Export thread
Clamping down on Used Games & (PA) Kevin Returns FoShizzle!
#1
Espy
Here (News: Pre-owned 'cheats developers' - THQ - ComputerAndVideoGames.com ) is the article where THQ says:
Honestly, I buy 50/50 right now when I do buy games, but after reading some of this it's made me pretty seriously re-consider buying used games... although how far do we carry this? Should we not buy used textbooks or from Amazon.com unless it's from a valid distributor?
What do you guys think?
Espy
And KEVIN!I had a different reaction to the "fightin' words" of THQ's Cory Ledesma than most. I have a different reaction to lots of things, probably. But this in particular.
The idea that THQ is somehow "disrespecting customers" with this kind of rhetoric misunderstands the situation as completely as it is possible to do so.
In a literal way, when you purchase a game used, you are not a customer of theirs. If I am purchasing games in order to reward their creators, and to ensure that more of these ingenious contraptions are produced, I honestly can't figure out how buying a used game was any better than piracy. From the the perspective of a developer, they are almost certainly synonymous.
It's exceedingly rare that I purchase a game from Gamestop these days. I got tired of being harangued for trying to buy products there, or being told that they didn't have a product when they did, or going across the street to Best Buy or Target or Fred Meyer and finding fifty copies of the game I was trying to buy heaped up like some heathen altar to commerce. There's more, besides. At some point in the last few years, I became incredibly uncomfortable with the used games market.
I don't think Online Codes that gate access to multiplayer are a particularly good idea, just watching the kinds of threads it generates - but that's exactly what Xbox Live does, for every game on the platform. Sony's considering codes as well, but they're getting it coming and going: they've committed themselves to a dedicated server infrastructure for first party titles, and multiplayer is "free," so a used copy of a Resistance or an Uncharted 2 is a worst case scenario. I prefer an approach along the lines of the Flashback Pack for the second Gears of War - something fun and extra, that feels like a reward. More treat than trick.
I traded in games for a long time, there's probably comics somewhere in the archive about it - you can imagine how quickly my cohort and I consume these things. It was sort of like Free Money, and we should have understood from the outset that no such thing exists. You meet one person who creates games for a living, just one, and it becomes very difficult to maintain this virtuous fiction.
(CW)TB
happy and wholesome again
Here (News: Pre-owned 'cheats developers' - THQ - ComputerAndVideoGames.com ) is the article where THQ says:
Thoughts? Nerd Rage? Agreement?Smackdown vs. Raw 2011's one-time code for online play might upset pre-owned buyers - but THQ 'doesn't care'.
That's according to the publisher's creative director for wrestling games Cory Ledesma, who told CVG that "loyal fans" who are interested in buying the game first-hand are more important:
"I don't think we really care whether used game buyers are upset because new game buyers get everything. So if used game buyers are upset they don't get the online feature set I don't really have much sympathy for them."
"That's a little blunt but we hope it doesn't disappoint people. We hope people understand that when the game's bought used we get cheated," he continued.
Honestly, I buy 50/50 right now when I do buy games, but after reading some of this it's made me pretty seriously re-consider buying used games... although how far do we carry this? Should we not buy used textbooks or from Amazon.com unless it's from a valid distributor?
What do you guys think?
#2
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
I'm pretty sure THQ's argument is complete bullshit.
#3
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
PC games have been the same way for decades, console gamers are getting bent out of shape for the same shit PC gamers have been putting up with forever.
#4
Espy
Espy
How so? It seems rather simple. You buy the game from their distributor they get money for their work, you buy it from gamestop then gamestop gets the money instead. What am I missing?I'm pretty sure THQ's argument is complete bullshit.
#5
Covar
Covar
I don't expect to get this years mlb roster on my copy of mlb 2k9. Don't see why developers should either.
Ledesma had it exactly right. Why should THQ care about supporting people who don't buy their product?
Ledesma had it exactly right. Why should THQ care about supporting people who don't buy their product?
#6
General Specific
General Specific
Why should I continue buying this year's version of that wrestling game or Madden when I have last year's still sitting here and I'm not able to get any kind of trade for it? Do they really think that people would continue to buy next year's game if they could not get rid of their current one? I know I wouldn't. I would have that visual reminder that a new game comes out every year with only a few minor tweaks each time. I'd lose interest in upgrading every year quite quickly.
Also, the people who are buying it used are likely people who would not have bought it new anyway, so in the long run, they've likely not lost a whole lot of revenue. In fact, they may be growing their audience by having people play an older version of their game, liking it and then buying the next version of the game when it's new.
Also, the people who are buying it used are likely people who would not have bought it new anyway, so in the long run, they've likely not lost a whole lot of revenue. In fact, they may be growing their audience by having people play an older version of their game, liking it and then buying the next version of the game when it's new.
#7
Bubble181
Sure the argument is bullshit....IF you believe you actually buy the game. If you follow the premise of the makers, namely, that you only buy a license to use code, it makes sense. You can't give away your digitally bought game. Why should it - from their point of view - be any different for a disc-bought game?
Heck - this same thing is coming to more and more media. Read the EULAs and copyright notices on DVDs and Blurays some time - they pretty much state that you're not allowed to lend or give away your disc, to anyone, ever. Yes, if you buy a DVD for your mother, and borrow it to watch it at home, you're breaking their contract. Just wait what happens with eReaders - they're already selling only-readable-X-times books. And so on.
Bubble181
Yup yup.PC games have been the same way for decades, console gamers are getting bent out of shape for the same shit PC gamers have been putting up with forever.
Sure the argument is bullshit....IF you believe you actually buy the game. If you follow the premise of the makers, namely, that you only buy a license to use code, it makes sense. You can't give away your digitally bought game. Why should it - from their point of view - be any different for a disc-bought game?
Heck - this same thing is coming to more and more media. Read the EULAs and copyright notices on DVDs and Blurays some time - they pretty much state that you're not allowed to lend or give away your disc, to anyone, ever. Yes, if you buy a DVD for your mother, and borrow it to watch it at home, you're breaking their contract. Just wait what happens with eReaders - they're already selling only-readable-X-times books. And so on.
#8
Covar
Covar
Yes, and people do. The fact that sports games sell well every single year is exactly why your argument holds no water. I also find it amusing that it's the same defense used for piracy.Do they really think that people would continue to buy next year's game if they could not get rid of their current one?
#9
GasBandit
GasBandit
If the video games industry wants to be taken as seriously as the movies, books and music industries, they're going to have to get over their hatred of used game sales. This guy just wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Tycho is also wrong about used game sales being tantamount to piracy. Is buying a used car tantamount to grand theft auto? When you buy a used Dodge from a private owner, none of that money goes to the manufacturer either. Just think of the cavalcade of theft that must be Craigslist.
Tycho is also wrong about used game sales being tantamount to piracy. Is buying a used car tantamount to grand theft auto? When you buy a used Dodge from a private owner, none of that money goes to the manufacturer either. Just think of the cavalcade of theft that must be Craigslist.
#10
Tinwhistler
When I buy a used game, the original owner is no longer playing it.If you want to monetize online play, charge a monthly fee...don't penalize someone who has legally purchased the game, albeit used.
Tinwhistler
When my Craftsman wrench breaks, I can take it back to Sears for a full replacement--regardless of whether I bought it from Sears or a garage sale. Sears has already made their money on that particular wrench. Does it make sense for Sears to require every person who wants a wrench to buy one new? Should you somehow be penalized for buying that same wrench at a garage sale, pawn shop, or from your buddy who no longer needs it because he's retiring from the auto tech industry?I don't expect to get this years mlb roster on my copy of mlb 2k9. Don't see why developers should either.
Ledesma had it exactly right. Why should THQ care about supporting people who don't buy their product?
When I buy a used game, the original owner is no longer playing it.If you want to monetize online play, charge a monthly fee...don't penalize someone who has legally purchased the game, albeit used.
#11
Espy
Espy
From Gabes Twitterfeed: "not saying you can't buy used stuff. just when you buy a used game you are not supporting developers. If that matters to you is your choice."
@Gas, he didn't say it is tantamount to piracy. He said it's just no better, but not that they were the same, merely he implies the effect is equal. You raise the same point I did though in my OP, does this mean that we shouldn't buy anything used?
@General, I totally disagree that people won't buy the new games and I don't see how because you bought 1 game and a sequel comes out it automatically means the old one is not worth playing or somehow invalid...
@Gas, he didn't say it is tantamount to piracy. He said it's just no better, but not that they were the same, merely he implies the effect is equal. You raise the same point I did though in my OP, does this mean that we shouldn't buy anything used?
@General, I totally disagree that people won't buy the new games and I don't see how because you bought 1 game and a sequel comes out it automatically means the old one is not worth playing or somehow invalid...
#12
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
THQ's argument about used games at large doesn't really work, because it assumes that every used game sale is a a sale they lose at that point in time. This is only true if THQ is willing to lower their prices to meet the demands of the used market, i.e. to increase the game's net value by making the features-to-price ratio weight towards the features side.
If a consumer, for whatever reason, doesn't consider $50 a game to be a worthwhile price to get the game features at that point in time and the publisher is unwilling to lower the price sufficiently, it's already a lost sale long before that consumer buys that game for $30 used 2 months later.
Now, if THQ doesn't want to cater to the used market and isn't interested in taking steps towards sustaining a community of online players for a particular game, that's their right. For all we know, they've run their own numbers and don't think that a built-in game community for a WWE game is a worthwhile investment because the abandon rate when the next game comes out is so high.
Taking the time to specifically stymie the development of said community is counter-productive though. They should really be looking at the used game market as an opportunity to develop new first-time buyers. As difficult as it can be to price, then re-price your products to keep the revenue coming, taking steps to deter potential customers when you're a common consumer brand is always a bad move.
---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 PM ----------
Also, when you buy new, assuming we're talking retail boxes, you're not "supporting the developers". They've been paid by the publishers for their work already, and the publishers have been paid by the distributors, like Amazon, Target, Walmart, etc., with various buyback assurances for a particular percentage of leftover stock.
Digital download is a little different, because sales are "just in time production", and you're often buying directly from the developer/publisher, who have yet to be paid for that copy, and "used" doesn't really exist unless you're able to transfer an authentification code to someone else.
If a consumer, for whatever reason, doesn't consider $50 a game to be a worthwhile price to get the game features at that point in time and the publisher is unwilling to lower the price sufficiently, it's already a lost sale long before that consumer buys that game for $30 used 2 months later.
Now, if THQ doesn't want to cater to the used market and isn't interested in taking steps towards sustaining a community of online players for a particular game, that's their right. For all we know, they've run their own numbers and don't think that a built-in game community for a WWE game is a worthwhile investment because the abandon rate when the next game comes out is so high.
Taking the time to specifically stymie the development of said community is counter-productive though. They should really be looking at the used game market as an opportunity to develop new first-time buyers. As difficult as it can be to price, then re-price your products to keep the revenue coming, taking steps to deter potential customers when you're a common consumer brand is always a bad move.
---------- Post added at 01:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 PM ----------
Also, when you buy new, assuming we're talking retail boxes, you're not "supporting the developers". They've been paid by the publishers for their work already, and the publishers have been paid by the distributors, like Amazon, Target, Walmart, etc., with various buyback assurances for a particular percentage of leftover stock.
Digital download is a little different, because sales are "just in time production", and you're often buying directly from the developer/publisher, who have yet to be paid for that copy, and "used" doesn't really exist unless you're able to transfer an authentification code to someone else.
#13
Covar
Covar
Yes but Gas, if you buy a used Dodge from a private owner should you get upset when the Dodge dealership won't give you free repairs and maintenance that come with the purchase of a new Dodge? You purchase said Dodge as is. If the warranty is up on it you just have to deal. Dodge has no reason to give you service just because you drive a Dodge.If the video games industry wants to be taken as seriously as the movies, books and music industries, they're going to have to get over their hatred of used game sales. This guy just wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Tycho is also wrong about used game sales being tantamount to piracy. Is buying a used car tantamount to grand theft auto? When you buy a used Dodge from a private owner, none of that money goes to the manufacturer either. Just think of the cavalcade of theft that must be Craigslist.
