By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Should buyers of pre-owned titles be punished?

vlad321 on 22 February 2010

Here's a better question.

How is the used market different than Piracy, other than the fact that Gamestop makes money off developers' back with one and not with the other? The way I see it, in both cases the developer sees no money whatsoever.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 22 February 2010
twesterm said:
loves2splooge said:

Game developers have an extreme sense of entitlement. They feel that they deserve special treatment that just about every other industry doesn't enjoy (you can resell cars, clothing, property, electronics, music cds, DVDs, etc.) Consumers are going to pay what they feel the product is worth. Consumers act out of self-interest, not out of charity for these 'poor' game developers. And that's how it should be in a capitalistic society. Game developers, you want sympathy because you lost your job during this recession? Tough shit, make games that are worth plunking down $60 for. If you don't like it, get out of the entertainment industry (which the game industry is part of) and go work somewhere with real job security because job security in the entertainment industry is horrible and if you can't live with that, tough.

If game companies want to give out incentives for those that have new copies, that's fine. Consumers will vote accordingly with their dollars. And honestly I think gamers are going to reject these schemes just like they largely reject the DLC swindle. All these game companies are selling DLC but yet look at how much money they are losing. When EA is losing all kinds of money, that's karma.

When you buy used anything else, car for example, you don't get new.  You get a used car.  You get a car that has depreciated value, you get a car that has engine wear, you get a car that's a little dirty, ect.

When you buy a used game you get the same exact game.  A used game is exactly the same as a new game which means there isn't really much incentive to buy new.

What things like providing free DLC to new games does is give someone an incentive to buy new.

Typically you buy something used because you aren't willing to spend as much for whatever reason and you just accept you don't get as good as new.  Games have always been backwards in that you spend less but get just as good as new.

That isn't developers having a sense of entitlement, it's just people getting the same thing for the used price as others get for the new price.  Again, I think provinding free DLC for new games is a wonderful idea.  It gives consumers an actual reason to buy something new.  It's not publishers trying to nickel and dime you since, they're either actually saving you money for not having to buy that or giving you the same exact game you would have gotten in the first place.

In the case you buy used, you have to spend money, but that's just the consequence of buying used.  If you want that DLC, you have to pay extra and that's just that. 

A) Not the consumers fault though...

B) The disc very much does have wear and tear on it.



twesterm on 22 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:
loves2splooge said:

Game developers have an extreme sense of entitlement. They feel that they deserve special treatment that just about every other industry doesn't enjoy (you can resell cars, clothing, property, electronics, music cds, DVDs, etc.) Consumers are going to pay what they feel the product is worth. Consumers act out of self-interest, not out of charity for these 'poor' game developers. And that's how it should be in a capitalistic society. Game developers, you want sympathy because you lost your job during this recession? Tough shit, make games that are worth plunking down $60 for. If you don't like it, get out of the entertainment industry (which the game industry is part of) and go work somewhere with real job security because job security in the entertainment industry is horrible and if you can't live with that, tough.

If game companies want to give out incentives for those that have new copies, that's fine. Consumers will vote accordingly with their dollars. And honestly I think gamers are going to reject these schemes just like they largely reject the DLC swindle. All these game companies are selling DLC but yet look at how much money they are losing. When EA is losing all kinds of money, that's karma.

When you buy used anything else, car for example, you don't get new.  You get a used car.  You get a car that has depreciated value, you get a car that has engine wear, you get a car that's a little dirty, ect.

When you buy a used game you get the same exact game.  A used game is exactly the same as a new game which means there isn't really much incentive to buy new.

What things like providing free DLC to new games does is give someone an incentive to buy new.

Typically you buy something used because you aren't willing to spend as much for whatever reason and you just accept you don't get as good as new.  Games have always been backwards in that you spend less but get just as good as new.

That isn't developers having a sense of entitlement, it's just people getting the same thing for the used price as others get for the new price.  Again, I think provinding free DLC for new games is a wonderful idea.  It gives consumers an actual reason to buy something new.  It's not publishers trying to nickel and dime you since, they're either actually saving you money for not having to buy that or giving you the same exact game you would have gotten in the first place.

