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

Forums - Gaming - David Jaffe hates his customers. Does not want used game sales to continue

Gnizmo said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:

That's completely true, but some people want to argue that the developers deserve a slice of the resale market in spite of the fact that they have already been paid for the initial sale, and i'm just trying to point out that they don't deserve anything extra, since resales ocur on things people are not satisfied with

They also sell things they are completely satisfied with under the right circumstances. Simply selling a game does not show the gamer does not love it. It shows a lack of replayability. The consumer could also be doing it because cash is low for whatever else is desired such as a brand new game. This could come from the same developer, and the previous game being the primary motivation for trying out the new game. You are attempting to over-simplify to an absurd level. Your point is entirely wrong as it assumes people are naturally collectors and/or never get bored of what they have. Both of these are almost certainly false.


Boredom and a lack of replayability are signs of dissatisfaction, you don't get bored of games that are still fun, you can replay games that are still fun, once you no longer want to play it, its clear that you are no longer satisfied, so no, I am not oversimplyfying, also if you love a game you aren't going to sell it just to get another game that is an unknown quantity, you will keep the game that you still enjoy playing and love.  So no, my point is not wrong, your comments indicate that you have failed to comprehend it properly.

 

I still play MoO2, Civ 2 and Starcraft nearly a decade after their release, and have never sold them, why?  Because I still am satisfied with the games, the games have great replayability



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Around the Network

Avinash_Tyagi said:


Boredom and a lack of replayability are signs of dissatisfaction, you don't get bored of games that are still fun, you can replay games that are still fun, once you no longer want to play it, its clear that you are no longer satisfied, so no, I am not oversimplyfying, also if you love a game you aren't going to sell it just to get another game that is an unknown quantity, you will keep the game that you still enjoy playing and love.  So no, my point is not wrong, your comments indicate that you have failed to comprehend it properly.

 

I still play MoO2, Civ 2 and Starcraft nearly a decade after their release, and have never sold them, why?  Because I still am satisfied with the games, the games have great replayability

I had a long winded response thought out, but then I remembered who I was talking to. So I shall say this and be done with it. Show me any evidence of what you are talking about. Show me evidence that people will never part with something they love. Show me evidence that people are not satisfied with  game purchase when they re-sell it. Back up any one of your assertions, and then I will think of continuing this ridiculous debate. I am not dissatisfied with a meal when I take a dump. I am simply done with it.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

RolStoppable said:
makingmusic476 said:
theRepublic said:

That video Jaffe posted is awful. Let's go through a few of the logical fallacies.

If the only reason you are playing games is that you want to be able to resell them, you should stop playing games.
No one plays games so they can resell them. They play games for fun, or story, or relaxation, or to hang out with friends, etc. They resell games so that they can buy new games to play. If people felt that a game was worth what they paid for it, they would not sell it to try and recoup their investment.

Personally, I think that if a cheaper option wasn't available to play games, we would see the consumer pool shrink.  That would be terrible for the industry.

To better understand that first quote, you should read the initial conversation that started all of this. Basically, the other guy said he wouldn't have bought God of War if he hadn't had the option to resell it later.  Jaffe's response was that if you'd only buy a game knowing you'd be able to resell it later, you shouldn't be playing games, as you obviously care more about the option to get rid of the game more than the substance of the game

The ability to resell a game works as a safety net for the consumer, if he didn't like what he bought. That way he can get at least some of his money back, in case the game doesn't live up to his expectations which easily happens with hyped games among the gaming community.

I assume the other guy has been burnt by hyped games before, so it would be understandable if he would only buy it, if he had also the ability to resell it in case he didn't like it. Another point that could be made is that the money a consumer gets from reselling most of the time goes straight back into a new game. So if you take away the ability to resell games from consumers, there will be less games sold as a result, because there's less disposable money.

But that's when GameStop enters the picture, grabs you by the neck, and rips out your soul!

They convince you to get the Edge card when you trade in games, because this gets you an extra 10% credit on whatever you trade in.  However, this card also SAVES you 10% on anything used you buy!  That's when customers start avoiding buying anything new.  Suddenly they're trapped in this viscious cycle of buying used games then trading them back in, all to get the most out of their card!



RolStoppable said:
makingmusic476 said:
theRepublic said:

That video Jaffe posted is awful. Let's go through a few of the logical fallacies.

If the only reason you are playing games is that you want to be able to resell them, you should stop playing games.
No one plays games so they can resell them. They play games for fun, or story, or relaxation, or to hang out with friends, etc. They resell games so that they can buy new games to play. If people felt that a game was worth what they paid for it, they would not sell it to try and recoup their investment.

