By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 03 June 2010
Edit Thread
Munkeh111 said:
Kasz216 said:
Munkeh111 said:

Because Jim wants to play the game that they made. It is not about a physical thing, but it is about a piece of software really.

Of course you don't have to pay for the pasta, because the prodcut has partially been used up, a game is not used up, you get the same things that you would if you bought the game new, except for EA. And so if you want to compare it to you eating some pasta, then actually EA's deal seems fair if you are not going to get the full dish, you can just have what is left

Ok, instead of Pasta... it's a TV.  There, the product isn't "partially usesd up". 

According to you, Jim owe's Panasonic some money. 

If you think it's fair... I think you have a pretty warped world view... where companys BENEFIT from having games people buy but don't want.... and therefore give away.

In effect, benefit by making shitty games or misreprestenting the games they sell.


They don't benefit from you selling the game, they benefit from somebody else buying the game. You take the game up to the counter, and say "I would like to buy Uncharted 2" and they will offer you a used copy. Now you are saying, if you buy that game used, so money doesn't go to Sony, it goes to gamestop. I don't see why you want gamestop having the money.

They are not benefiting from people not wanting the game, they are benefiting from people buying the game. It is notthing to do with it being a bad game, people still want to buy the game, but they are just going to buy it used, because they get the same features, but for cheaper.

Actually.... they do benefit from me selling the game. 

The used market spurs New purchases in durable goods markets.  It's in that article i liked above... and any economist will tell you it's a fact no matter what school of economics they follow.

Here is another link... http://www.springerlink.com/content/f13956304x885554/

That's the second part of why this is a bad idea.

The first part is that it's completely unethical bullshit. 

As for the second part of your statmenet.... think really hard agan.

WHERE DID THAT USED COPIES COME FROM.  I've said it like 8 times in this thread and everybdoy keeps glazing over it.

If there are a bunch of used copies on the shelves for 55 dollars.

Tell me... where did gamestop get those copies from... and why did they get them?


The used market HELPS the New market because people who buy new KNOW they can sell used.  By lowering the price people will get for their games, you are also raising their risk when it comes to buying a New Game.

Raising risk = Less new sales as now you've passed the risk aversion mark for a lot of people.

 

Even if your right that somehow game developers deserve to make money off used game sales, even though NOBODY in the world is currently afforded the right... your wrong because it will only hurt them.  This is actual widespread accepted economics by economists and not a moral or ethical conudrum... so there is really no arguement on the second part.  No more then say, argueing for creationism in any case.

Even if you are right... you are wrong.