In the case you buy used, you have to spend money, but that's just the consequence of buying used.  If you want that DLC, you have to pay extra and that's just that. 

A) Not the consumers fault though...

B) The disc very much does have wear and tear on it.

What isn't the consumers fault?

I have never actually seen a disc that is in bad condition and I buy a fair amount of used games.  Gamestop is a lot of bad things but they are actually good about giving you a game disc that is in good condition (and I inspect every disc I buy at that store) so you're in no way getting an inferior product.  Collector's might be annoyed, but they don't count. 



 

Kasz216 on 22 February 2010
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:
loves2splooge said:

Game developers have an extreme sense of entitlement. They feel that they deserve special treatment that just about every other industry doesn't enjoy (you can resell cars, clothing, property, electronics, music cds, DVDs, etc.) Consumers are going to pay what they feel the product is worth. Consumers act out of self-interest, not out of charity for these 'poor' game developers. And that's how it should be in a capitalistic society. Game developers, you want sympathy because you lost your job during this recession? Tough shit, make games that are worth plunking down $60 for. If you don't like it, get out of the entertainment industry (which the game industry is part of) and go work somewhere with real job security because job security in the entertainment industry is horrible and if you can't live with that, tough.

If game companies want to give out incentives for those that have new copies, that's fine. Consumers will vote accordingly with their dollars. And honestly I think gamers are going to reject these schemes just like they largely reject the DLC swindle. All these game companies are selling DLC but yet look at how much money they are losing. When EA is losing all kinds of money, that's karma.

When you buy used anything else, car for example, you don't get new.  You get a used car.  You get a car that has depreciated value, you get a car that has engine wear, you get a car that's a little dirty, ect.

When you buy a used game you get the same exact game.  A used game is exactly the same as a new game which means there isn't really much incentive to buy new.

What things like providing free DLC to new games does is give someone an incentive to buy new.

Typically you buy something used because you aren't willing to spend as much for whatever reason and you just accept you don't get as good as new.  Games have always been backwards in that you spend less but get just as good as new.

That isn't developers having a sense of entitlement, it's just people getting the same thing for the used price as others get for the new price.  Again, I think provinding free DLC for new games is a wonderful idea.  It gives consumers an actual reason to buy something new.  It's not publishers trying to nickel and dime you since, they're either actually saving you money for not having to buy that or giving you the same exact game you would have gotten in the first place.

In the case you buy used, you have to spend money, but that's just the consequence of buying used.  If you want that DLC, you have to pay extra and that's just that. 

A) Not the consumers fault though...

B) The disc very much does have wear and tear on it.

What isn't the consumers fault?

I have never actually seen a disc that is in bad condition and I buy a fair amount of used games.  Gamestop is a lot of bad things but they are actually good about giving you a game disc that is in good condition (and I inspect every disc I buy at that store) so you're in no way getting an inferior product.  Collector's might be annoyed, but they don't count. 


You miss the point, not all discs are ones in the store.  A lot in general get damaged.

Also your general point is wrong... for example Art.


Monet paintings look as good today as they did way back when they were painted.  There is a lot of stuff that's resold that maintains it's value.

 

If you have a problem with developing something that can stand the test of time... you probably should have a different job.  That's not what the consumers fault is.  It's the fault of the developers for picking a field they apparently don't like.  Screwing consumers because of entitlement issues is just bad pool.

Or maybe art shouldn't be allowed to be resold.



SnesTea on 22 February 2010
CommonMan said:
This thread keeps making me think of Boss Nass talking about how Jar Jar "is'a gonna be pew-nish-ed".

I just watched that last night!



Around the Network
Kenryoku_Maxis on 22 February 2010
twesterm said:
Kenryoku_Maxis said:
First off, many games can only be bought pre-owned now adays. From older games on 'dead' systems to games that publishers just quit making because they deem them 'not popular enough to make a profit'.