#14
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
This is basically my argument as well.If the video games industry wants to be taken as seriously as the movies, books and music industries, they're going to have to get over their hatred of used game sales. This guy just wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Tycho is also wrong about used game sales being tantamount to piracy. Is buying a used car tantamount to grand theft auto? When you buy a used Dodge from a private owner, none of that money goes to the manufacturer either. Just think of the cavalcade of theft that must be Craigslist.
#15
checkeredhat
Plus, the parts in a Chysler automobile are made by various Chrylser owned companies. The sales made from a dealer go directly to Chrysler. But the sale of a videogame developed by Bethesda, could stil be split say, Obsidian and Sony as well. So they're geting a smaller slice of the pie even as is.
I think. Admittedly I don't know how the business model works, I'm just guessing.
I still think online play should come with the game regardless. So they're messing up there, and yeah, they're ripping off gamers (Not technically their customers, but gamers). To use your analogy, its like if used cars had to be sold without passenger seats.
But yeah, I think it is well within their right to limit the experience of the used game buyer by say, giving free DLC to new game buyers but forcing the used gamers to pay for it, or giving the new game buyers bonus add ons that the used gamers don't get.
I have only ever purchased a handful of my games new, I always buy used, and even I agree with it... to some extent.
checkeredhat
But when you buy a used Car from a private owner and not from a dealership, you don't get the warranty coverage and customization benefits that the dealer would offer. This isn't THAT dissimilar.If the video games industry wants to be taken as seriously as the movies, books and music industries, they're going to have to get over their hatred of used game sales. This guy just wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Tycho is also wrong about used game sales being tantamount to piracy. Is buying a used car tantamount to grand theft auto? When you buy a used Dodge from a private owner, none of that money goes to the manufacturer either. Just think of the cavalcade of theft that must be Craigslist.
Plus, the parts in a Chysler automobile are made by various Chrylser owned companies. The sales made from a dealer go directly to Chrysler. But the sale of a videogame developed by Bethesda, could stil be split say, Obsidian and Sony as well. So they're geting a smaller slice of the pie even as is.
I think. Admittedly I don't know how the business model works, I'm just guessing.
I still think online play should come with the game regardless. So they're messing up there, and yeah, they're ripping off gamers (Not technically their customers, but gamers). To use your analogy, its like if used cars had to be sold without passenger seats.
But yeah, I think it is well within their right to limit the experience of the used game buyer by say, giving free DLC to new game buyers but forcing the used gamers to pay for it, or giving the new game buyers bonus add ons that the used gamers don't get.
I have only ever purchased a handful of my games new, I always buy used, and even I agree with it... to some extent.
#16
Espy
Why should they "get over it"? They want to be compensated for the product they create, why are people acting like thats a bad thing?
Espy
This is basically my argument as well.[/QUOTE]If the video games industry wants to be taken as seriously as the movies, books and music industries, they're going to have to get over their hatred of used game sales. This guy just wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Tycho is also wrong about used game sales being tantamount to piracy. Is buying a used car tantamount to grand theft auto? When you buy a used Dodge from a private owner, none of that money goes to the manufacturer either. Just think of the cavalcade of theft that must be Craigslist.
Why should they "get over it"? They want to be compensated for the product they create, why are people acting like thats a bad thing?
#17
Tinwhistler
The analogy fails.
Buick | Auto Warranty Information for Current Buick Owners "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Pontiac | Auto Warranty Information for Current Pontiac Owners | Pontiac Phase Out " The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Chevy Warranty Information | Owners | Chevrolet "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Cadillac Warranty | Cadillac Auto Warranty Information | Cadillac "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Mitsubishi Motors - Warranties At Mitsubishi, we are so confident in the quality, reliability and durability of the cars we build that we back our passenger cars and sport utility vehicles with very extensive warranties. This list is headed ... a 5-year/60,000 mile fully transferable bumper-to-bumper New Vehicle Limited Warranty"
etc
etc
and specifically Dodge:
Dodge Warranty "The Dodge bumper-to-bumper warranty is transferable to any new owners during the warranty time period. There is no charge to transfer the warranty."
hoist, petard, and all that.
Tinwhistler
Yes but Gas, if you buy a used Dodge from a private owner should you get upset when the Dodge dealership won't give you free repairs and maintenance that come with the purchase of a new Dodge? You purchase said Dodge as is. If the warranty is up on it you just have to deal. Dodge has no reason to give you service just because you drive a Dodge.[/QUOTE]If the video games industry wants to be taken as seriously as the movies, books and music industries, they're going to have to get over their hatred of used game sales. This guy just wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Tycho is also wrong about used game sales being tantamount to piracy. Is buying a used car tantamount to grand theft auto? When you buy a used Dodge from a private owner, none of that money goes to the manufacturer either. Just think of the cavalcade of theft that must be Craigslist.
The analogy fails.
Buick | Auto Warranty Information for Current Buick Owners "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Pontiac | Auto Warranty Information for Current Pontiac Owners | Pontiac Phase Out " The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Chevy Warranty Information | Owners | Chevrolet "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Cadillac Warranty | Cadillac Auto Warranty Information | Cadillac "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Mitsubishi Motors - Warranties At Mitsubishi, we are so confident in the quality, reliability and durability of the cars we build that we back our passenger cars and sport utility vehicles with very extensive warranties. This list is headed ... a 5-year/60,000 mile fully transferable bumper-to-bumper New Vehicle Limited Warranty"
etc
etc
and specifically Dodge:
Dodge Warranty "The Dodge bumper-to-bumper warranty is transferable to any new owners during the warranty time period. There is no charge to transfer the warranty."
hoist, petard, and all that.
#18
GasBandit
As for the car warranty, a lot of them are actually transferrable.
Edit: Tinwhistler ninjas me for the win.
GasBandit
They WERE compensated. When it was sold new.Why should they "get over it"? They want to be compensated for the product they create, why are people acting like thats a bad thing?
As for the car warranty, a lot of them are actually transferrable.
Edit: Tinwhistler ninjas me for the win.
#19
checkeredhat
checkeredhat
Whoa. I did not know that. I guess people just usually don't sell their car while its still under warranty.
#20
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
It's not. What they need to get over is this idea that their product has a fixed perpetual worth to the outside consumer as opposed to a price calculation against value-oriented heterogeneous marketplace that tends to move on to the newest thing.Why should they "get over it"? They want to be compensated for the product they create, why are people acting like thats a bad thing?
#21
ScytheRexx
ScytheRexx
When it comes to warranty transference, that is at the discretion of the company. While most auto-makers will transfer a warranty to a new owner, some companies, like my camera equipment company, will not transfer warranty for sales outside our authorized dealers.
There is nothing wrong with THQ limiting something for gamers that buy used, because even if others give full features to second hand sales, they do so as a courtesy, not a right.
There is nothing wrong with THQ limiting something for gamers that buy used, because even if others give full features to second hand sales, they do so as a courtesy, not a right.
#22
Covar
The analogy fails.
Buick | Auto Warranty Information for Current Buick Owners "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Pontiac | Auto Warranty Information for Current Pontiac Owners | Pontiac Phase Out " The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Chevy Warranty Information | Owners | Chevrolet "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Cadillac Warranty | Cadillac Auto Warranty Information | Cadillac "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Mitsubishi Motors - Warranties At Mitsubishi, we are so confident in the quality, reliability and durability of the cars we build that we back our passenger cars and sport utility vehicles with very extensive warranties. This list is headed ... a 5-year/60,000 mile fully transferable bumper-to-bumper New Vehicle Limited Warranty"
etc
etc
and specifically Dodge:
Dodge Warranty "The Dodge bumper-to-bumper warranty is transferable to any new owners during the warranty time period. There is no charge to transfer the warranty."
hoist, petard, and all that.[/QUOTE]
my point exactly. If I went out and bought a used copy of MLB 2010 the Show today I would get the exact same online play, roster updates and DLC as the previous owner. If I went out and bought it next February I would not get up to the day roster updates or patches.
Covar
Yes but Gas, if you buy a used Dodge from a private owner should you get upset when the Dodge dealership won't give you free repairs and maintenance that come with the purchase of a new Dodge? You purchase said Dodge as is. If the warranty is up on it you just have to deal. Dodge has no reason to give you service just because you drive a Dodge.[/QUOTE]If the video games industry wants to be taken as seriously as the movies, books and music industries, they're going to have to get over their hatred of used game sales. This guy just wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Tycho is also wrong about used game sales being tantamount to piracy. Is buying a used car tantamount to grand theft auto? When you buy a used Dodge from a private owner, none of that money goes to the manufacturer either. Just think of the cavalcade of theft that must be Craigslist.
The analogy fails.
Buick | Auto Warranty Information for Current Buick Owners "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Pontiac | Auto Warranty Information for Current Pontiac Owners | Pontiac Phase Out " The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Chevy Warranty Information | Owners | Chevrolet "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Cadillac Warranty | Cadillac Auto Warranty Information | Cadillac "The warranty transfers automatically with vehicle ownership during the warranty period."
Mitsubishi Motors - Warranties At Mitsubishi, we are so confident in the quality, reliability and durability of the cars we build that we back our passenger cars and sport utility vehicles with very extensive warranties. This list is headed ... a 5-year/60,000 mile fully transferable bumper-to-bumper New Vehicle Limited Warranty"
etc
etc
and specifically Dodge:
Dodge Warranty "The Dodge bumper-to-bumper warranty is transferable to any new owners during the warranty time period. There is no charge to transfer the warranty."
hoist, petard, and all that.[/QUOTE]
my point exactly. If I went out and bought a used copy of MLB 2010 the Show today I would get the exact same online play, roster updates and DLC as the previous owner. If I went out and bought it next February I would not get up to the day roster updates or patches.
#23
Espy
[/QUOTE]
You are making the rather giant assumption that a consumer would not buy it new though. While there may be a portion who wouldn't there will be a portion that will. I don't think it's as cut and dry as you would like it to be.
@Special KO: Thats a really good point and maybe the real argument should be the actual pricing of a non-used game. I would buy twice as many games brand new if the cost wasn't over 50 dollars a pop.
---------- Post added at 01:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------
For the record, I don't think people who buy used games (me being one of them) are "bad" people or the equivalent of pirates, but still get the analogy that to the game maker it's a similar effect.
In the end it's coming down to this for each person: Do you want to support the company whose product you enjoy? If you don't care, don't buy it new. They won't get the profits from your purchase. If it actually matters to you then you should buy it new.
Espy
They WERE compensated. When it was sold new.Why should they "get over it"? They want to be compensated for the product they create, why are people acting like thats a bad thing?
[/QUOTE]
You are making the rather giant assumption that a consumer would not buy it new though. While there may be a portion who wouldn't there will be a portion that will. I don't think it's as cut and dry as you would like it to be.
@Special KO: Thats a really good point and maybe the real argument should be the actual pricing of a non-used game. I would buy twice as many games brand new if the cost wasn't over 50 dollars a pop.
---------- Post added at 01:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------
For the record, I don't think people who buy used games (me being one of them) are "bad" people or the equivalent of pirates, but still get the analogy that to the game maker it's a similar effect.
In the end it's coming down to this for each person: Do you want to support the company whose product you enjoy? If you don't care, don't buy it new. They won't get the profits from your purchase. If it actually matters to you then you should buy it new.
#24
GasBandit
GasBandit
I'd feel a lot more generous about "supporting" the poor struggling multibillion dollar game publishers if the price point of video games wasn't so ridiculous and obviously bloated.
#25
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Actually, in this day and age, you should buy it from the developers as directly as possible (if they allow it) if you care about that. They get a bigger cut that way because you're cutting the middle-men distributors out.If it actually matters to you then you should buy it new.
#26
Tinwhistler
So, for your failed and mangled analogy to hold, everyone would have to lose their online play and updates next February. Just like car warranties expire on the same date for new and secondhand owners.