Personally, I think that if a cheaper option wasn't available to play games, we would see the consumer pool shrink.  That would be terrible for the industry.

To better understand that first quote, you should read the initial conversation that started all of this. Basically, the other guy said he wouldn't have bought God of War if he hadn't had the option to resell it later.  Jaffe's response was that if you'd only buy a game knowing you'd be able to resell it later, you shouldn't be playing games, as you obviously care more about the option to get rid of the game more than the substance of the game

The ability to resell a game works as a safety net for the consumer, if he didn't like what he bought. That way he can get at least some of his money back, in case the game doesn't live up to his expectations which easily happens with hyped games among the gaming community.

I assume the other guy has been burnt by hyped games before, so it would be understandable if he would only buy it, if he had also the ability to resell it in case he didn't like it. Another point that could be made is that the money a consumer gets from reselling most of the time goes straight back into a new game. So if you take away the ability to resell games from consumers, there will be less games sold as a result, because there's less disposable money.

Agreed.

@makingmusic

I read the whole blog post before watching the video.  I think my point still stands.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Mobile - Yugioh Duel Links (2017)
Mobile - Super Mario Run (2017)
PC - Borderlands 2 (2012)
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

makingmusic476 said:
RolStoppable said:
makingmusic476 said:
theRepublic said:

That video Jaffe posted is awful. Let's go through a few of the logical fallacies.

If the only reason you are playing games is that you want to be able to resell them, you should stop playing games.
No one plays games so they can resell them. They play games for fun, or story, or relaxation, or to hang out with friends, etc. They resell games so that they can buy new games to play. If people felt that a game was worth what they paid for it, they would not sell it to try and recoup their investment.

Personally, I think that if a cheaper option wasn't available to play games, we would see the consumer pool shrink.  That would be terrible for the industry.

To better understand that first quote, you should read the initial conversation that started all of this. Basically, the other guy said he wouldn't have bought God of War if he hadn't had the option to resell it later.  Jaffe's response was that if you'd only buy a game knowing you'd be able to resell it later, you shouldn't be playing games, as you obviously care more about the option to get rid of the game more than the substance of the game

The ability to resell a game works as a safety net for the consumer, if he didn't like what he bought. That way he can get at least some of his money back, in case the game doesn't live up to his expectations which easily happens with hyped games among the gaming community.

I assume the other guy has been burnt by hyped games before, so it would be understandable if he would only buy it, if he had also the ability to resell it in case he didn't like it. Another point that could be made is that the money a consumer gets from reselling most of the time goes straight back into a new game. So if you take away the ability to resell games from consumers, there will be less games sold as a result, because there's less disposable money.

But that's when GameStop enters the picture, grabs you by the neck, and rips out your soul!

They convince you to get the Edge card when you trade in games, because this gets you an extra 10% credit on whatever you trade in.  However, this card also SAVES you 10% on anything used you buy!  That's when customers start avoiding buying anything new.  Suddenly they're trapped in this viscious cycle of buying used games then trading them back in, all to get the most out of their card!

That's awful!

Why the hell would anybody want to work in that place? Can you imagine if someone on this site worked there? If you do find someone, give him a piece of your mind!



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network

Music files are a lot smaller than full-scale games, especially if Blu-Ray is more readily adopted for console games, the growth of games are outpacing broadband availability, at least in America. Therefore i laugh at Jaffe's assertion that digital distribution will prevail in 5 years.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Gnizmo said:

Avinash_Tyagi said:


Boredom and a lack of replayability are signs of dissatisfaction, you don't get bored of games that are still fun, you can replay games that are still fun, once you no longer want to play it, its clear that you are no longer satisfied, so no, I am not oversimplyfying, also if you love a game you aren't going to sell it just to get another game that is an unknown quantity, you will keep the game that you still enjoy playing and love.  So no, my point is not wrong, your comments indicate that you have failed to comprehend it properly.

 

I still play MoO2, Civ 2 and Starcraft nearly a decade after their release, and have never sold them, why?  Because I still am satisfied with the games, the games have great replayability

I had a long winded response thought out, but then I remembered who I was talking to. So I shall say this and be done with it. Show me any evidence of what you are talking about. Show me evidence that people will never part with something they love. Show me evidence that people are not satisfied with  game purchase when they re-sell it. Back up any one of your assertions, and then I will think of continuing this ridiculous debate. I am not dissatisfied with a meal when I take a dump. I am simply done with it.

Though i don't presume to speak for Avinash, i would say that there is a simple cost/benefit analysis regarding this sort of thing. Say a game is worth $15 trade-in value. If you feel that the value of the game to you is greater than what you could get in resale, you won't sell it.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Game companies don't make money because they are inefficiently run and routinely release inferior product. (Detroit, cough, big three, cough) They have this idea that gamers want only the biggest, shiniest, baddest games so all they make are burly, expensive hummers that need to either sell millions or be subsidized by other games. Meanwhile, companies like Nintendo and Popcap are swimming in cash by making fun games with realistic budgets.