Second of all, not everyone can afford to spend $40-75 dollars on a brand new game when it first comes out, only to find a publisher stops making the game 3 months later and it never goes down to the $20-30 range they can afford. SO these people HAVE to buy the game second hand because....that's the only place they can find it.

If publishers want to complain about used games, they should make more copies of the games available to the public and at a better cost. The only way to combat used games is to beat them at their own game. Especially now adays with game cost RISING, developers have no reason to be complaining about people buying used games. And if they are going to complain about development costs and use that as their excuse for raising the costs of games and only releasing them to limited venues, they shouldn't be making games on HD systems in the first place.

So skewed...

  1. I think pretty much everyone assumes this conversation doesn't apply to dead systems.
  2. Used games are generally $5 less in America, I don't know what they are in Australia but I'm assuming they're close to that.  The games that fall in the $20-30 ranged have had a price reduction and sell for that much new.
  3. They should make more available?  They make plenty available in almost every case.  I know places like Gamestop try to artificially make them seem limited, but then just go to another store and you can find the game.  Yeah, it's harder to find games that aren't produced anymore, but that's because those games aren't in high demand anymore.  Or do you want publishers to still print 5-10 year old PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube games because that is just plain stupid.

I really don't get where you're saying games are released in such limited quantities unless you shop only at Gamestop and never preorder I guess.  And then, well, I won't call you stupid for failing to preorder the game in that case, but, man, if you're constantly not able to find new games because you think enough aren't produced then you should either preorder or look at another store.

Look, I know you've taken upon yourself to defend the rights of game developers for whatever reason, but not all games are equal and not all games can be obtained easily.  Sometimes they either need to be obtained used for a myriad of reasons and yes, there are a host of games that either get limited releases or don't even get full releases at launch, causing them to be rare from the start.  Sure, you can go find a million copies of Dragon Age or Mass Effect 2 right now, but try and find a new copy of WarioWare Touched!, Dragon Quest V or Pinball Hall of Fame, The Williams Collection.  Yeah, they're not only out of print, but went out of print less than 6 months of their release.  I'm not even going to go into even older games such as Suikoden II, Pikmin 2 or Zone of Enders 2.

Aside from the obvious examples of games going out of print, there's the examples of people just waiting for a game to get cheaper.  And there's no crime against this.  As has been stated in this thread, developers can encourage people to buy a game new, which they are with DLC and exclusive content for people who buy it new.  But when a developer cuts the game soon after it drops off from its initial $40-60 price point, there's no alternative than it to be immediately put into the 'used' category and people have to buy it used.  If developers are so angry at people buying used games, developers should instead give people more incentives to buying a new game for longer periods.  Like SquareEnix is with Dragon Quest IX and Nintendo with Pokemon (both allowing people to download content once aq week for up to a year).



Six upcoming games you should look into:

 

  

twesterm on 22 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:

A) Not the consumers fault though...

B) The disc very much does have wear and tear on it.

What isn't the consumers fault?

I have never actually seen a disc that is in bad condition and I buy a fair amount of used games.  Gamestop is a lot of bad things but they are actually good about giving you a game disc that is in good condition (and I inspect every disc I buy at that store) so you're in no way getting an inferior product.  Collector's might be annoyed, but they don't count. 


You miss the point, not all discs are ones in the store.  A lot in general get damaged.

Also your general point is wrong... for example Art.


Monet paintings look as good today as they did way back when they were painted.  There is a lot of stuff that's resold that maintains it's value.

I think I still fail to see your point about damaged discs.  Are you saying it's not the customers fault for damaging their own discs?

So because one thing resembles another that's true for everything?



 

Kasz216 on 22 February 2010
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
 

A) Not the consumers fault though...

B) The disc very much does have wear and tear on it.

What isn't the consumers fault?

I have never actually seen a disc that is in bad condition and I buy a fair amount of used games.  Gamestop is a lot of bad things but they are actually good about giving you a game disc that is in good condition (and I inspect every disc I buy at that store) so you're in no way getting an inferior product.  Collector's might be annoyed, but they don't count. 