So, looking at it, it doesn't support your point at all. Wanna try to take another stab at it?
Tinwhistler
No. Not your point 'exactly'. You are highlighting the "during the warranty period" phrase as if it proves that secondhand owners in your analogy have some kind of expiration date that new owners don't have. And this is a fallacy. The same warranty period applies to both new owners and secondhand owners of cars.my point exactly. If I went out and bought a used copy of MLB 2010 the Show today I would get the exact same online play, roster updates and DLC as the previous owner. If I went out and bought it next February I would not get up to the day roster updates or patches.
So, for your failed and mangled analogy to hold, everyone would have to lose their online play and updates next February. Just like car warranties expire on the same date for new and secondhand owners.
So, looking at it, it doesn't support your point at all. Wanna try to take another stab at it?
#27
Espy
Espy
Either way, you should buy it in a way that supports the developers if you want them to make more games.
@Gas, While you echo my point about the discussion probably needing to actually be about game pricing points, I'm surprised that you take a stance that they have made too much money for you to care. It's okay for "rich" people to get screwed then?
@Gas, While you echo my point about the discussion probably needing to actually be about game pricing points, I'm surprised that you take a stance that they have made too much money for you to care. It's okay for "rich" people to get screwed then?
#28
strawman
strawman
The ONLY point Tycho is making is that if your intent, when yo buy a game, is to support the people making the game, then you have to buy it new. Any other type of sale will NOT support the people making the game.
That's it.
He's not claiming that used==piracy. He mentioned off-hand that used games support the creators as much as piracy does (ie, not at all) but he in no way equates the two.
What his (and apparently many others here) argument completely misses is WHO they are supporting.
They are supporting the stockholders of these game creation and distribution corporations.
The people who actually worked on the game and gave them the awesome experience that it is are getting the crumbs that fall off the stockholder's table. The way that game creation and distribution goes, though, the people who actually act as creators get little to nothing, and benefit very little from the purchase. Given how many layoffs have occurred, do occur, and will occur in the game industry (it's part of the stockholder's game to "control costs") they don't even get the benefit of keeping their job - they only get a job if there's a next project and they are willing to work 16 hour days leading up to every deadline.
So, Tycho, you are swallowing his load hook, line, and sinker.
And the reason you are doing this is because you are also in the business of content creation.
However, the way you run your business, and the benefit you derive from it are completely different than the way the people who actually created the games you enjoy benefit from them.
Moving on to reason number two why this is completely and utterly redonkulous:
The market is the market. They price their games high at a price point that will maximize their return on investment. There is a huge underserved market at lower price points that they attempt to fill over time by lowering the cost of the game, but they don't really meet the needs of consumers at that level.
They don't want customers who aren't willing to pony up the full amount to have their work.
So the market is filling in for that need through used game stores. Not only does it give others the chance to play a game, but it generates additional sales at the higher price point.
How many $60 games would you be willing/able to buy a year if you knew you couldn't sell them on the used game market once you finished it?
I know a lot of people who buy a game the day it comes out, play it for a week, then sell it for $40. The $20 they ultimately paid for it was worth the entertainment they got, but they wouldn't be able to buy so many games a year if they were truly $60 out of pocket each game.
Tycho even states that he has changed his mind slowly over the years - he admits that his cheap 20 year old self would not, and could not, agree with him today. He's not out of touch, but he has a different perspective now that he can afford to "Support the creators", and now that he makes his money from his creative efforts.
That's it.
He's not claiming that used==piracy. He mentioned off-hand that used games support the creators as much as piracy does (ie, not at all) but he in no way equates the two.
What his (and apparently many others here) argument completely misses is WHO they are supporting.
They are supporting the stockholders of these game creation and distribution corporations.
The people who actually worked on the game and gave them the awesome experience that it is are getting the crumbs that fall off the stockholder's table. The way that game creation and distribution goes, though, the people who actually act as creators get little to nothing, and benefit very little from the purchase. Given how many layoffs have occurred, do occur, and will occur in the game industry (it's part of the stockholder's game to "control costs") they don't even get the benefit of keeping their job - they only get a job if there's a next project and they are willing to work 16 hour days leading up to every deadline.
So, Tycho, you are swallowing his load hook, line, and sinker.
And the reason you are doing this is because you are also in the business of content creation.
However, the way you run your business, and the benefit you derive from it are completely different than the way the people who actually created the games you enjoy benefit from them.
Moving on to reason number two why this is completely and utterly redonkulous:
The market is the market. They price their games high at a price point that will maximize their return on investment. There is a huge underserved market at lower price points that they attempt to fill over time by lowering the cost of the game, but they don't really meet the needs of consumers at that level.
They don't want customers who aren't willing to pony up the full amount to have their work.
So the market is filling in for that need through used game stores. Not only does it give others the chance to play a game, but it generates additional sales at the higher price point.
How many $60 games would you be willing/able to buy a year if you knew you couldn't sell them on the used game market once you finished it?
I know a lot of people who buy a game the day it comes out, play it for a week, then sell it for $40. The $20 they ultimately paid for it was worth the entertainment they got, but they wouldn't be able to buy so many games a year if they were truly $60 out of pocket each game.
Tycho even states that he has changed his mind slowly over the years - he admits that his cheap 20 year old self would not, and could not, agree with him today. He's not out of touch, but he has a different perspective now that he can afford to "Support the creators", and now that he makes his money from his creative efforts.
#29
figmentPez
The video game industry does not get it. Book publishers have known for a while that not everyone will buy a hardcover book and will wait for the cheaper paperback. Customers know a cheaper version will come out at some point, but the book publishers don't fear that happening. Nintendo does. They've stopped the Player's Choice line of titles because they don't want customers to expect a game to get cheaper. This is, I think, one of the major reason that Wii software sales are already dropping off (when the PS2 was still growing at this point in it's lifetime). This fear of cheaper prices shows a complete lack of understanding of the basic principles of economics. If game publishers as a whole don't grasp simple supply and demand, then how can they be expected to understand more complicated matters like the indirect benefit of a used market?
figmentPez
Why should they "get over it"? They want to be compensated for the product they create, why are people acting like thats a bad thing?
It's not a bad thing for creators to be compensated, but the used market is part of the product they create. The "right of first sale" is explicit in copyright law for a reason. I think that books, music, movies and other forms of media have benefited from a used market, just as console games have (and PC games used to). While it is true that a used copy of media doesn't directly produce revenue for the creator/publisher, that doesn't mean it has no positive impact. As General Specific already mentioned, many people buy new because they know they can sell it used later. A lot of hardcover books go on to be resold, and paperbacks as well. This didn't kill the book market, nor did it kill the sale of new music, movies, art or any other creative endeavor that is sold. In fact, I think all those markets would be much smaller if people were discouraged from resale of media.From Gabes Twitterfeed: "not saying you can't buy used stuff. just when you buy a used game you are not supporting developers. If that matters to you is your choice."
The video game industry does not get it. Book publishers have known for a while that not everyone will buy a hardcover book and will wait for the cheaper paperback. Customers know a cheaper version will come out at some point, but the book publishers don't fear that happening. Nintendo does. They've stopped the Player's Choice line of titles because they don't want customers to expect a game to get cheaper. This is, I think, one of the major reason that Wii software sales are already dropping off (when the PS2 was still growing at this point in it's lifetime). This fear of cheaper prices shows a complete lack of understanding of the basic principles of economics. If game publishers as a whole don't grasp simple supply and demand, then how can they be expected to understand more complicated matters like the indirect benefit of a used market?
#30
Chibibar
Chibibar
I believe the main problem is price. Game is VERY expensive especially for PS3 and XBOX360. Base price for these games are around 60-80$ EACH!!! yikes. I buy PC games from Steam. It still "own" the game (arguable) but at least it is first owner not pre-own 
I notice a HUGE jump in sales when Steam goes on sale. There are time where popular title ran out of codes on Steam.
The used market. I do not believe that buying used game = piracy. Using the Car analogy, the person is buying the product and the original owner no longer own it. That is same for games UNLESS the original owner made a copy. To me, the new owner should be able to use all the feature since the old owner doesn't use it anymore.
I notice a HUGE jump in sales when Steam goes on sale. There are time where popular title ran out of codes on Steam.
The used market. I do not believe that buying used game = piracy. Using the Car analogy, the person is buying the product and the original owner no longer own it. That is same for games UNLESS the original owner made a copy. To me, the new owner should be able to use all the feature since the old owner doesn't use it anymore.
#31
figmentPez
figmentPez
And he's dead wrong. Player has $400 to spend on games in a year. He buys a $60 game, plays it for a month, sells it for $30. Then he buys a new game for $60, plays it for another month, and sells it for $30, and so on... He ends up buying 12 new games in a year. If he can only get $20 for a used game (that $10 less the price is because of online), then he's down to only 9 games in a year on his budget. If he can't sell the games at all, he's down to 6 titles a year. Unless those currently buying used step up to buy more new (and I don't think that will happen), the game publishers have lost sales because of the damage to the used market.He's not claiming that used==piracy. He mentioned off-hand that used games support the creators as much as piracy does (ie, not at all) but he in no way equates the two.
#32
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
I know a lot of people bang on about it, but the advantage of DLC and online subscription services, from a business perspective, is that it's now easy to reward first buys, and make it a better deal.
#33
Covar
Covar
Bingo.So, for your failed and mangled analogy to hold, everyone would have to lose their online play and updates next February. Just like car warranties expire on the same date for new and secondhand owners.
#34
checkeredhat
checkeredhat
They price games high because they have to because of the console makers. Consoles are almost always sold at either a ridiculously low cost, or at a loss, and the creators rely on consumers being willing to pay high for the content to make a profit. If people were willing to buy the PS3 at $600 when it came out, they could have priced the games cheaper. They wouldn't have, obviously. But they could have. Point is, people aren't willing to pay that price for the console, but they clearly ARE willing to pay more for the games, even if reluctantly. So the prices are what they are.
We sold 360s, Wiis, and DSes at the store I used to work at. The store's cost for the Wii was only $4 less than we charged customers. It was about a dollar for the DS, and I can't remember the cost for the 360s, but I THINK it was even.
We sold 360s, Wiis, and DSes at the store I used to work at. The store's cost for the Wii was only $4 less than we charged customers. It was about a dollar for the DS, and I can't remember the cost for the 360s, but I THINK it was even.
#35
figmentPez
figmentPez
Check out Jason "LordKat" Pullara's rant about the latest version of Madden. It has a ton of sloppy coding and inexcusable lack of detail for the massive budget it has. The amount of in-game advertising is ridiculous and still they haven't put the effort into giving it the polish that any other game maker worth their salt would. Madden is one of the games that requires a $10 code to play online for used copies. The game is crap, and is solely riding on being the exclusive NFL football game. If Madden were in a competitive sector of the market, like every other game genre, they wouldn't be able to get away with the slip-shod work they put into each year's game. They can complain about a lack of new game sales when they start putting the effort into making the game worth the price they charge for it.I'd feel a lot more generous about "supporting" the poor struggling multibillion dollar game publishers if the price point of video games wasn't so ridiculous and obviously bloated.
#36
GasBandit
GasBandit
They're not getting screwed. Buying second hand does not screw the publishers, nor the developers, any more than buying a used car screws the manufacturer. In fact, you could argue that buying NEW games via brick and mortar stores screws developers even worse because it perpetuates an exploitative and dated business model which enriches the publisher and not necessarily the developer.Either way, you should buy it in a way that supports the developers if you want them to make more games.
@Gas, While you echo my point about the discussion probably needing to actually be about game pricing points, I'm surprised that you take a stance that they have made too much money for you to care. It's okay for "rich" people to get screwed then?
#37
figmentPez
figmentPez
I took the liberty of correcting your statement. People are willing to pay $60 a game, so that's what they're sold at. Games don't have to cost $60 to make Sony/Microsoft a profit (the Wii was never sold at a loss). One of the reasons console customers find $60 games to be acceptable is the used market. PC gamers don't usually have that option anymore, so they've balked at jumping from $50 to $60 (and many, like me, refuse to even pay that much).They price games high because they can because of the console customers.
