Free Economics Lesson and the Used Game Market

[IGlegacy_Felonious]

No I didn't contribute to the used game market. I don't buy used games cause number 1 they never work and number 2 I hate gamestop. I never said anything about buying the game used? So get your facts straight.

So what i quoted is coming from someone who bought Bioshock new but then sold it and is under the impression that he didn't contribute to the used game market. If you do the same with your games and under the same assumption you are misinformed.


The prices for the used game market follows the Economic Law of Supply and Demand , which you can read more about in the link. The law says as supply increases of a product the price of the product will fall if demand stays the same or decreases (few exceptions apply). As far as games are concerned if you sell a game you just bought after beating it, you are increasing the supply of that game in the used game market. By doing so the price of the used game will fall which will cause the price of the game NEW to fall also to stay competitive (lower price of course, lowers chance to make a profit), otherwise the demand for the game New will fall as the demand for the cheaper used game increases.


It's why games besides selling well, want to have high retention rate among those that buy it. It's why multiplayer modes are tacked on, DLC is promised before the game is launched, among other ways Publisher's hope to keep the game in your possession. It's why games like COD take forever to fall in price and go for quite a bit used, besides being popular most COD players keep playing the game until the next COD comes out. Low supply of used games and consistent high demand will keep the both the New and Used game prices up there.


This isn't me on a high horse telling you not to trade in your game if you beat it in week after buying it. If a game disappoints me like Homefront did last year, I have no problem throwing it on ebay. Don't assume that if you sell games which you have bought new your not contributing the used game market and having a negative impact on the success of perhaps your favorite franchise.


The best real world example would be the price for a barrel of oil. If their is or a potential for a disruption in supply like turmoil in Libya last year or war with Iran the supply will decrease at least temporary and the price will rise. Just as if OPEC dissolved and they didn't regulate their production and oil producing countries ramped up production - supply would increase and price would drop. In a world wide economic recession their is less production of manufactured goods which means less demand in the oil used to produce the goods which means a lower oil price. As economies turn around (as their are signs of now) or the seasons change going to Summer with an increase of driving means an increase in demand, oil rises in price.

[Kirkreng]

That's why I am happy the game industry is slowly turning towards digital distribution. You don't have the used game sales problem with DD. It's why the used PC game market is so much smaller than console.

[iglegacy_cerberus]

@felonious: Your current position on this matter will stand in marked contrast when all of the future Homefronts of this world won't be so swimmingly disposed of on eBay due to them having a unique single-use profile/console-specific activation code, as was suggested by yourself in another topic. The choice imposed upon every chump as a result of this industry's pursuit in its thirst for greed will consist of them forcibly hoarding an unwanted game, deeply regret having wasted their hard-earned cash on it and cautiously re-evaluate the purpose of their next purchase.


I say, let there be a used games market, for without it the gaming ecosystem would simply collapse.

[precipice66]

Interesting. I don't trade games in as a rule. I've kept all but a couple of the 360 titles I have ever owned. I like to go back and play older games when there are no new releases and I also like to play older games in a series when a new sequel is about to be released. Just one of my little quirks. I have only ever bought two second hand games, and since one had to go back because of the poor quality of the disc (I think the previous owner used it as a Frisbee) it is not something I intend to do again.

[precipice66]

Interesting. I don't trade games in as a rule. I've kept all but a couple of the 360 titles I have ever owned. I like to go back and play older games when there are no new releases and I also like to play older games in a series when a new sequel is about to be released. Just one of my little quirks. I have only ever bought two second hand games, and since one had to go back because of the poor quality of the disc (I think the previous owner used it as a Frisbee) it is not something I intend to do again.

[IGlegacy_Felonious]

cerberus said:@felonious: Your current position on this matter will stand in marked contrast when all of the future Homefronts of this world won't be so swimmingly disposed of on eBay due to them having a unique single-use profile/console-specific activation code, as was suggested by yourself in another topic. The choice imposed upon every chump as a result of this industry's pursuit in its thirst for greed will consist of them forcibly hoarding an unwanted game, deeply regret having wasted their hard-earned cash on it and cautiously re-evaluate the purpose of their next purchase.

