console/PC games.


They aren't. Seriously. The casual market is something entirely different. While it's becoming a lot larger, I have my doubts that it will entirely replace the console/PC game market.



> -thinks people have an inherent need for big budget games with big price tags for *entertainment*.


No, not really. You kind of missed the point on that one.



> -doesn't see the irony of holding that view while admitting that an increasing amount of console games _amount to_ these cheaper games.


Huh? Yeah, they do. Guess why? Could it be lower profit margins? Lesser willingness to take chances on experimental projects because of that, and a heavier reliance on games that are "sure things"? Yeah, I think that's the case.



> -thinks if there's a second game industry crash, the blame will fall squarely on consumers' shoulders for choosing cheaper, saner alternatives for their *entertainment*.


Cheaper alternatives? If you're buying used, you're buying EXACTLY the same game, except about $5 or $10 less, and ALL of the profit goes to the retailer instead of back to the developer. The fact that they can do this as soon as a game is launched and undercut initial sales rates is a major problem economically. They profit while the people who actually make what they're selling are losing out on that. So like, unless they can guarantee that they aren't going to be *undercut by their own product*, I don't know if there's anything they can actually do about that. That's why digital distribution is becoming a bigger and bigger thing, but even that is, if you've been following along, gathering quite a bit of butthurt.



> -wants to tell consumers what to do, wants to tell retailers what to do because we're both wrong, but the developers/publishers are infallible.


No, I'm calling it the other way around from what everyone else is saying - Which is FUCK THE DEVELOPERS THE GREEDY CROOKS EB AND GAMESTOP ARE AWESOME FOR SELLING ME CHEAP SHIT HOW DARE YOU TREAT YOUR CUSTOMERS* THAT WAY?!

*Not actually customers



> -seems to be suffering from the same cognitive dissonance most eastern Canadians experience when they've been on the internet a few years as these views run almost diametrically opposed to our cultural values, but... *looks down to the states, west to the more Conservative provinces, then back down to his shriveling penis* ... *They've got guns...* :-(


Oh, I see. Whatever.


----------



## ArielMT (Aug 25, 2010)

A boxed game copy is a single tangible item, is it not?  Therefore, it should be treated as a single tangible item.

The game's publisher gets the money from the sale of that single tangible item a single time: the new purchase.  Throughout the life of that item, it remains a single item and it remains sold.  If the item is sold off, regardless of reason, then it simply changes owners, but it remains a single item with a single owner.  Who cares what else is exchanged in that trade, because the game remains a single item throughout its entire life.  It doesn't suddenly gain multiple owners, all but one of whom have somehow cheated the publisher by relieving the previous owner of that single item.

Because the copy remains a single item, the developer and publisher can't possibly be cheated by the fact that it changes hands after that initial sale.  The argument that the publisher deserves full price again just because, from the item's perspective, the owner's name has changed and nothing more is baldly ludicrous.  The argument that anyone besides the copy's seller inherently deserves a cut from a used game sale is purely greedy and arrogant.


----------



## GatodeCafe (Aug 26, 2010)

I never buy new games. Fuck publishers.

...Except for pokemon white/black. I somehow feel compelled to contribute to gamefreak just because they've released so many badass games over the years.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 26, 2010)

Ariel: I'm pretty sure it isn't that the copies change hands so much as it is that there are no restrictions at the retail level from when new copies launch and when used copies become available (and heavily touted) in major retailers like EB and GameStop. In this, it faces a similar situation as the movie industry would face if theatrical releases occurred simultaneously to home video - The critical moment where the new release is recouping development costs is exactly the point where these retailers strike hardest, lining up used copies of games right alongside new copies as soon as launch day, making huge profits (much higher than 200% of what they pay for the used copy) and in many cases do so multiple times with the same item as it's traded back and forth. This sort of operation is a *service*, one that's highly profitable to retailers, and one that is not at all profitable for developers. Early launch availability of used copies (at $5 or $10 less than new) puts a definite dent in the potential sales of a new release.

I certainly don't agree with what they're doing to try to curb this. However, I can understand why they would want to, and I believe that a better course of action would be to negotiate green-light dates for retailers to make available their accumulated used copies of a new game, much the same way in which there is a delay between theatrical release and home video release of major films. More and more developers are sliding back into "familiar" territory with "sure thing" games (see also: ActiBlizzard's entire business model) that are by and large carbon copies of one another, because there is less of a budget to allocate to experimental new projects. In ActiBlizzard's case, it really is a case of greed; However, other, smaller companies are also falling prey to this for financial reasons, two previous examples being Namco-Bandai and Sega. Especially with console games, there isn't (yet - It's beginning) a firm digital distribution method for full games at the moment, and there are also very low piracy rates (particularly on the PS3). Used game sales in these markets are HUGE, however, and this becomes a point of contention and a source of lost income when talking about new releases.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 26, 2010)

Skipping the posting party.  Ariel, you know you basically described why the first-sale doctrine is law.

Runefox, "green-light" for used game sales sounds interesting.  The movie and book industry already has "street date" procedures, where if a retailer violates the scheduled release date then the publisher can impose some kind of sanctions on them.  If game publishers could apply that kind of pressure to used-game salesm, i.e. if a retailer is found reselling used copies within # time of its launch day, then the publisher refuses to distribute certain new titles to said retailer....  Well, it may not change much in the large picture but it would broadcast a pretty damn clear message in the process.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 26, 2010)

Question: Even if they put into place a time limit to which Used games are allowed to be sold after a new release, do you think they will still go "Used games are evil". Problem is this is a mostly CONSOLE issue as PC we are pretty much fucked as it has to be a NEW game to use most of the time as the serial key would be bound to the first owner thus no online multiplayer for those that come after.


