Quantcast
View Post
Jordahn said:

Like I said in a previous post: "I never said anyone cannot buy or sell used games."  But actions always have consequences.  The more used games we buy, the less companies profit to keep them in business to make more games.  The more we buy new games, the more these companies profit to stay in business to keep making these games.  A person's right to sell and buy used games is a secondary issue here when you look at the big picture.  You have the right alright.  And the company is getting screwed when the consumers enjoys their services and product when there is no compensation.  This didn't seem to be an issue, let's say, seven years ago.  But apparently, thing have become "unbalanced" enough to where the company is getting screwed, and they now have to take measures to help ensure that they stay profitable.  Just don't blame the companies and the consumers who are trying to keep an industry viable and afloat.  The reason why you are playing games is because of our support.

Are you forgetting that only one person can have the same bought copy of a game at any given time? I wonder if you're factoring this into your "big picture." It doesn't matter how I obtain the game if I end up keeping it.

Take Halo 3, for example. This is a game I cannot sell off (at least until Reach), because there's no telling when my friends may be over and want a round of 4-player action. Does it really matter if I bought this game used for $20 last year? What if there were millions of people with my mentality?

I'll tell you - most of those people would still be forced to buy the games new, because the demand will drive it to a point where the used price is barely cheaper than new. After all, the number of used copies available is limited to the number of buyers that got rid of their copies.


Also, why do people put all the blame only on those who buy used games? The real "problem" (from a perspective of one who is against it) is the fact that people are able to sell the games, or more accurately, give their copy to others. If I buy a game and keep it, no matter how I obtained it (new or used), it prevents any further people from using my copy. As soon as I sell a game, though, the copy is put back into circulation.

I'd like to ask something to the people who are in favor of "buy new only, down with used" - do you never lend / give away games to your friends? How about movies, books, or music CD's (back in the day)? I'm curious if these beliefs are universally followed through, or if it's just gaming that's getting special attention.


Anyway, just keep in mind that videogame sales do not reflect the number of people that enjoyed the game, or the number of people that have played the game. It reflects how many people found the game to be worth keeping, so developers should be working on raising this, not just the former two. I could be wrong, but the way people here seem to be missing how a single bought copy can only be held by one person at any given time, makes me think they themselves don't even find their games worth keeping (to play, anyway). Nobody with replayable games would forget the fact that selling their game means they cannot play it anymore.

Sorry, but not everyone can afford, nor has a desire for an expensive trophy collection. When games lose their worth as games, they will find their way to other people who may have more use for it.