I say, let there be a used games market, for without it the gaming ecosystem would simply collapse.

I'm not sure what some of that "marked contrast" babble means. I will say that the purpose of this thread is not to argue whether there should be used games market or not. It's to dispel the illusion that someone who sells their games is not contributing to that market. We've already discussed your personal view points in another thread so let's leave it in that one. I'll just say that I will not harbor deep regret or get worked up in a fury as you do over the matter if I purchased a game which I cannot immediately sell back, it's not that serious. Would I be more judicious in my purchases like check out reviews, or avoid multi-player focused games when I prefer single player - sure. I will not feel deep regret nor will the majority of people so don't lump us into the same category as yourself.


Once the used games go the way of the dodo bird, I can see the Headlines now "Crime Rate Skyrockets 3000%" , "Gamer's throw themselves in front of Moving Train", or "The End is Near, No more used games, Bring out your DEAD" http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-D4atGQ-nhU...d+is+near2.jpg

[iglegacy_cerberus]

'To stand in marked contrast' is a perfectly valid expression and means 'to differ greatly'.


Of course you won't regret not being able to sell it back immediately but when the possibility is nonexistent, you most certainly will. One can indeed parody this scenario according to the unspoken rules of the internet with clever use of random images and all - worry not, I laughed - but I wonder... Once its lost value sank into one's conscious mind, how many laughs will one get out of that useless little stack worth, say, approximately 250EUR of bad bargains? Unless there is a market for glorified mousepads and beer coasters, my guess is not many.


I've never put any of my trust whatsoever in reviews and view them merely as entertainment. In modern video game land, it's relatively safe to judge a book by its cover(-mechanic). I avoid multi-player focused games like the plague though there is always the odd exception, and a deal breaker ensues if I'm in disagreement with a product's business model. You can't fault me for not being part of a mindless consumer majority.


But righto, let's not venture further into unpleasant territory and leave this educational thread for what it is and, once again, come what may

[IGlegacy_Felonious]

cerberus said:

Of course you won't regret not being able to sell it back immediately but when the possibility is nonexistent, you most certainly will. You can't fault me for not being part of a mindless consumer majority.

Please don't tell me what I will end up regretting cause you don't know me just as I didn't say you were one of those people who say they won't buy stuff but really do. I still have some of the games I really enjoy for systems I don't have hooked up at the moment (prob will never hook up again). I have game's like Fable 3 and a few others I haven't even opened yet or barely played. I don't regret buying them - I'll try not to sound like a rich snob (cuz I'm really not) but don't fault me that burning 60 dollars on game doesn't make a dent into the way I live my life. My choices may seem like fiscally foolish to you but to me their fiscally irrelevant. I'm not in position to spend 5000$ on a suit but I don't question those who do or label them as mindless consumer majority when that is pocket change to them. For many employed people - money for games isn't the issue, its finding the time to play all the things you end up buying. So I won't fault you and you don't fault me deal !

[laforzadimente]

The question in my mind that I still need evidence of one way or the other is: are used games that big of a deal?


According to the following "article" (here) 56% of US gamers buy used games on a regular basis. That is a substantial portion of the market, yet projects continue to get funded and games continue to be produced.

[iglegacy_cerberus]

@felonious: Fair enough. *shakes hand*

[IGlegacy_Felonious]

Here's two articles on some of the game studios that were closed - one deals with just last year, another since 2006. I'm not at all saying that used game sales is sole culprit that would be silly but to say that money lost through used games didn't have a factor in some of them would be equally silly. Then you have to take into account what franchises which may have been good didn't get green lighted for another game cause used sales cannibalized some of their profits. I'd say its difficult to gauge the true cost to the industry -- your seeing companies consolidate and put out fewer but bigger blockbuster titles or focusing on the downloadable market which in effect avoids the problem altogether.


http://games.ign.com/articles/121/1213678p1.html

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/01/eve...wn-since-2006/

[Klawhammer]

If you can sell a game you own on a disk then why can you not sell a game you have downloaded?