You miss the point, not all discs are ones in the store.  A lot in general get damaged.

Also your general point is wrong... for example Art.


Monet paintings look as good today as they did way back when they were painted.  There is a lot of stuff that's resold that maintains it's value.

I think I still fail to see your point about damaged discs.  Are you saying it's not the customers fault for damaging their own discs?

So because one thing resembles another that's true for everything?

No, it's not the customers fault that developers chose a field in which they are unhappy.

If developers have a problem with the fact their product can last a decent amount of time with proper care...

they should get a new job.  Maybe in the auto industry.

Everyone has shit about their jobs they don't like.



twesterm on 22 February 2010
Kenryoku_Maxis said:

Look, I know you've taken upon yourself to defend the rights of game developers for whatever reason, but not all games are equal and not all games can be obtained easily.  Sometimes they either need to be obtained used for a myriad of reasons and yes, there are a host of games that either get limited releases or don't even get full releases at launch, causing them to be rare from the start.  Sure, you can go find a million copies of Dragon Age or Mass Effect 2 right now, but try and find a new copy of WarioWare Touched!, Dragon Quest V or Pinball Hall of Fame, The Williams Collection.  Yeah, they're not only out of print, but went out of print less than 6 months of their release.  I'm not even going to go into even older games such as Suikoden II, Pikmin 2 or Zone of Enders 2.

Aside from the obvious examples of games going out of print, there's the examples of people just waiting for a game to get cheaper.  And there's no crime against this.  As has been stated in this thread, developers can encourage people to buy a game new, which they are with DLC and exclusive content for people who buy it new.  But when a developer cuts the game soon after it drops off from its initial $40-60 price point, there's no alternative than it to be immediately put into the 'used' category and people have to buy it used.  If developers are so angry at people buying used games, developers should instead give people more incentives to buying a new game for longer periods.  Like SquareEnix is with Dragon Quest IX and Nintendo with Pokemon (both allowing people to download content once aq week for up to a year).

Every one of those games were easy to find when they were originally released.

It's pretty common sense for highly desired games that have been out of print for a long time to be rare.  I don't know what your point is there.  You could walk into any store in 1995 and buy Chrono Trigger but it's $100+ today, does that mean they didn't produce enough?

And you're right, there's no crime in waiting for a game to get cheaper and your developer cutting the price so soon is just another argument not for this thread, though it's a pretty simple one.  If there isn't enough interest in the game, there's no reason to keep it full price.



 

twesterm on 22 February 2010
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
twesterm said:
Kasz216 said:
 

A) Not the consumers fault though...

B) The disc very much does have wear and tear on it.

What isn't the consumers fault?

I have never actually seen a disc that is in bad condition and I buy a fair amount of used games.  Gamestop is a lot of bad things but they are actually good about giving you a game disc that is in good condition (and I inspect every disc I buy at that store) so you're in no way getting an inferior product.  Collector's might be annoyed, but they don't count. 


You miss the point, not all discs are ones in the store.  A lot in general get damaged.

Also your general point is wrong... for example Art.


Monet paintings look as good today as they did way back when they were painted.  There is a lot of stuff that's resold that maintains it's value.

I think I still fail to see your point about damaged discs.  Are you saying it's not the customers fault for damaging their own discs?

So because one thing resembles another that's true for everything?

No, it's not the customers fault that developers chose a field in which they are unhappy.

If developers have a problem with the fact their product can last a decent amount of time with proper care...

they should get a new job.  Maybe in the auto industry.

Everyone has shit about their jobs they don't like.

I don't think most developers aren't unhappy that used games get sold though, they're just trying to find some ways to actually make something off those sales.  At the moment, they don't really make anything and that's fine, that's just how used stuff works.  A way around that is to simply give people incentives to buy new by saving them money and that's what some publishers are doing.

Two years down the line, nobody is going to buy Modern Warfare 2 new and Activision accepts that, they're simply trying to make something 6 months after the release of the game.  People can either buy the game new or they can buy it used and then buy some DLC, win-win for them with no real hurt to the customer.