----------



## Skittle (Aug 26, 2010)

Crysix Fousen said:


> Question: Even if they put into place a time limit to which Used games are allowed to be sold after a new release, do you think they will still go "Used games are evil". Problem is this is a mostly CONSOLE issue as PC we are pretty much fucked as it has to be a NEW game to use most of the time as the serial key would be bound to the first owner thus no online multiplayer for those that come after.


 This is one of the reasons I see PC gaming as not as popular. A lot of people are no longer putting out demos, which would help new sales A LOT and instead people are relying on other people to tell them. I prefer a hands on experience. At least with a new console game you can sell it when you get tired of it but with a PC game, you are stuck.


----------



## Runefox (Aug 26, 2010)

I think the answer to that is that the attach rate for PC games is much higher than with consoles. People are still playing Counter-Strike Source, Day of Defeat Source, Red Orchestra, Killing Floor, and all sorts of other rather old games. PC games tend to develop more of a following, while console games seem to fall under the vice of the "consume, throw away, get more, repeat" mantra.


----------



## Skittle (Aug 26, 2010)

Oh, Rune you are saying that there being no hold date on used games, helps ruin the sales of new ones?

Depending on the game we don't see a used copy for weeks, even months. Honestly, I big launch I won't see any inflow of used copies until 3+ weeks after. Red Dead, we couldn't keep any good hold on new copies and didn't see a decent amount of used copies until...a month and a half after launch? If this Halo coming out is any good, I also predict a month of no used or very little used sales.

So, how long do you want this hold to be? Several months? If so, good luck. People will hit the internet if a retailer can't take it.


----------



## Carenath (Aug 26, 2010)

My response to that game publisher's comment is simply this:
Stop staggering the release of your games across the markets. (Blur can be bought on Steam in the US.. but not Steam in Europe, bullshit).
Stop charging 3x the price of the EU vs US release for the *Same* title.
Stop with the rediculous DRM measures [I'm talking to you, Ubi]
Oh.. and stop acting like greedy cunts that gouge your paying customers and treat them like crap when they actually forked over a small sum because they wanted to support you instead of being a cheapskate.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 27, 2010)

skittle said:


> So, how long do you want this hold to be? Several months? If so, good luck. People will hit the internet if a retailer can't take it.


 
Speaking of the Internet, what about the people who purchase new copies solely to flip them onto eBay for resale?  Especially when the item is in short supply ... I haven't searched how often it happens with _software_ as opposed to hardware, but I still doubt the publishers see anything off of that.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 27, 2010)

Runefox said:


> I think the answer to that is that the attach rate for PC games is much higher than with consoles. People are still playing Counter-Strike Source, Day of Defeat Source, Red Orchestra, Killing Floor, and all sorts of other rather old games. PC games tend to develop more of a following, while console games seem to fall under the vice of the "consume, throw away, get more, repeat" mantra.


 Just like Skittles said, with a PC game you are STUCK with it, I cannot give my friend my old Dawn of War: Dark Crusade cause the very fact the online key that came with it, is used. Same for Games for Windows Live some would allow to be bound by more than one account (My resident Evil 5 is on both my Windows Live accounts on accident) but I cant do that for Section 8. Even sadder is that PC is starting to become like Consoles, with games having NO demos. I had to Pirate Borderlands to see if it worth my time to buy it (which I did). Sure with Consoles you can rent it but PC dont.


skittle said:


> This is one of the reasons I see PC gaming as not  as popular. A lot of people are no longer putting out demos, which  would help new sales A LOT and instead people are relying on other  people to tell them. I prefer a hands on experience. At least with a new  console game you can sell it when you get tired of it but with a PC  game, you are stuck.


 heck you cant even give an old game to your friend cause the serial key is used thus they are stuck with just single player with some games.


----------



## Skittle (Aug 27, 2010)

Stratadrake said:


> Speaking of the Internet, what about the people who purchase new copies solely to flip them onto eBay for resale?  Especially when the item is in short supply ... I haven't searched how often it happens with _software_ as opposed to hardware, but I still doubt the publishers see anything off of that.


 The publisher still got money out of the original purchase. I rarely see this with software though. Maybe OLDER games but nothing new really.



Crysix Fousen said:


> Just like Skittles said, with a PC game you  are STUCK with it, I cannot give my friend my old Dawn of War: Dark  Crusade cause the very fact the online key that came with it, is used.  Same for Games for Windows Live some would allow to be bound by more  than one account (My resident Evil 5 is on both my Windows Live accounts  on accident) but I cant do that for Section 8. Even sadder is that PC  is starting to become like Consoles, with games having NO demos. I had  to Pirate Borderlands to see if it worth my time to buy it (which I  did). Sure with Consoles you can rent it but PC dont.
> 
> heck you cant even give an old game to your friend cause the serial key  is used thus they are stuck with just single player with some  games.


Its Skittle (no ending s) and with some newer games you can give them the old serial key and they can give you another one. You just need to prove you had one and used it up. Since it happens. People have computers and they break and such. As for stuff bound to one account, you are pretty fucked generally unless you want to share all your info with said friend.


----------