I am living in Australia for the next few months and here games are much more expensive than in the states if they are on disk or digital. It would be usefull to be able to buy a second hand digital version from somewhere else in the world.

[Kirkreng]

Personally I think second hand selling is bad altogether. Mainly because Dev's usually don't see a dime from that sale.

[japester]

What it comes down to is the paradigm-shifting fact that digital media provides an identical experience whether new or used. All of our laws and views on second-hand sales assume that a used item provides a lesser experience. A car won't run as well. A couch may sag or have a slight odor. Furniture may be scuffed or wobbly. Etc. But a game is identical. The case or manual may be damaged or missing, but those are secondary. The game itself is identical. And there's the rub. The secondary market directly competes with the primary one because the experience is identical.


In simpler terms, you are voting with your dollar. Buying new means you want more games made. Buying used means you want more middlemen, like Gamestop. Since middlemen don't make games, I try to buy new when I can.

[precipice66]

Not sure how relevant my next point is but I'll go for it anyway:


The UK version of Gamestop: Gamestation, no longer seems to sell new copies of games released more than a few months ago. After a negative experience with used games I'll only buy new so if I fancy picking up some bargain older games, I have to take my business to places like Amazon et al. I feel bad because stores like Gamestation are struggling against their online competitors but I'm left with little choice if I don't want to buy pre-owned, non-chart games

[japester]

Gamestop in the US is the same way. Sometimes you can find a slightly older title new, but the largest portion of the store is reserved for the used titles. So the selection is much deeper. But since their profit margins are so much higher on used, it makes sense. Their business model is to buy few new copies (unless the game is a blockbuster like COD, Mass Effect, etc) and just wait for them to come back to be resold. More than once I've picked up a new title and was told that was the only copy the store ordered.

[laforzadimente]

japester said: Buying new means you want more games made.

I don't think that's 100% accurate, I think buying new means you want more games made by the same developers / teams. At this point, the gaming industry is a machine that will move forward one way or the other. New games will always be made. If the industry struggles to a choking point with used games, it will adapt into something new, it has no choice. As such unless I'm in love with and following a series (like Mass Effect for instance) I tend not to buy new. Also if a series lets me down (Assissin's Creed) I will cease to buy new.


I mean, we have no issue paying bottom dollar for a new car. We could care less about the car salesman and his needs. I realize it isn't the same analogy since in one instance the money isn't going to the creator of the product but as a consumer there is a similarity of wanting the best value for my dollar. And as Japester has already pointed out, the meat of the experience is the same with used merchandise.

[IGlegacy_Felonious]

laforzadimente said:

japester said: Buying new means you want more games made.

I don't think that's 100% accurate, I think buying new means you want more games made by the same developers / teams. At this point, the gaming industry is a machine that will move forward one way or the other. New games will always be made. If the industry struggles to a choking point with used games, it will adapt into something new, it has no choice. As such unless I'm in love with and following a series (like Mass Effect for instance) I tend not to buy new. Also if a series lets me down (Assissin's Creed) I will cease to buy new.

I mean, we have no issue paying bottom dollar for a new car. We could care less about the car salesman and his needs. I realize it isn't the same analogy since in one instance the money isn't going to the creator of the product but as a consumer there is a similarity of wanting the best value for my dollar. And as Japester has already pointed out, the meat of the experience is the same with used merchandise.

If the industry struggles to a choking point with used game, than they will adapt as you see what they are doing now with online passe and so on as a means to make up that money,


I see car analogies made a lot, I just don't see most of them working. In your case buying new games at bottom dollar - well I got a new copy of Twisted Metal from New Egg at 48 dollars, I know its a new copy- I know some money is going to the publisher/developer and I'm not concerned how they got to offer that price. Amazon usually runs buy this game and you get 10-20 dollars off your next purchase. Their are places to go too to get money off New games while still contributing to franchises you like is my point.