#38
Covar
Covar
I do love buying through Steam.
#39
KCWM
KCWM
I buy used all of the time. Whether it's guitar gear, cars, games, movies, etc. I don't accept the idea that it's wrong for someone to sell something used that they purchased new. If it's in demand, even just a little bit, it has value. Gamestop functions as a broker for the exchange of used merchandise, in this case games, similar to a used car dealership. Good on them.
I do agree that THQ is in no way obligated to support it for those customers that choose to buy a game used and if they come up with a way to do so, then more power to them. For console games, they could set up a system that you have to set up an account for to log into to get downloadable content. I'm all for that, if a company chooses to do that.
To compare it piracy is extreme, at best.
I do agree that THQ is in no way obligated to support it for those customers that choose to buy a game used and if they come up with a way to do so, then more power to them. For console games, they could set up a system that you have to set up an account for to log into to get downloadable content. I'm all for that, if a company chooses to do that.
To compare it piracy is extreme, at best.
#40
checkeredhat
This model is missing the main point of their contention though. You've taken the person buying only used games rather than new entirely out of the equation.
And again, because I see how quickly these threads turn into heated arguments/ flame wars all the time, I'll state clearly that I don't agree buying used games should be villified. I do it all the time. I also don't agree that a key component of the game like online play should be unavailable for previously played game buyers. I'm just saying, it is within their right to reward buyers of the new game. I agree entirely that they shouldn't PUNISH buyers of the used one.
I also find it funny that everyone keeps saying the only reason people buy games new is because they can sell them later. Because the only games I've ever bought new are the games I wanted so badly I couldn't wait, and enjoyed so much that I still have them still replay them. Hell, I still have Armored Core, Spider-Man 1 and 2 for my PSOne and God of War, Sonic Mega Collection Plus and War of the Monsters for my PS2. Maybe I'm just really weird. I guess the fact I still enjoy Armored Core proves that, actually.
checkeredhat
And he's dead wrong. Player has $400 to spend on games in a year. He buys a $60 game, plays it for a month, sells it for $30. Then he buys a new game for $60, plays it for another month, and sells it for $30, and so on... He ends up buying 12 new games in a year. If he can only get $20 for a used game (that $10 less the price is because of online), then he's down to only 9 games in a year on his budget. If he can't sell the games at all, he's down to 6 titles a year. Unless those currently buying used step up to buy more new (and I don't think that will happen), the game publishers have lost sales because of the damage to the used market.[/QUOTE]He's not claiming that used==piracy. He mentioned off-hand that used games support the creators as much as piracy does (ie, not at all) but he in no way equates the two.
This model is missing the main point of their contention though. You've taken the person buying only used games rather than new entirely out of the equation.
And again, because I see how quickly these threads turn into heated arguments/ flame wars all the time, I'll state clearly that I don't agree buying used games should be villified. I do it all the time. I also don't agree that a key component of the game like online play should be unavailable for previously played game buyers. I'm just saying, it is within their right to reward buyers of the new game. I agree entirely that they shouldn't PUNISH buyers of the used one.
I also find it funny that everyone keeps saying the only reason people buy games new is because they can sell them later. Because the only games I've ever bought new are the games I wanted so badly I couldn't wait, and enjoyed so much that I still have them still replay them. Hell, I still have Armored Core, Spider-Man 1 and 2 for my PSOne and God of War, Sonic Mega Collection Plus and War of the Monsters for my PS2. Maybe I'm just really weird. I guess the fact I still enjoy Armored Core proves that, actually.
#41
Chibibar
The car's warranty analogy is pretty good especially NOW warranty DO transfer when sold used. This makes customer happy.
THQ could let the customer who bought the pre-own game play online and everything is all peaches and cream, but with the stink they are causing, it could hurt future customer who are may willing to pay full price on some games.
personal note: There are some games I am willing to pay full price for but some games, I usually wait for it to go on sale or buy them used.
Chibibar
I believe that THQ approach is bad in terms of future customers.I buy used all of the time. Whether it's guitar gear, cars, games, movies, etc. I don't accept the idea that it's wrong for someone to sell something used that they purchased new. If it's in demand, even just a little bit, it has value. Gamestop functions as a broker for the exchange of used merchandise, in this case games, similar to a used car dealership. Good on them.
I do agree that THQ is in no way obligated to support it for those customers that choose to buy a game used and if they come up with a way to do so, then more power to them. For console games, they could set up a system that you have to set up an account for to log into to get downloadable content. I'm all for that, if a company chooses to do that.
To compare it piracy is extreme, at best.
The car's warranty analogy is pretty good especially NOW warranty DO transfer when sold used. This makes customer happy.
THQ could let the customer who bought the pre-own game play online and everything is all peaches and cream, but with the stink they are causing, it could hurt future customer who are may willing to pay full price on some games.
personal note: There are some games I am willing to pay full price for but some games, I usually wait for it to go on sale or buy them used.
#42
checkeredhat
I'll take your word for it, I can't find any official numbers on the Wii cost vs manufacturer cost. All I know is the retail cost versus what the store paid.
checkeredhat
I took the liberty of correcting your statement. People are willing to pay $60 a game, so that's what they're sold at. Games don't have to cost $60 to make Sony/Microsoft a profit (the Wii was never sold at a loss). One of the reasons console customers find $60 games to be acceptable is the used market. PC gamers don't usually have that option anymore, so they've balked at jumping from $50 to $60 (and many, like me, refuse to even pay that much).[/QUOTE]They price games high because they can because of the console customers.
I'll take your word for it, I can't find any official numbers on the Wii cost vs manufacturer cost. All I know is the retail cost versus what the store paid.
#43
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
I rarely buy new games anymore. The last one I bought brand-spanking new, pre-order and all was Batman: Vengeance for the PS2. That was a disappointing spend of $70. There's no way to tell if I'll like the game for sure, right out of the gate. So, I wait for reviews or friends' opinions, rent it, play a demo, etc.
Since getting a PS3 on Boxing Day last year, I made myself two personal promises:
1) Don't buy any game for more than $30.
2) Don't buy a new game until you've beaten what you have.
The second has kind of fallen away, especially when I find great deals. The first, however, has stuck. The only exception I've made so far was pre-ordering Dead Rising 2. I've played 1 and love the game, so I know what I'm getting into, there.
Buying used, though? I've done that a lot for movies, particularly, and always have. I won't spend more than $20 on a movie (even Blu-Ray). But the majority of my game catelogue were used. In fact, there was a sale at my store a few weeks ago, where used games priced at $4.99 were also 50% off. So, I nabbed a bunch super cheap: Overlord, Top Spin 3, Devil May Cry 4, Lego Indiana Jones, Soul Cailbur 4, Shaun White's Snowboarding. These are all games I likely wouldn't have given a second look without that price tag. Some were worth it (Lego Indy, Snowboarding), some not so much (Overlord).
And then you have Steam, where you can buy the game, technically new, for some great prices. I think downloadable games, much like music is about 90% of today, is where the industry is going more and more. The capacity in systems to hold information just gets bigger and bigger, along with the ability (like Steam) to download them again any time you want. Now, if they were to lower the prices to reflect not having a physical copy, then I think it would work out better. Right now, they're trying to have their cake and eat it, too, and it's not working out so far.
Then again, is it just me, or are smaller studio titles starting to pick up more (pardon the pun) steam? World of Goo, Braid, Scott Pilgrim. Heck, even a growing studio like Telltale Games does their business almost entirely online (with the option to buy a hard copy, if you want). If that same model was copied by the larger studios (lower price due to lack of hard copy; or provide hard copy if requested), then wouldn't that make the idea of downloadable games more viable? True, it might slowly rid us of used product, but it's no different than the music industry and mp3s.
Since getting a PS3 on Boxing Day last year, I made myself two personal promises:
1) Don't buy any game for more than $30.
2) Don't buy a new game until you've beaten what you have.
The second has kind of fallen away, especially when I find great deals. The first, however, has stuck. The only exception I've made so far was pre-ordering Dead Rising 2. I've played 1 and love the game, so I know what I'm getting into, there.
Buying used, though? I've done that a lot for movies, particularly, and always have. I won't spend more than $20 on a movie (even Blu-Ray). But the majority of my game catelogue were used. In fact, there was a sale at my store a few weeks ago, where used games priced at $4.99 were also 50% off. So, I nabbed a bunch super cheap: Overlord, Top Spin 3, Devil May Cry 4, Lego Indiana Jones, Soul Cailbur 4, Shaun White's Snowboarding. These are all games I likely wouldn't have given a second look without that price tag. Some were worth it (Lego Indy, Snowboarding), some not so much (Overlord).
And then you have Steam, where you can buy the game, technically new, for some great prices. I think downloadable games, much like music is about 90% of today, is where the industry is going more and more. The capacity in systems to hold information just gets bigger and bigger, along with the ability (like Steam) to download them again any time you want. Now, if they were to lower the prices to reflect not having a physical copy, then I think it would work out better. Right now, they're trying to have their cake and eat it, too, and it's not working out so far.
Then again, is it just me, or are smaller studio titles starting to pick up more (pardon the pun) steam? World of Goo, Braid, Scott Pilgrim. Heck, even a growing studio like Telltale Games does their business almost entirely online (with the option to buy a hard copy, if you want). If that same model was copied by the larger studios (lower price due to lack of hard copy; or provide hard copy if requested), then wouldn't that make the idea of downloadable games more viable? True, it might slowly rid us of used product, but it's no different than the music industry and mp3s.
#44
Bubble181
Bubble181
The point you all seem to be missing is that the gaming industry just doesn't agree with any of the analogies used. As far as THQ is concerned, you're not buying anything. You're paying for a service they provide. This seems obvious as far as MMO's are concerned; however, the games industry (and THQ foremost amongst them; they're pretty much evil) consider this the case for all games. They would love nothing better than to charge you per hour. Just look at the newest trend in pc games - always-online needed for single player games. Makes no technological sense, but it -does- allow them to link a game to one specific profile, and it's untransferable. I always said I wouldn't go Steam, but I ended up buying a game (Napoleon Total War, to be precise) where I had the option of installing it and linking it with Steam, or not playing it at all. Can't sell on that disc, either. Well, I can, but it's a useless frisbee for the next guy.
For them, a correct analogy is this: you buy an unlimited entry card for the local swimming pool. After a while, you've had enough of swimming, and want to go weight lifting instead. So you sell your entrance pass to the swimming pool, and get a new subscription for the weight lifting hall. A couple of months later, you get tired of lifting weights, so you sell that, and buy another thingie....And so on. You can't do that, either, can you?
And on a completely unrelated note, the second hand market is next-to-non-existent in Belgium.
For them, a correct analogy is this: you buy an unlimited entry card for the local swimming pool. After a while, you've had enough of swimming, and want to go weight lifting instead. So you sell your entrance pass to the swimming pool, and get a new subscription for the weight lifting hall. A couple of months later, you get tired of lifting weights, so you sell that, and buy another thingie....And so on. You can't do that, either, can you?
And on a completely unrelated note, the second hand market is next-to-non-existent in Belgium.
#45
GasBandit
GasBandit
And that's another reason why I don't patronize steam, too.