The right of first sale is unimpeachable. When I buy something, Mr Jaffe, I own it, not you, not your company, not your publisher. I own it, me. Let me say that one more time for the slow kids. I bought the game. It's mine. If I want to sell it to Gamestop for a nickel, that is my choice. If I want to give it to my nephew when I'm done with it, or let a friend borrow it, that is also my choice because it is mine. Are you going to kick down my door and demand your pound of flesh if I give the game away? I mean, someone else is playing that game and they didn't pay for it! Are you going to come over to my garage sale and slap the game out of some kid's hand?

If you want to switch to digital distribution, that is your right, but as you so kindly said, don't let the door hit you on the way out. For the time being most people still want to own what they pay for. What you seem to want is a digital licensing scam where we won't really own your product, just a one-use license, non-transferable of course. Stick it Mr Jaffe. I'm sure you know where.



makingmusic476 said:
RolStoppable said:
makingmusic476 said:
theRepublic said:

That video Jaffe posted is awful. Let's go through a few of the logical fallacies.

If the only reason you are playing games is that you want to be able to resell them, you should stop playing games.
No one plays games so they can resell them. They play games for fun, or story, or relaxation, or to hang out with friends, etc. They resell games so that they can buy new games to play. If people felt that a game was worth what they paid for it, they would not sell it to try and recoup their investment.

Personally, I think that if a cheaper option wasn't available to play games, we would see the consumer pool shrink.  That would be terrible for the industry.

To better understand that first quote, you should read the initial conversation that started all of this. Basically, the other guy said he wouldn't have bought God of War if he hadn't had the option to resell it later.  Jaffe's response was that if you'd only buy a game knowing you'd be able to resell it later, you shouldn't be playing games, as you obviously care more about the option to get rid of the game more than the substance of the game

The ability to resell a game works as a safety net for the consumer, if he didn't like what he bought. That way he can get at least some of his money back, in case the game doesn't live up to his expectations which easily happens with hyped games among the gaming community.

I assume the other guy has been burnt by hyped games before, so it would be understandable if he would only buy it, if he had also the ability to resell it in case he didn't like it. Another point that could be made is that the money a consumer gets from reselling most of the time goes straight back into a new game. So if you take away the ability to resell games from consumers, there will be less games sold as a result, because there's less disposable money.

But that's when GameStop enters the picture, grabs you by the neck, and rips out your soul!

They convince you to get the Edge card when you trade in games, because this gets you an extra 10% credit on whatever you trade in.  However, this card also SAVES you 10% on anything used you buy!  That's when customers start avoiding buying anything new.  Suddenly they're trapped in this viscious cycle of buying used games then trading them back in, all to get the most out of their card!

Trapped?  Viscious cycle?  It's $15 and comes with a year of Game Informer.  While I think GI is rather poorly written (its attempts at humorous reviews are awful) it adds enough value, information-wise, that most of the $15 is made up right there.  (Besides, I need something to read on the crapper).  I hardly think anyone feels obligated to purchase from GS because of it. 

The biggest problem with GS is lack of competition, which they've never really had, even during the days of EB and Babbages because all of the chain stores were essentially the same: $50 new, $45 used.  If you're lucky enough to have a small chain like The Exchange, a franchise like CD Warehous, or an independent like Game Again in your area, you're in great shape.  If one of those places has a game I'm looking for, they will almost certainly have it cheaper than GS (10% discount included).  They only problem is the if.  What's amazing is that all three of those places pay more money for games than GS (I know this from experience), yet the sheeple keep trading at the Company Store.

If you're unlucky enough to have other options, there's still Ebay, Amazon, and many other sources online.



The last game I bought new was LOTR Conquest. I blew $60 on it. Hell, I even pre-ordered it. It was so horrible that I should have sold it immediately, when I had the chance. Unfortunatly, I hate selling games at a big drop off. So, I kept it, hoping I could get some enjoyment out of it. Now, I'd probably be lucky to get a few bucks for it.

I won't be making that mistake for awhile (sooner or later it always happens, but it will be later this time). For now, I'm sticking to a $40 ceiling for games I really want and $20 for games I'm not sure of. That way, if the game does suck, I won't take such a big hit when I sell it. (There are stores and sites that give a good deal more than Gamestop--I would have to suffer a brain aneurysm to consider selling anything to them.)

If game companies consistently made good games, I wouldn't need to worry so much or budget gaming purchases so tightly, but that's the way it is.