Edit in - Also a car salesman is effectively the GameStop in the analogy - The manufacturer (Developer in the Game Industry) is getting the money, the price you are negotiating is the retailer's mark up. It would be like if Gamestop sold all their games for 70 bucks with room to being talked down to 60.

[laforzadimente]

Fair enough, it was admittedly a bad example, was just trying to say that the car salesman requires our business and higher prices to survive but we're indifferent to him. So I take it you feel the same way about Netflix taking a larger profit potential from indie movie producers vs buying the BluRay or DVD?

[laforzadimente]

Also give this article from Wired a read, including some of the links and comments.


http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/08/used-games/


To quote one comment (relevant to used car sales)

Weez001 said:Maybe, just maybe, the companies that produce games should quit their

crying. Cars, movies, music, furniture, computers, lawnmowers, guns,

books, appliances, even homes and clothing have all been resold at

reduced cost for f*cking EVER. You don't see any of the companies that

make these products complaining. Ford doesn't complain when they don't

get a share of the money you got selling your '98 F-150. Ikea doesn't

b*tch when you resell your coffee table and forget to send them a check.

Nobody else cares. Every other industry out there understands that

their products are going to be resold. It is inevitable.


It

would seem odd that the video game industry would complain about losing

money because people are buying used products. They still seem to be

making a decent profit. Much like the auto industry, people buy used

cars all the time, and they're still making money. Hell, in most cases

it engenders brand loyalty. I bought a used car and loved it. I drove

the bloody thing for 8 years, then I bought the newer model. I played

Halo for years (actually, I still play Halo), and I immediately went and

bought Halo 2, 3, and ODST the day they came out. Some may be asking,

"Why?". To which I answer, "Because it's an awesome game!". Game

developers need to devote more time to coming up with new, creative

products; rather than complaining about how they're not making money

selling old ones

[iglegacy_cerberus]

felonious said:If the industry struggles to a choking point with used game, than they will adapt as you see what they are doing now with online passe and so on as a means to make up that money,

That is such bloody ruse. The PC version of Alan Wake was profitable within 48hours of release, combined sales crossed 2 million. Have a look at the top 10 most pirated games as of februari 22, 2012. Not to mention how many used copies were sold on eBay and elsewhere...


The industry is not struggling, it never has, it's just corrupt and greedy. Plain & simple.

[IGlegacy_Felonious]

laforzadimente said:Fair enough, it was admittedly a bad example, was just trying to say that the car salesman requires our business and higher prices to survive but we're indifferent to him. So I take it you feel the same way about Netflix taking a larger profit potential from indie movie producers vs buying the BluRay or DVD?

I believe netflix buys from the distributors and a portion of that money goes to the people who made the movie, obviously not as much if you buy the movie outright. I'm very selective with what movies I buy- something I really enjoyed. last two examples - off the top of my head - Drive and Hurtlocker. I don't moan and complain though when I netflix a movie and it comes without all the extras that are included on the retail disc.


As far as your guy who made the used car rant. Well people need to STOP whining and crying about online passes and "incomplete games" . I just bought a new car last summer - Mini Cooper Clubman its hawt by the way, anyways I get a maintenence program and other extras that would not come buying used. So really if consumer's feel that publisher's should stop complaining about not making money on used games, then consumer's definitely have no right in complaining about how Publishers are differentiating their product from used ones (via online passes, free DLC for new copies, and so on) . Nor should a publisher care if console game's go the way of unlock code as PC games, as those people who solely buy used and sell their game's aren't contributing to their bottom lines anyway -- your not their customer even though your playing and enjoying their product.

[IGlegacy_Felonious]

cerberus said:

felonious said:If the industry struggles to a choking point with used game, than they will adapt as you see what they are doing now with online passe and so on as a means to make up that money,

That is such bloody ruse. The PC version of Alan Wake was <a>profitable within 48hours of release, </a><a>combined sales crossed 2 million. Have a look at </a><a>the top 10 most pirated games as of februari 22, 2012. Not to mention how many used copies were sold on eBay and elsewhere...

The industry is not struggling, it never has, it's just corrupt and greedy. Plain & simple.

</a>

Somebody call you the WAAAAAHHHHHHHAmbulance!