#46
Chibibar
like Person A buys the game, finish it, sold to person B repeats to C. THQ lost "money" from person B and C but business like Gamestop earn money from B and C. THQ wants a piece of that action. I guess the "solution" would be if a company sell a used game, they would need to pay "general royalty" monthly like Internet radio (my friend has an Internet radio and he pays a monthly fee) this could reduce company getting business one 2nd hand games.
that is the "greedy business version"
OR make the game a little more affordable and GOOD, then they might actually sell more
Chibibar
Oh I understand the point (at least I do) The company rather get the money from each person playing the game than just 1 and "shared" among 2-3 people (if not more)The point you all seem to be missing is that the gaming industry just doesn't agree with any of the analogies used. As far as THQ is concerned, you're not buying anything. You're paying for a service they provide. This seems obvious as far as MMO's are concerned; however, the games industry (and THQ foremost amongst them; they're pretty much evil) consider this the case for all games. They would love nothing better than to charge you per hour. Just look at the newest trend in pc games - always-online needed for single player games. Makes no technological sense, but it -does- allow them to link a game to one specific profile, and it's untransferable. I always said I wouldn't go Steam, but I ended up buying a game (Napoleon Total War, to be precise) where I had the option of installing it and linking it with Steam, or not playing it at all. Can't sell on that disc, either. Well, I can, but it's a useless frisbee for the next guy.
For them, a correct analogy is this: you buy an unlimited entry card for the local swimming pool. After a while, you've had enough of swimming, and want to go weight lifting instead. So you sell your entrance pass to the swimming pool, and get a new subscription for the weight lifting hall. A couple of months later, you get tired of lifting weights, so you sell that, and buy another thingie....And so on. You can't do that, either, can you?
And on a completely unrelated note, the second hand market is next-to-non-existent in Belgium.
like Person A buys the game, finish it, sold to person B repeats to C. THQ lost "money" from person B and C but business like Gamestop earn money from B and C. THQ wants a piece of that action. I guess the "solution" would be if a company sell a used game, they would need to pay "general royalty" monthly like Internet radio (my friend has an Internet radio and he pays a monthly fee) this could reduce company getting business one 2nd hand games.
that is the "greedy business version"
OR make the game a little more affordable and GOOD, then they might actually sell more
#47
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Steams great if your a retro gamer though. It's much easier to buy copies of older games off of steam for five-ten bucks than it is to find them in stores sometimes.And that's another reason why I don't patronize steam, too.
#48
SpecialKO
And if they're so worried about lost revenue in the model, they should really also get out of the retail box business and avoid paying 3rd-party vendors to print, package, ship, and distribute their product.
That's why Blizzard keeps WoW mostly out of the retail box business and makes a point of publicly selling licensed subscriptions instead of the box. It's why every retail box of WoW has a little note in it encouraging you to lend/give friends your disks along with a friend code. It's why Blizzard, despite whatever solidarity claim they might make in public, probably doesn't care at all about the whole "used=lost revenues" argument. They've made it irrelevant to their biggest revenue model by making it worthwhile for their users to give away their disks and get rewarded for it.
SpecialKO
Hey, if that's what they want, they should be willing to allow me to trade me back their old game in exchange for playing their new one. A license to use a piece of software is not, by default, the same a license to use a service. This would also get them out of needing to maintain levels of support for legacy. That's how most SaaS models work.You're paying for a service they provide.
And if they're so worried about lost revenue in the model, they should really also get out of the retail box business and avoid paying 3rd-party vendors to print, package, ship, and distribute their product.
That's why Blizzard keeps WoW mostly out of the retail box business and makes a point of publicly selling licensed subscriptions instead of the box. It's why every retail box of WoW has a little note in it encouraging you to lend/give friends your disks along with a friend code. It's why Blizzard, despite whatever solidarity claim they might make in public, probably doesn't care at all about the whole "used=lost revenues" argument. They've made it irrelevant to their biggest revenue model by making it worthwhile for their users to give away their disks and get rewarded for it.
#49
Chibibar
And if they're so worried about lost revenue in the model, they should really also get out of the retail box business and avoid paying 3rd-party vendors to print, package, ship, and distribute their product.
That's why Blizzard keeps WoW mostly out of the retail box business and makes a point of publicly selling licensed subscriptions instead of the box. It's why every retail box of WoW has a little note in it encouraging you to lend/give friends your disks along with a friend code. It's why Blizzard, despite whatever solidarity claim they might make in public, probably doesn't care at all about the whole "used=lost revenues" argument. They've made it irrelevant to their biggest revenue model by making it worthwhile for their users to give away their disks and get rewarded for it.[/QUOTE]
On the flip side of Blizzard's model, we might get a new game every 2-3 years if we are lucky
Chibibar
Hey, if that's what they want, they should be willing to allow me to trade me back their old game in exchange for playing their new one. A license to use a piece of software is not, by default, the same a license to use a service. This would also get them out of needing to maintain levels of support for legacy. That's how most SaaS models work.You're paying for a service they provide.
And if they're so worried about lost revenue in the model, they should really also get out of the retail box business and avoid paying 3rd-party vendors to print, package, ship, and distribute their product.
That's why Blizzard keeps WoW mostly out of the retail box business and makes a point of publicly selling licensed subscriptions instead of the box. It's why every retail box of WoW has a little note in it encouraging you to lend/give friends your disks along with a friend code. It's why Blizzard, despite whatever solidarity claim they might make in public, probably doesn't care at all about the whole "used=lost revenues" argument. They've made it irrelevant to their biggest revenue model by making it worthwhile for their users to give away their disks and get rewarded for it.[/QUOTE]
On the flip side of Blizzard's model, we might get a new game every 2-3 years if we are lucky
#50
Tinwhistler
Waugh Chapel Swim Club*-*Membership
A whole website devoted to matching up people who want to transfer gym memberships.
How about your undefined "another thingie"... Can we use cell phones in that analogy? Those are pretty hard to get out of, right? And it's a 100% service model. You contract is for service, not the phone. Can't transfer those, right?
Wrong.
Cellswapper.com - Cellswapper.com - Get out of your Cell Phone-Mobile-Wireless Contract
Get out of your cell phone contract or find a short term wireless plan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/technology/personaltech/01smart.html
:laugh: This place amazes me sometimes.
Tinwhistler
Yes. Yes, you can.For them, a correct analogy is this: you buy an unlimited entry card for the local swimming pool. After a while, you've had enough of swimming, and want to go weight lifting instead. So you sell your entrance pass to the swimming pool, and get a new subscription for the weight lifting hall. A couple of months later, you get tired of lifting weights, so you sell that, and buy another thingie....And so on. You can't do that, either, can you?
Waugh Chapel Swim Club*-*Membership
Transfer My Membership - gym membership, gyms, health clubs, membership transfers,If you are trying to sell/transfer your membership you need to advertise the membership for sale in your local paper. The pool does NOT buy back memberships. Download and complete TWO (2) copies of the Transfer Membership Agreement.
A whole website devoted to matching up people who want to transfer gym memberships.
How about your undefined "another thingie"... Can we use cell phones in that analogy? Those are pretty hard to get out of, right? And it's a 100% service model. You contract is for service, not the phone. Can't transfer those, right?
Wrong.
Cellswapper.com - Cellswapper.com - Get out of your Cell Phone-Mobile-Wireless Contract
Get out of your cell phone contract or find a short term wireless plan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/technology/personaltech/01smart.html
Companies like CellSwapper are performing the exact same service that the gym membership swap club I linked above is performing: Finding people who have contracts they no longer want and matching them with people who want them. It's the exact same business model that Gamestop has for used games.It’s a little-known fact that cellphone carriers will let you swap contracts with another person, no matter whether you have one month or two years remaining on your commitment. They just will not help you do the hard work of finding someone who actually wants your contract and the vintage flip phone that came with it.
:laugh: This place amazes me sometimes.
#51
Chibibar
Waugh Chapel Swim Club*-*Membership
A whole website devoted to matching up people who want to transfer gym memberships.
:laugh: This place amazes me sometimes.[/QUOTE]
So much for analogy
Chibibar
Yes. Yes, you can.For them, a correct analogy is this: you buy an unlimited entry card for the local swimming pool. After a while, you've had enough of swimming, and want to go weight lifting instead. So you sell your entrance pass to the swimming pool, and get a new subscription for the weight lifting hall. A couple of months later, you get tired of lifting weights, so you sell that, and buy another thingie....And so on. You can't do that, either, can you?
Waugh Chapel Swim Club*-*Membership
Transfer My Membership - gym membership, gyms, health clubs, membership transfers,If you are trying to sell/transfer your membership you need to advertise the membership for sale in your local paper. The pool does NOT buy back memberships. Download and complete TWO (2) copies of the Transfer Membership Agreement.
A whole website devoted to matching up people who want to transfer gym memberships.
:laugh: This place amazes me sometimes.[/QUOTE]
So much for analogy
#52
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
hehe, Chibi ninj'd me while I was editing in cell phone swapping too
#53
Piotyr
Piotyr
The entire commercial game development model is broken, and often it's the developers who get shafted as a result. The development cost of games is getting to the point where you have to be a million seller to even make money, the shelf space is limited to only the big money publishers and even then only for a week or two after the game actually hits the shelves (how many shelves are filled with display boxes advertising games "coming soon"?). Game development is such a rabid and competitive environment that to do it you have to be willing to work ridiculous hours for a pittance, and then deal with the promises of profit sharing, when the actual definition of profit sharing depends solely on the publisher's preferred sales numbers.
As a result, eventually something has got to give. Either developers will finally just give up and quit, the Steam digital download model will take over all platforms, games will go to some kind of subscription model, or development project budgets will be seriously scaled back and there will be a complete absence of big budget titles.
As a result, eventually something has got to give. Either developers will finally just give up and quit, the Steam digital download model will take over all platforms, games will go to some kind of subscription model, or development project budgets will be seriously scaled back and there will be a complete absence of big budget titles.
#54
Tinwhistler
Tinwhistler
Oh, and to bring things back to the real world, so we can quit talking about failed analogies like swimming pools, cell phones, car warranties, etc (all of which, it turns out, are transferable), how do software companies handled licensed software?
Cisco Software Transfer and Re-licensing Policy - Cisco Systems
Cisco has specific policies for transferring licenses.
HP.com - software license transfer (policy 2.0)
HP has specific policies for transferring licenses.
Transfer an Adobe product license
Adobe has specific policies for transferring licenses.
I could go on for pages, but I really didn't want to spend more than 5 minutes proving my point.
Bottom line: If I'm buying a LICENSE I should be able to transfer that license to anyone else, along with everything that goes with it. If I'm buying a physical good, I should be able to sell or give that to someone without repercussion.
Games manufacturers want to be in a special category all to themselves. What's the justification? What's the moral reasoning? It's simple greed--to maximize revenues at the expense of the thrifty consumer. And you know what I say to that? Fuck you, game publishers
Cisco Software Transfer and Re-licensing Policy - Cisco Systems
Cisco has specific policies for transferring licenses.
HP.com - software license transfer (policy 2.0)
HP has specific policies for transferring licenses.
Transfer an Adobe product license
Adobe has specific policies for transferring licenses.
I could go on for pages, but I really didn't want to spend more than 5 minutes proving my point.
Bottom line: If I'm buying a LICENSE I should be able to transfer that license to anyone else, along with everything that goes with it. If I'm buying a physical good, I should be able to sell or give that to someone without repercussion.
Games manufacturers want to be in a special category all to themselves. What's the justification? What's the moral reasoning? It's simple greed--to maximize revenues at the expense of the thrifty consumer. And you know what I say to that? Fuck you, game publishers
#55
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Which really just goes to show, that if THQ really wants to be in the licensing business, they can. If they want to stay in the retail box business, well, then they're going have to come to grips with the realization that if they want to combat their rising costs, they either need to cut expenses on the vendor end or price more aggressively with their content.
Complaining about the used market and trying to "force" people to pay the retail price is a losing battle - 'cause in the end, no one is forced to do anything.
Complaining about the used market and trying to "force" people to pay the retail price is a losing battle - 'cause in the end, no one is forced to do anything.
#56
Piotyr
Piotyr
The up-front cost of most enterprise software packages dwarfs that of game product costs, though. Also, many companies will charge a yearly maintenance fee for support and patches/upgrades.Oh, and to bring things back to the real world, so we can quit talking about failed analogies like swimming pools, cell phones, car warranties, etc (all of which, it turns out, are transferable), how do software companies handled licensed software?
Cisco Software Transfer and Re-licensing Policy - Cisco Systems
Cisco has specific policies for transferring licenses.