[iglegacy_cerberus]

So you defending extortion methods and finger-pointing at used games for supposedly being hurtful to the industry is fine and should be looked upon as the irrefutable truth, but when I defend the used games market with adequately substantiated arguments, I'm just whining? How very mature of you, felonious.

[IGlegacy_Felonious]

cerberus said:

felonious said:If the industry struggles to a choking point with used game, than they will adapt as you see what they are doing now with online passe and so on as a means to make up that money,

That is such bloody ruse. The PC version of Alan Wake was <a>profitable within 48hours of release, </a><a>combined sales crossed 2 million. Have a look at </a><a>the top 10 most pirated games as of februari 22, 2012. Not to mention how many used copies were sold on eBay and elsewhere...

The industry is not struggling, it never has, it's just corrupt and greedy. Plain & simple.

</a>

Time for my serious reply -- All your rhetoric and complaining centers around one issue - your problem with Creative people making the most amount of money they possibly can on a non-essential product in people's lives. If that makes them corrupt and greedy in your mind so be it - The industry isn't regulated by Communists and that would make Andrew Ryan smile !

[IGlegacy_Felonious]

cerberus said:So you defending extortion methods and finger-pointing at used games for supposedly being hurtful to the industry is fine and should be looked upon as the irrefutable truth, but when I defend the used games market with adequately substantiated arguments, I'm just whining? How very mature of you, felonious.

How are you defending the used game markets again? Your garbage arguments just bore me, its like listening to a broken record over and over, see my above my reply with what your issue is. It's a YOU a issue man not the Industries. These game companies aren't charities the sooner you realize that about private industry in general, the better you will be for it.

[iglegacy_cerberus]

felonious said:Your garbage arguments just bore me, its like listening to a broken record over and over, see my above my reply with what your issue is.

The feeling's mutual, Herr Curmudgeon.

[IGlegacy_Felonious]

cerberus said:

felonious said:Your garbage arguments just bore me, its like listening to a broken record over and over, see my above my reply with what your issue is.

The feeling's mutual, Herr Curmudgeon.

If their was ever a Bioshock themed LARPing event. I'd def be a part of Ryan's crew and you would be Lamb follower. We could battle our different ideologies out with wrenches and golf clubs! It be fun !

[iglegacy_cerberus]

I'm not much of a follower, rather than a loner. But I'd definitely tag you with both Insect Swarm 3 and Security Bullseye if I've got the chance.

[japester]

laforzadimente said:Also give this article from Wired a read, including some of the links and comments.

Ouch. I had to click that author's link to see if that was a reader-submitted piece, it was so poorly written. Imagine my shock when I saw he was the editor! Wow. That's sad.


There's just so much bad logic in that whole argument. Not just the typical misstep of comparing digital products to physical items that degrade with use (like a lamp or car) but the strange attempt to call games 3x more expensive than other options. I assume he meant something like a movie or CD, which is bunk when you compare the hours of content included with each. Games come out far ahead in that regard.


A few of the comments are reasonable, but most are parroting similarly bad arguments that have been around for ages. It's interesting to note that quite a few are also used by the crowd that likes to steal--"they make enough money", "I work hard for my money and can't afford this", etc. It's funny to read the numerous responses that make it sound like new games cost several times their used counterparts. Typically we are talking about $60 new and $55 used for recent titles. That's just over 8% savings. Minimal at best.


I read a blog once where someone made a funny suggestion to appease the used car analogy crowd. He said games should be built to randomly degrade after a certain number of disc spins. The number would be hidden, so you would never know exactly when it would start. You'd be guaranteed that the first few complete playthroughs would be perfect, but after that all bets were off. Maybe the 5th playthrough certain textures wouldn't load. Then certain characters would be unplayable. Then key missions would be broken. Finally, saving would be disabled, and then the game wouldn't run at all. Then buying used games would be just like buying used cars, lamps, and everything else. You'd take your chances on how well they would work. And their prices would be just like other used items--drastically lower.


I don't have the bucks to buy $60 new games as soon as they come out. So I wait for them to drop. It doesn't take long for a sale or a price drop to the $40-50 range. Sometimes just a week or two. And I'm a huge fan of the Target clearance aisle. I bottom-feed tons of AAA titles (which is probably why my backlog is clinically insane) for $5-15. I don't know how much publishers make off those kinds of purchases, but it's more than they make off used sales. So I'm saving money and still supporting game-makers.

[laforzadimente]

@felonious, if Gamestop followed Netflix's lead and gave a portion of the used game sales to the devs would that put them on an equal playing field in your mind? Is this what Gamefly does?


@japester Ah but it only takes one good argument in the bunch to make the opposing viewpoint worthwhile I also don't see how the car degrading comes into play. Whatever state the vehicle is in will warrant a current fixed (Blue Book) value. If you can haggle that, fantastic, but it's still worth X. That it degrades over time has nothing to do with the existing used purchase price until it is sold again. Used games are also sold at a rate lower than that at which they are purchased. Finally, with the degrading game concept, the new games would also deteriorate over time just like a new car. Buying it new would simply give it a longer but finite life.

japester said: Typically we are talking about $60 new and $55 used for recent titles. That's just over 8% savings. Minimal at best

This I do agree with. When I come across this scenario I either wait for the price to drop or buy new depending on how badly I want to play it / how much I trust the series. I really don't buy used unless the prices is at most around $30. If I'm going for savings, I get savings, otherwise I don't bother for a few bucks.

[precipice66]

Although personally, my opinion on used games has not changed, I do think that Laforza has brought up some valid arguments with the article he posted. It is inevitable that people will resell their chattel - I mean look at the phenomenon that is ebay. I won't buy used - but that is an issue with quality and not anything to do with any moral hang-ups I might have over the issue. I'm going to have to hold my hands up and say that I don't know if either side is right in this, only that I have to agree that the gaming industry is unlikely to crash and burn because of the used games market.


Also, at the risk of jinxing it, can I say how nice it is that even though there are opposing viewpoints here, they have been articulated (mostly) in a calm, rational way. If only others would learn this lesson. I'm learning a lot about the issue because no one is wasting time tearing strips off of each other.

[IGlegacy_Felonious]

cerberus said: But I'd definitely tag you with both Insect Swarm 3 and Security Bullseye if I've got the chance.

I knew there would be something we could agree on, though I prefer incinerate and cyclone trap.


Oh and to your the Game Industry is greedy comment -- They are so greedy they can't even keep up with inflation. Read and become informed -- games have never been cheaper.


http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2...-with-time.ars


http://www.g4tv.com/videos/51360/Has...ore-Expensive/


http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/20...ith-inflation/


http://www.geek.com/articles/games/t...tion-20110120/


As far as Alan Wake it's initial sales were weak due to competition and parasitic behavior you endorse - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news...lan-Wake-Sales


Remedy is probably lucky it was critical darling and one of the few xbox exclusives that Microsoft had to get behind. A PC port, the DLC AWAN, and future sequel was not assured at all.

[IGlegacy_Felonious]

laforzadimente said:@felonious, if Gamestop followed Netflix's lead and gave a portion of the used game sales to the devs would that put them on an equal playing field in your mind? Is this what Gamefly does?

I'm not exactly sure what type licensing fees Netflix pays to the studios (that is what costs Netflix the most though in operating costs) but what Blockbusters and other video chain stores used to do was buy distributor copies at like 65 dollars - scroll down to business model section - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_Video . That model isn't in use anymore as physical chain stores are pretty much done. As far as gamefly watch Pachter and he tells how they operate - http://www.gametrailers.com/video/ep...h-attack/65317 . They buy wholesale from the publishers and publishers see them and Redbox as potential means to draw in buyers, some people use the rental service to try a game and then end up going to buy it. Definitely not the same view on rentals as used game sales.