HP.com - software license transfer (policy 2.0)
HP has specific policies for transferring licenses.
Transfer an Adobe product license
Adobe has specific policies for transferring licenses.
I could go on for pages, but I really didn't want to spend more than 5 minutes proving my point.
Bottom line: If I'm buying a LICENSE I should be able to transfer that license to anyone else, along with everything that goes with it. If I'm buying a physical good, I should be able to sell or give that to someone without repercussion.
Games manufacturers want to be in a special category all to themselves. What's the justification? What's the moral reasoning? It's simple greed--to maximize revenues at the expense of the thrifty consumer. And you know what I say to that? Fuck you, game publishers
#57
Chibibar
I am NOT complaining of all the awesome sales that Steam has BUT steam has to make their share of the profit (hosting the file, license managing etc etc) plus to keep the developers happy so Steam can continue to sell games online. What about GoG? and other digital stores?
I notice that some company start having software available for download. I believe part of the "bloated" price is in the pretty box, advertising, shipping and actually housing these physical medias.
Chibibar
I often wonder what is the percentage that the developers are getting from digital download format.The entire commercial game development model is broken, and often it's the developers who get shafted as a result. The development cost of games is getting to the point where you have to be a million seller to even make money, the shelf space is limited to only the big money publishers and even then only for a week or two after the game actually hits the shelves (how many shelves are filled with display boxes advertising games "coming soon"?). Game development is such a rabid and competitive environment that to do it you have to be willing to work ridiculous hours for a pittance, and then deal with the promises of profit sharing, when the actual definition of profit sharing depends solely on the publisher's preferred sales numbers.
As a result, eventually something has got to give. Either developers will finally just give up and quit, the Steam digital download model will take over all platforms, games will go to some kind of subscription model, or development project budgets will be seriously scaled back and there will be a complete absence of big budget titles.
I am NOT complaining of all the awesome sales that Steam has BUT steam has to make their share of the profit (hosting the file, license managing etc etc) plus to keep the developers happy so Steam can continue to sell games online. What about GoG? and other digital stores?
I notice that some company start having software available for download. I believe part of the "bloated" price is in the pretty box, advertising, shipping and actually housing these physical medias.
#58
Tinwhistler
Yearly maintenance fees are not required. It's related side revenue but has nothing to do with licenses. If THQ wants to follow this business model, then they would charge a monthly access fee for online service or charge for DLC. But in either case, that online service contract (along with the fee) or the DLC should be transferable.
Tinwhistler
My smaller priced adobe products, which are comparable in cost to games, are fully transferable.The up-front cost of most enterprise software packages dwarfs that of game product costs, though. Also, many companies will charge a yearly maintenance fee for support and patches/upgrades.
Yearly maintenance fees are not required. It's related side revenue but has nothing to do with licenses. If THQ wants to follow this business model, then they would charge a monthly access fee for online service or charge for DLC. But in either case, that online service contract (along with the fee) or the DLC should be transferable.
#59
Piotyr
They're often required if you want to use the latest version of a piece of software or get support on the product (granted, I'm mostly talking products that cost upwards of $50k to license and maintain). Like I said above, the model is messed up, where even if publishers like THQ and EA get their money machine working, the actual developers get screwed. Many developers will develop small, quick games or crap licensed games just to stay afloat for the games they want to make. Maybe the mobile market will shift that somewhat, maybe the Steam market. But the current model is unsustainable to the point where already there are just a few big publishers that can hack it in the console market.
Piotyr
Yearly maintenance fees are not required. It's related side revenue but has nothing to do with sales. My smaller priced adobe products, which are comparable in cost to games, are fully transferable.[/QUOTE]The up-front cost of most enterprise software packages dwarfs that of game product costs, though. Also, many companies will charge a yearly maintenance fee for support and patches/upgrades.
They're often required if you want to use the latest version of a piece of software or get support on the product (granted, I'm mostly talking products that cost upwards of $50k to license and maintain). Like I said above, the model is messed up, where even if publishers like THQ and EA get their money machine working, the actual developers get screwed. Many developers will develop small, quick games or crap licensed games just to stay afloat for the games they want to make. Maybe the mobile market will shift that somewhat, maybe the Steam market. But the current model is unsustainable to the point where already there are just a few big publishers that can hack it in the console market.
#60
Chibibar
Yearly maintenance fees are not required. It's related side revenue but has nothing to do with licenses. If THQ wants to follow this business model, then they would charge a monthly access fee for online service or charge for DLC. But in either case, that online service contract (along with the fee) or the DLC should be transferable.[/QUOTE]
now we get into some weird areas.
I know that standard EULA agreement for MMO subscription are generally not transferable UNLESS it is built into the system like character transfer. It is generally frown upon (even in Blizzard) for me to give my account to a friend to take over. (that was a year ago not sure if that has change)
Chibibar
My smaller priced adobe products, which are comparable in cost to games, are fully transferable.The up-front cost of most enterprise software packages dwarfs that of game product costs, though. Also, many companies will charge a yearly maintenance fee for support and patches/upgrades.
Yearly maintenance fees are not required. It's related side revenue but has nothing to do with licenses. If THQ wants to follow this business model, then they would charge a monthly access fee for online service or charge for DLC. But in either case, that online service contract (along with the fee) or the DLC should be transferable.[/QUOTE]
now we get into some weird areas.
I know that standard EULA agreement for MMO subscription are generally not transferable UNLESS it is built into the system like character transfer. It is generally frown upon (even in Blizzard) for me to give my account to a friend to take over. (that was a year ago not sure if that has change)
#61
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
Honestly I've always thought that used game sellers should kick a few bucks back to the developers when they resell a game. Don't know how much money would work or how to avoid having the sellers take all of the risk but I think that everybody would make out like bandits in this kind of deal.
I do think that the game developers are being bitchs about the used game market. They want to crack down on the used game market then they had better step up they're game making. Starcraft II is the only game that I can't loan to a friend and I would have waited for a price drop before I bought it had I known about it. Because no way in hell am I paying $63 for a so-so game that I can't loan to a friend.
I do think that the game developers are being bitchs about the used game market. They want to crack down on the used game market then they had better step up they're game making. Starcraft II is the only game that I can't loan to a friend and I would have waited for a price drop before I bought it had I known about it. Because no way in hell am I paying $63 for a so-so game that I can't loan to a friend.
#62
Tinwhistler
South Korea's Supreme Court Decriminalizes Real Money Transactions in Online Games - Pixels and Policy
Tinwhistler
Yup..but if you don't need support, you can do without monthly/yearly fee. I work at a company that uses VM on our mainframes. We buy the license for the software, but we have our own VM wizard. We don't pay the extremely high support fee. But even if we did, that support contract would be fully transferable to a third party along with our VM licenses. So, really, this side discussion adds nothing new to the debate.They're often required if you want to use the latest version of a piece of software or get support on the product (granted, I'm mostly talking products that cost upwards of $50k to license and maintain).
This is because the MMO model is really new, as far as the courts are concerned. That said, courts are starting to get pulled into the fray, and we are starting to see mmo objects treated more like real property.now we get into some weird areas.
I know that standard EULA agreement for MMO subscription are generally not transferable UNLESS it is built into the system like character transfer. It is generally frown upon (even in Blizzard) for me to give my account to a friend to take over. (that was a year ago not sure if that has change)
South Korea's Supreme Court Decriminalizes Real Money Transactions in Online Games - Pixels and Policy
#63
Espy
Espy
Because I keep seeing it this thread, and it's driving me nuts:
1) TYCHO DID NOT SAY BUYING A USED GAME IS THE SAME AS PIRACY. He said it has the same effect, ie, no support financially of the game developers.
2) No one said you are a "BAD" person if you buy used games. I buy used games. I also buy new ones
3) The ONLY POINT that is really being made by Tycho and Gabe here is that *IF* you want to support the people who make the games you play, you must buy a new copy of a game. Otherwise they don't see dime, only Gamestop does. AND THATS NOT EVIL, it's just being realistic. Gamestop didn't give Bioware any money on my purchase of a used copy of Dragon Age.
Buy all the used games you want, you aren't a bad person, but you aren't supporting the developers of the game. If that matters to you consider buying a new copy instead of a used one. Thats pretty much all they are saying.
@Gas, sorry man, I have to disagree, you are continuing to state this idea that I would not have bought a copy of Dragon Age if I couldn't get it used and thats just not true. So yes, I "technically" screwed Bioware out of their share of me buying that game. Saying, "Oh but the people buying used would NEVER have bought it new" just isn't a reasonable argument, since it can't be proven.
Now that doesn't mean, as other have pointed out, including yourself, that there aren't better models. Damn straight there are. If I could go on PSN and buy Dragon Age 2 tomorrow right from them? Hell yes. They save money on printing and shipping, etc. I'd much rather see that become the norm and see Best Buys become relics.
1) TYCHO DID NOT SAY BUYING A USED GAME IS THE SAME AS PIRACY. He said it has the same effect, ie, no support financially of the game developers.
2) No one said you are a "BAD" person if you buy used games. I buy used games. I also buy new ones
3) The ONLY POINT that is really being made by Tycho and Gabe here is that *IF* you want to support the people who make the games you play, you must buy a new copy of a game. Otherwise they don't see dime, only Gamestop does. AND THATS NOT EVIL, it's just being realistic. Gamestop didn't give Bioware any money on my purchase of a used copy of Dragon Age.
Buy all the used games you want, you aren't a bad person, but you aren't supporting the developers of the game. If that matters to you consider buying a new copy instead of a used one. Thats pretty much all they are saying.
@Gas, sorry man, I have to disagree, you are continuing to state this idea that I would not have bought a copy of Dragon Age if I couldn't get it used and thats just not true. So yes, I "technically" screwed Bioware out of their share of me buying that game. Saying, "Oh but the people buying used would NEVER have bought it new" just isn't a reasonable argument, since it can't be proven.
Now that doesn't mean, as other have pointed out, including yourself, that there aren't better models. Damn straight there are. If I could go on PSN and buy Dragon Age 2 tomorrow right from them? Hell yes. They save money on printing and shipping, etc. I'd much rather see that become the norm and see Best Buys become relics.
#64
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
Now I feel bad buying Shadow of the Colossus used, but it came out six years earlier, so nothing I could do.
#65
Espy
Espy
I don't think they are trying to make anyone feel bad, who actually thinks about who you support when you buy a game used or otherwise? They just want to get people to consider that if they love something and want to see more of it then you have to support those who create it. Seems reasonable to me.
#66
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
They didn't do anything; you're the one who made me feel bad.
It was Espy. Espy did it to me.
It was Espy. Espy did it to me.
#67
figmentPez
figmentPez
There may not be any direct financial payment to game developers, but that's a far cry from having the same effect as piracy. The market for used games promotes and supports the market for new games. Gamestop wouldn't be as big a business as it is now if it didn't buy and sell used games. If Gamestop weren't as big as it is now, they wouldn't be able to hold their big game launch midnight-release events, and the publishers would get less support for advertising their new games.1) TYCHO DID NOT SAY BUYING A USED GAME IS THE SAME AS PIRACY. He said it has the same effect, ie, no support financially of the game developers.
#68
Allen, who is Quiet
So does buying a used game from gamestop mean the game developer receives money directly from that transaction?
Allen, who is Quiet
There may not be any direct financial payment to game developers, but that's a far cry from having the same effect as piracy. The market for used games promotes and supports the market for new games. Gamestop wouldn't be as big a business as it is now if it didn't buy and sell used games. If Gamestop weren't as big as it is now, they wouldn't be able to hold their big game launch midnight-release events, and the publishers would get less support for advertising their new games.[/QUOTE]1) TYCHO DID NOT SAY BUYING A USED GAME IS THE SAME AS PIRACY. He said it has the same effect, ie, no support financially of the game developers.
So does buying a used game from gamestop mean the game developer receives money directly from that transaction?
#69
Disconnected
Disconnected
I agree with the notion the business model being out of date, this is true for many digital forms.