Gamestop would solve a lot of issues Publishers have with the used game market if they kick backed to them on used game sales - They did buy catwoman codes to include in used games of arkham city - http://www.gamefluke.com/gaming-news...f-arkham-city/ . Here is an interesting blog entry by a Saints Row 3 Dev - http://altdevblogaday.com/2012/02/02/i-feel-used/ . He talks about his opinion on used game market and how eliminating it through a one use code would be good and he talks about issues which may arise such rentals, lending to friends and so on. I encourage everyone to check it out.


My whole point of this is to show people how the used game market works and their choices have an impact, many of you know this already, and many others just don't. The way things are the used game market exists - my issue doesn't lie with those who use it. My issue is those who are kicking and screaming at Publishers for trying to recoup money lost on their product being used, you have no right, its humorous really. If the used market goes away you can choose not to buy new games at all, won't make a difference to them as you weren't their customer to begin with. Buying used your not the Publisher's customer they have no obligation to you. The Game industry is going from I own this game to I bought the license to play that game. To those who buy new and affected because their not connected to the internet to say download their online pass content you are unfortunately getting the shaft because of the effects of the used game market. One of the reasons why Health Care insurance is so expensive is because of fraud, abuse, poor lifestyle choices by some individuals affect everyone else in the United States - http://sageba.com/why-is-health-insurance-so-expensive/ .

[japester]

@laforza

The car analogy is bad because the price plummets due to risk. You never know what's wrong with a used car. And the KBB generally reflects that, but it as you pointed out, you can haggle since every car is different. Used games, on the other hand, are generally perfect. Which is why their prices remain so close to new. When they drop, it's only due to demand and time, not reliability or quality of experience. In other words, their prices are affected by the exact same factors as new. Their used status has minimal impact. Thereby making them direct competitors with new rather than an alternative (like a used card).


To put it another way, how many times have you seen someone wander into a Gamestop looking for the hot new game, only to be talked out of the new copy by the employee? That never happens in any other market. Nobody goes in looking for a new car and gets talked into a used one. Why? Because there are fundamental differences. Unlike in games.

precipice66 said:

Also, at the risk of jinxing it, can I say how nice it is that even though there are opposing viewpoints here, they have been articulated (mostly) in a calm, rational way.

Amen, brother! Passion is great, but respect for the views of the other side is vital to a good discussion. I buy used. I freely admit that. But as felonious pointed out, that's not really the issue. It's folks painting publishers as evil for taking steps to curb the used market. If I buy used, I don't consider myself a paying customer of that publisher. So I accept the limitations that may place on me. That's my choice. If I want all the bells and whistles, I'll buy new and earn it.


@felonious

Ah! Thanks for pointing out the price issue. Those are great articles. I've said the same thing for years and meant to respond to the plethora of "games are too expensive!" comments on Wired. I was around for the original Atari. And yeah, games have always cost $50-90. At least all the games we bought. that's easily $100-150 in today's dollars, if not more. For games with very simple premises and limited playability. Games today can't even be compared in terms of content, playability, and quality. They're off the charts. And yet prices have stayed flat--or dropped. Yes, you could argue that more games are sold today (thought I'm not sure since competition is much fiercer), but publisher profit isn't the issue. It's the perception that the consumer pays too much, when history clearly shows we've never paid less!


I'd say the one and only complaint about online passes that I consider valid is the issue of multiple-gamer households. I can appreciate how a family with, say, a dad and two kids who all game want to have the full experience from a single game purchase. They want to view it like a book or a movie that they've purchased and pass it around. I get that. But I also think it may be an archaic concept. You wouldn't purchase one ticket to a movie and then complain if you couldn't take your whole family in on that one ticket. So I can see where some game companies have taken the stand that the full game experience is a license tied to one player. But it's tricky. Definitely tricky.

[IGlegacy_Felonious]

@Japester , I hear the issue with online passes - the Saints Row Dev Diary talks about tying things to a console so the whole family could use it, would have to be able to transition from one console to another if a family got another.


In general though the more wiggle room there is, the more people who don't give a damn about paying people for their product will find a way to exploit a system. Perfect example is the 5 console/device download on the PSN which got limited to two - http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-...-game-sharing/


For anyone not familiar with why they did it - I buy something on the PSN, now I can download it up to 4 other devices. People would buy a game and then can share it with 4 other of their friends, basically pirating that game to 4 other households. That is not what Sony had in mind when allowing 5 devices to be able to get a download. So they restricted it to 2, though you can deactivate in case you want to move stuff to another device. This probably affected households who understandably should be able to share the game amongst a family. Abuse by some affects many. That is another lesson to be learned about piraters or anyone who abuses any system - inevitably someone else who is buying it fair and square will take on some of the cost of that abusive action of others.

[japester]

Too true, felonious. That attitude--"Anything is okay as long as I can get away with it"--may be prevalent today, but it wasn't common when I was growing up. Somewhere along the way, our culture stopped placing any value on scruples or self-control. But it's so short-sighted. People think they are getting more by gaming the system (EVERY system), but all that does is lead to more restrictions across the board.

[precipice66]

japester said:@laforza

To put it another way, how many times have you seen someone wander into a Gamestop looking for the hot new game, only to be talked out of the new copy by the employee? That never happens in any other market.

I had this happen to me. At the time I was thinking 'but the new copy is more expensive - why are you trying to talk me out of buying it?' I hadn't given any thought to the fact that selling used games is more profitable for these stores because a hundred percent of the price (minus the pittance they gave the original owner) is profit for them.


I'm glad there is thought being put into the issue of loaning games to friends - I can't stress how important it is for reaching new fans. There are so many TV shows, Video Game franchises and Book series that I am only a fan of now because I have loaned something from one of my friends and vice versa. Buying a game that you know nothing about is a risk, one that many may be unwilling to take.

[laforzadimente]

Yeah it happened to me as well when I bought Dark Souls and having watched some of a Let's Play on YouTube, I knew I would enjoy it for many hours on end and was excited about the product. Also, knowing that Gamestop gets the majority if not all of the money if I bought it for 55 instead of 60 I told the guy I appreciated the heads up but I'd rather have the new copy. Which I probably wouldn't have done if I didn't know the difference. But you can't blame the guy behind the counter for doing as he was trained in providing what's best for Gamestop as his employer.


At the same time though, I still feel that both sides have merit. Simultaneously, I think that while the pro-new supporters definitely have a point in feeling that this as a moral battle they can be out of line attacking the character of the pro-used gamers. And as the article I posted mentioned, the two groups aren't necessarily exclusive. This isn't a corporate loophole through which a Fortune 500 is evading taxes, or internet piracy, etc. They don't feel they are "getting away with it". Half of them don't realize the money doesn't go to the devs, the other half are making a perfectly legal purchase through entities that the publishers choose to sell through.


What if 2K and other publishers formed a "coalition" and as a group, approached Gamestop and refused to fence through GS unless they received a portion of the used sales as well? (personally I think this is the best option)


I don't pretend to know anything about business but if you're unhappy with the way things are, you've gotta switch up the formula. If the one-time use codes force people to buy the new games, then the devs have trumped GS's business strategy and those that some consider not to have any ethics will purchase the games new. Problem solved.

[japester]

laforzadimente said:I think that while the pro-new supporters definitely have a point in feeling that this as a moral battle they can be out of line attacking the character of the pro-used gamers.

Re-reading the thread, I don't see anyone on the "new" side attacking the character of anyone for buying used. In fact, we all seem to admit that we buy used from time to time. So buying used isn't the issue.


The problem is people buying digital products used and wanting the full support from the publisher, just like those who purchased new. It's a case of having your cake and eating it, too. As an example, if I buy BioShock Infinite new, I'm a customer of 2K Games and deserve all the bells and whistles. If I cut 2K (and Irrational) entirely out of the equation to save a few bucks by buying used, that's fine. But now I'm a customer of Gamestop, not 2K. So my game may be missing a feature or two. That's my choice. It only becomes a character flaw when I make that choice and then complain about the consequences of my actions.


In fact, the only character attacks I've seen associated with the new/used debate have come from the "used" side. Cerberus' colorful comments about "evil" and "greedy" publishers come to mind.