As for THQ, it makes sense from their view if they don't want to transfer 'license' they don't have to just because other business systems do. As a company they can go ahead and as a consumer you have every right to protest and not buy their games.
Sports gamers seem to be most up in arms on this, is this because those games most likely have an 'update' soon after release? Have high online multiplayer functionality? Next to FPS' that is I'm guessing.
As for THQ, it makes sense from their view if they don't want to transfer 'license' they don't have to just because other business systems do. As a company they can go ahead and as a consumer you have every right to protest and not buy their games.
Sports gamers seem to be most up in arms on this, is this because those games most likely have an 'update' soon after release? Have high online multiplayer functionality? Next to FPS' that is I'm guessing.
#70
Reboneer
Reboneer
Hell, if they rereleased this, I'd gladly pay full retail price, because it'd be way cheaper than the ridiculously overpriced used copies you find nowNow I feel bad buying Shadow of the Colossus used, but it came out six years earlier, so nothing I could do.
#71
figmentPez
So does buying a used game from gamestop mean the game developer receives money directly from that transaction?[/QUOTE]
No, but they get money from the NEW games that Gamestop sells, and that other outlets sell because of the advertising they get through Gamestop, and because of the word of mouth that Gamestop provides, and they can gauge the buzz about upcoming titles via the pre-orders that Gamestop takes, etc.
Publishers benefit from the used game market, even if they're not paid directly for resold games.
figmentPez
There may not be any direct financial payment to game developers, but that's a far cry from having the same effect as piracy. The market for used games promotes and supports the market for new games. Gamestop wouldn't be as big a business as it is now if it didn't buy and sell used games. If Gamestop weren't as big as it is now, they wouldn't be able to hold their big game launch midnight-release events, and the publishers would get less support for advertising their new games.[/QUOTE]1) TYCHO DID NOT SAY BUYING A USED GAME IS THE SAME AS PIRACY. He said it has the same effect, ie, no support financially of the game developers.
So does buying a used game from gamestop mean the game developer receives money directly from that transaction?[/QUOTE]
No, but they get money from the NEW games that Gamestop sells, and that other outlets sell because of the advertising they get through Gamestop, and because of the word of mouth that Gamestop provides, and they can gauge the buzz about upcoming titles via the pre-orders that Gamestop takes, etc.
Publishers benefit from the used game market, even if they're not paid directly for resold games.
#72
Allen, who is Quiet
So does buying a used game from gamestop mean the game developer receives money directly from that transaction?[/QUOTE]
No, but they get money from the NEW games that Gamestop sells, and that other outlets sell because of the advertising they get through Gamestop, and because of the word of mouth that Gamestop provides, and they can gauge the buzz about upcoming titles via the pre-orders that Gamestop takes, etc.
Publishers benefit from the used game market, even if they're not paid directly for resold games.[/QUOTE]
So, if I'm understanding correctly, you're trying to change Espy's mind about direct financial benefits of the used game market by arguing about indirect financial benefits of the used game market?
Allen, who is Quiet
There may not be any direct financial payment to game developers, but that's a far cry from having the same effect as piracy. The market for used games promotes and supports the market for new games. Gamestop wouldn't be as big a business as it is now if it didn't buy and sell used games. If Gamestop weren't as big as it is now, they wouldn't be able to hold their big game launch midnight-release events, and the publishers would get less support for advertising their new games.[/QUOTE]1) TYCHO DID NOT SAY BUYING A USED GAME IS THE SAME AS PIRACY. He said it has the same effect, ie, no support financially of the game developers.
So does buying a used game from gamestop mean the game developer receives money directly from that transaction?[/QUOTE]
No, but they get money from the NEW games that Gamestop sells, and that other outlets sell because of the advertising they get through Gamestop, and because of the word of mouth that Gamestop provides, and they can gauge the buzz about upcoming titles via the pre-orders that Gamestop takes, etc.
Publishers benefit from the used game market, even if they're not paid directly for resold games.[/QUOTE]
So, if I'm understanding correctly, you're trying to change Espy's mind about direct financial benefits of the used game market by arguing about indirect financial benefits of the used game market?
#73
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
I got it used for $20 from Gamestop in June.
And it's being sold for $20 from Amazon retailers.
And it's being sold for $20 from Amazon retailers.
#74
D
Dubyamn
He freely admits that they don't get any money from the sale of a used game but the used game market but the effect isn't the same as piracy.
D
Dubyamn
Actually he's argueing that game developers receive benefits from the used game market that they don't get from the rampant piracy.So, if I'm understanding correctly, you're trying to change Espy's mind about direct financial benefits of the used game market by arguing about indirect financial benefits of the used game market?
He freely admits that they don't get any money from the sale of a used game but the used game market but the effect isn't the same as piracy.
#75
Sparhawk
Sparhawk
Taking the "gotta support the developers" idea further... Libraries are cheating authors and publishers each time a book is lent out. Video rental stuff (Redbox, Netflix, Blockbuster) is cheating the companies out of money with each rental. Yes, both systems pay a higher initial cost for the product (book, dvd) but don't pay anything back to the originators after that initial sale.
#76
Reboneer
Feel free to prove me wrong though, because I really want to play it.
Reboneer
I'm in Australia, so I need a PAL version. Sometimes there are reasonably cheap copies on Amazon.co.uk, but in those cases, they never ship to Australia.I got it used for $20 from Gamestop in June.
And it's being sold for $20 from Amazon retailers.
Feel free to prove me wrong though, because I really want to play it.
#77
figmentPez
EDIT: and I see that Dubyamn has already made that point for me. Thanks!
figmentPez
You don't understand at all. Tycho said that used games sales have the same effect on publishers as piracy. I disagree with that because the used game market provides many benefits to publishers that piracy does not.So, if I'm understanding correctly, you're trying to change Espy's mind about direct financial benefits of the used game market by arguing about indirect financial benefits of the used game market?
EDIT: and I see that Dubyamn has already made that point for me. Thanks!
#78
Espy
I actually think it would be very interesting to find out what the real benefits of the used game market are. I doubt anyone actually has any numbers either way.I don't know if I buy that it's really all that beneficial. Maybe it is, I can see it, but I doubt its as substantial as people think.
All in all though, I don't think the used market is going away, and I'm not 100% sure it should... it should end up forcing game developers to start figuring out ways to incentivize buying a new game, rather than trying to find ways to punish you for daring to save money.
Espy
You don't understand at all. Tycho said that used games sales have the same effect on publishers as piracy. I disagree with that because the used game market provides many benefits to publishers that piracy does not.[/QUOTE]So, if I'm understanding correctly, you're trying to change Espy's mind about direct financial benefits of the used game market by arguing about indirect financial benefits of the used game market?
I actually think it would be very interesting to find out what the real benefits of the used game market are. I doubt anyone actually has any numbers either way.I don't know if I buy that it's really all that beneficial. Maybe it is, I can see it, but I doubt its as substantial as people think.
All in all though, I don't think the used market is going away, and I'm not 100% sure it should... it should end up forcing game developers to start figuring out ways to incentivize buying a new game, rather than trying to find ways to punish you for daring to save money.
#79
figmentPez
The game industry is going to shoot itself in the foot if they kill off both the used game and rental industry.
figmentPez
The "pay to play online" plan is aimed at game rentals as well as used games. Movie studios tried to get movie rentals made illegal (and couldn't) but game makers may figure out how to make game rentals impractical for many titles.Taking the "gotta support the developers" idea further... Libraries are cheating authors and publishers each time a book is lent out. Video rental stuff (Redbox, Netflix, Blockbuster) is cheating the companies out of money with each rental. Yes, both systems pay a higher initial cost for the product (book, dvd) but don't pay anything back to the originators after that initial sale.
The game industry is going to shoot itself in the foot if they kill off both the used game and rental industry.
#80
Chazwozel
As for the car warranty, a lot of them are actually transferrable.
Edit: Tinwhistler ninjas me for the win.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you Gas (for once). Why on Earth should a company be compensated over and over again for the sale of a used product? It just doesn't make sense! The straight forward business model is a company makes a product and sells that product. Once it is sold that's where the buck ends for the company. It is now the property of whoever bought it new. It's absurd to assume that the company has rights to claim after their product has sold.
Here's another media example. A book sold brand new has certain compensation awarded to the publisher and author; if that book is sold at a used book store, the publisher and author don't make an extra red cent. The were already compensated for their work. THQ is just a bunch of greedy motherfuckers trying to scheme a way to fuck over their customer base.
---------- Post added at 11:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 PM ----------
I actually think it would be very interesting to find out what the real benefits of the used game market are. I doubt anyone actually has any numbers either way.I don't know if I buy that it's really all that beneficial. Maybe it is, I can see it, but I doubt its as substantial as people think.
All in all though, I don't think the used market is going away, and I'm not 100% sure it should... it should end up forcing game developers to start figuring out ways to incentivize buying a new game, rather than trying to find ways to punish you for daring to save money.[/QUOTE]
If they get rid of Gamestop and all the other trade-in stores, all you'll see is a boom in person to person transactions via ebay, craigslist, and garage sales. What is THQ going to do? Raid your garage sale and demand profit sharing because you want to sell your old video games?
Chazwozel
They WERE compensated. When it was sold new.Why should they "get over it"? They want to be compensated for the product they create, why are people acting like thats a bad thing?
As for the car warranty, a lot of them are actually transferrable.
Edit: Tinwhistler ninjas me for the win.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you Gas (for once). Why on Earth should a company be compensated over and over again for the sale of a used product? It just doesn't make sense! The straight forward business model is a company makes a product and sells that product. Once it is sold that's where the buck ends for the company. It is now the property of whoever bought it new. It's absurd to assume that the company has rights to claim after their product has sold.
Here's another media example. A book sold brand new has certain compensation awarded to the publisher and author; if that book is sold at a used book store, the publisher and author don't make an extra red cent. The were already compensated for their work. THQ is just a bunch of greedy motherfuckers trying to scheme a way to fuck over their customer base.
---------- Post added at 11:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 PM ----------
You don't understand at all. Tycho said that used games sales have the same effect on publishers as piracy. I disagree with that because the used game market provides many benefits to publishers that piracy does not.[/QUOTE]So, if I'm understanding correctly, you're trying to change Espy's mind about direct financial benefits of the used game market by arguing about indirect financial benefits of the used game market?
I actually think it would be very interesting to find out what the real benefits of the used game market are. I doubt anyone actually has any numbers either way.I don't know if I buy that it's really all that beneficial. Maybe it is, I can see it, but I doubt its as substantial as people think.
All in all though, I don't think the used market is going away, and I'm not 100% sure it should... it should end up forcing game developers to start figuring out ways to incentivize buying a new game, rather than trying to find ways to punish you for daring to save money.[/QUOTE]
If they get rid of Gamestop and all the other trade-in stores, all you'll see is a boom in person to person transactions via ebay, craigslist, and garage sales. What is THQ going to do? Raid your garage sale and demand profit sharing because you want to sell your old video games?
#81
strawman
The current distribution system, unfortunately for media creators, supports the consumer's right of first sale, but you can see they are moving (slowly) away from that model.
Apple is making money hand over fist because you can't sell off your used songs you don't want. There is no secondary market for used itune purchases such as music, movies and apps.
It's one of the reasons Apple was able to get music and movie studios on board, and now book publishers. You can buy something for yourself, or you can buy something as a gift for someone else, but you can't read yours and then give it away as a gift to someone else, nevermind sell it once you've consumed it.
Slowly, but surely, the industry will move in this direction. Steam is one good example in the game market, but all the major consoles have online marketplaces. Until the internet pipes get big enough to download 50GB of content in a reasonable amount of time (30-60 minutes, max) though, only small games and short pieces of content will get wide distribution this way. If they are smart they'll develop games so that they can be downloaded in smaller portions, where gameplay can start once the user has 200MB of the game, as they will progress more slowly than the download will go, so they shouldn't run out of game before its downloaded.
I don't like that, personally, but it's their right to distribute their copyrighted material how they like, and if they stop using physical media I doubt that the courts are going to stand up for the consumer and give them the right to sell old digital bits.
strawman
Ah, but they aren't selling a product, they're selling an experience!I agree with you Gas (for once). Why on Earth should a company be compensated over and over again for the sale of a used product?
The current distribution system, unfortunately for media creators, supports the consumer's right of first sale, but you can see they are moving (slowly) away from that model.
Apple is making money hand over fist because you can't sell off your used songs you don't want. There is no secondary market for used itune purchases such as music, movies and apps.
It's one of the reasons Apple was able to get music and movie studios on board, and now book publishers. You can buy something for yourself, or you can buy something as a gift for someone else, but you can't read yours and then give it away as a gift to someone else, nevermind sell it once you've consumed it.
Slowly, but surely, the industry will move in this direction. Steam is one good example in the game market, but all the major consoles have online marketplaces. Until the internet pipes get big enough to download 50GB of content in a reasonable amount of time (30-60 minutes, max) though, only small games and short pieces of content will get wide distribution this way. If they are smart they'll develop games so that they can be downloaded in smaller portions, where gameplay can start once the user has 200MB of the game, as they will progress more slowly than the download will go, so they shouldn't run out of game before its downloaded.
I don't like that, personally, but it's their right to distribute their copyrighted material how they like, and if they stop using physical media I doubt that the courts are going to stand up for the consumer and give them the right to sell old digital bits.
#82
figmentPez
figmentPez
Which is why there are talks of laws about digital property. Right now the consumer has almost no rights when it comes to digital distribution. While "right of first sale" is something being talked about, it's hardly the only issue when it comes to digital distrubution. For instance if Valve decides I'm a bad customer, I get locked out of all of my Steam purchases with virtually no recourse. That would be one area that a digital property act would address. Also would be discontinuation of services (if a company shuts down it's authentication services), legal recourse for failure to deliver goods (Steam doesn't ever unlock the game you paid for? You can't just chargeback your credit card, Steam will cancel your account entirely if you do that.) and probably a lot of other issues as well.The current distribution system, unfortunately for media creators, supports the consumer's right of first sale, but you can see they are moving (slowly) away from that model.
They may be able to distribute their material however they want, but just as copyright law made it expressly legal to resell a book, it's quite possible that resale of e-books will be legalized as well.I don't like that, personally, but it's their right to distribute their copyrighted material how they like, and if they stop using physical media I doubt that the courts are going to stand up for the consumer and give them the right to sell old digital bits.
#83
@Li3n
@Li3n
Actually i heard that first sale still applies to digital stuff, but they make sure to have the EULA state that they're not selling you the product, they're licensing it to you or something like that, so unless you sell the game before installing it you don't qualify for it.
But you have to love it that now they're going after what used to be people that where legally acquiring games... didn't this happen at the start of the 20th century with other stuff? I seem to remember something about companies suing because the other guy sold stuff cheaper or some other crap like that...
But you have to love it that now they're going after what used to be people that where legally acquiring games... didn't this happen at the start of the 20th century with other stuff? I seem to remember something about companies suing because the other guy sold stuff cheaper or some other crap like that...
#84
D
Dubyamn
It's impossible to really say how the courts will rule on stuff like the liscensing vrs. ownership debate but the law in this area has yet to have a test case.
D
Dubyamn
Well there has been quite a bit of talk in the law about how enforcable those EULAs are. And I think a couple times they have come up in courts the judges have ruled that certain parts were just too much.Actually i heard that first sale still applies to digital stuff, but they make sure to have the EULA state that they're not selling you the product, they're licensing it to you or something like that, so unless you sell the game before installing it you don't qualify for it.
It's impossible to really say how the courts will rule on stuff like the liscensing vrs. ownership debate but the law in this area has yet to have a test case.
#85
Tinwhistler
It's impossible to really say how the courts will rule on stuff like the liscensing vrs. ownership debate but the law in this area has yet to have a test case.[/QUOTE]
Court Once Again Confirms Right Of First Sale For Software: You Own It, Not License It | Techdirt
Tinwhistler
Well there has been quite a bit of talk in the law about how enforcable those EULAs are. And I think a couple times they have come up in courts the judges have ruled that certain parts were just too much.Actually i heard that first sale still applies to digital stuff, but they make sure to have the EULA state that they're not selling you the product, they're licensing it to you or something like that, so unless you sell the game before installing it you don't qualify for it.
It's impossible to really say how the courts will rule on stuff like the liscensing vrs. ownership debate but the law in this area has yet to have a test case.[/QUOTE]
Court Once Again Confirms Right Of First Sale For Software: You Own It, Not License It | Techdirt
Excellent news. In the ongoing case involving Autodesk and a guy, Timothy Vernor, who was trying to sell legally acquired used versions of AutoCAD on eBay, the district court judge has ruled that Autodesk has no right to restrict the sales of its used software. This wasn't a huge surprise, as the court indicated as much last year, when it refused to grant Autodesk's motion to dismiss the case. But this is an important ruling for a variety of reasons. Beyond just reiterating the well-established right of first sale on software, it also helps clarify that when you by a piece of software, you own it, rather than just license it.
#86
Chibibar
Chibibar
The indirect value of a used game (via Gamestop) sale is the customer is IN the store. There is a chance that a customer might buy a NEW game in that store. Piracy? not so much, there is a good chance to pirate ANOTHER game since pirate site rarely sell new games (this is an assumption since I don't pirate games hehe)
I know some friends who are marketers, and they always tell me that the main trick is to get people IN the store, once in the store, there is a better chance a customer will buy a product. This is where sales come into play.
I know some friends who are marketers, and they always tell me that the main trick is to get people IN the store, once in the store, there is a better chance a customer will buy a product. This is where sales come into play.
#87
Allen, who is Quiet
He freely admits that they don't get any money from the sale of a used game but the used game market but the effect isn't the same as piracy.[/QUOTE]
Man, at least somebody can put it concisely.
So, long story short, THQ is experimenting with a model that could encourage more upfront sales and discourage used game sales, and this could be bad because it might not help gamestop expand their used game sales which might lead to them being unable to hype games that have not been released. Am I getting that right?
Allen, who is Quiet
Actually he's argueing that game developers receive benefits from the used game market that they don't get from the rampant piracy.So, if I'm understanding correctly, you're trying to change Espy's mind about direct financial benefits of the used game market by arguing about indirect financial benefits of the used game market?
He freely admits that they don't get any money from the sale of a used game but the used game market but the effect isn't the same as piracy.[/QUOTE]
Man, at least somebody can put it concisely.
So, long story short, THQ is experimenting with a model that could encourage more upfront sales and discourage used game sales, and this could be bad because it might not help gamestop expand their used game sales which might lead to them being unable to hype games that have not been released. Am I getting that right?
#88
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Not quite.
It's more that THQ is trying to encourage upfront sales by discouraging used sales because they think that the secondary used market has no value to them. This could be bad because they're assuming that the vast majority of used buyers would prefer to buy the full-price new retail box instead of preferring to just not buy the game, and it rejects the idea that the secondary used market has any value whatsoever.
It's more that THQ is trying to encourage upfront sales by discouraging used sales because they think that the secondary used market has no value to them. This could be bad because they're assuming that the vast majority of used buyers would prefer to buy the full-price new retail box instead of preferring to just not buy the game, and it rejects the idea that the secondary used market has any value whatsoever.
#89
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
THQ could solve the problem by making a game that gamers do not tire of too fast. If you are an initial release buyer. You play your $60 game for 3 weeks and get tired of it, the only way to make up for that lost money is to sell it to the next schlub down the line.
#90
Chibibar
Chibibar
^-- This is what I think THQ is thinking, which can be a bad bad decision in my opinion.Not quite.
It's more that THQ is trying to encourage upfront sales by discouraging used sales because they think that the secondary used market has no value to them. This could be bad because they're assuming that the vast majority of used buyers would prefer to buy the full-price new retail box instead of preferring to just not buy the game, and it rejects the idea that the secondary used market has any value whatsoever.
#91
figmentPez
figmentPez
More than that, THQ risks pissing off consumers (even those who buy new or don't play online) and causing them to think about game prices more than they already do. Businesses want their customers happy to fork over money and satisfied with the product, not resentful and jadedly checking to see if they're getting value for their dollar.So, long story short, THQ is experimenting with a model that could encourage more upfront sales and discourage used game sales, and this could be bad because it might not help gamestop expand their used game sales which might lead to them being unable to hype games that have not been released. Am I getting that right?
#92
Allen, who is Quiet
Allen, who is Quiet
Ok, got it. Thanks.Not quite.
It's more that THQ is trying to encourage upfront sales by discouraging used sales because they think that the secondary used market has no value to them. This could be bad because they're assuming that the vast majority of used buyers would prefer to buy the full-price new retail box instead of preferring to just not buy the game, and it rejects the idea that the secondary used market has any value whatsoever.
#93
Chibibar
That is true.
The price of games have gone up. I do think twice, thrice and even four times before buying a game. Do I REALLY need to play it and spend 60$ now! or wait for a sale and get it later
Console games are the worst. They are pretty darn expensive, and I only have so much money to spend per month.
I average about 50-100$ a month on games. I usually buy a bunch on Steam (bang for my buck) and maybe buy console game once every 3-5 months if I'm lucky.
I can't wait for Xmas and Black Friday sales on Steam
Chibibar
More than that, THQ risks pissing off consumers (even those who buy new or don't play online) and causing them to think about game prices more than they already do. Businesses want their customers happy to fork over money and satisfied with the product, not resentful and jadedly checking to see if they're getting value for their dollar.[/QUOTE]So, long story short, THQ is experimenting with a model that could encourage more upfront sales and discourage used game sales, and this could be bad because it might not help gamestop expand their used game sales which might lead to them being unable to hype games that have not been released. Am I getting that right?
That is true.
The price of games have gone up. I do think twice, thrice and even four times before buying a game. Do I REALLY need to play it and spend 60$ now! or wait for a sale and get it later
Console games are the worst. They are pretty darn expensive, and I only have so much money to spend per month.
I average about 50-100$ a month on games. I usually buy a bunch on Steam (bang for my buck) and maybe buy console game once every 3-5 months if I'm lucky.
I can't wait for Xmas and Black Friday sales on Steam
#94
Jay
Jay
It's a model that won't work as well as they think it would. If they implemented this in all games, stores like ebgames will stop buying back old games with this new tech. Thus consumers will buy these games for full value and not get much in return depending on what they purchase. This means, all new purchases are full value. A good majority of the gaming market are those with limited income and to be told they need to pay full value which can be up to 60-80$ for a new game "aka Smackdown 11" makes them far less likely to make such a purchase and stick to older games.
#95
tegid
tegid
I have this friend who buys 10 to 15 games per year, and resells 80% of them. I assure you, if he could not resell them he would only buy 3-4 games a year, tops. It's not only about the money, it's the assurance that if he doesn't like the game enough to keep it for years he'll get part of his money back. Without that, he'd only buy the various Halo related products for the Xbox. This same guy would probably buy second hand games, or buy them first hand for PC, but since second hand market doesn't exist for PC, he sticks to consoles and, well, pirates on the PC. (Except for older, cheaper, games on Steam, sometimes).
So, yeah, from my experience, not such a good idea to screw used games buyers.
Also, I find ludicrous that 'If I am purchasing games in order to reward their creators, and to ensure that more of these ingenious contraptions are produced, I honestly can't figure out how buying a used game was any better than piracy.'. Because even if the money for a used game doesn't go directly to the creator, it goes to someone who might buy other games. And it contributes to keeping the value of the product, as opposed to piracy. Buying used, for one upfront sale 2, 3, 4 people max will play that game. With piracy it may be more like 100, devaluating the product.
I know I'm late to the party, but I wanted to say this. I also think that some of what I said is slightly different than previous arguments I've read.
So, yeah, from my experience, not such a good idea to screw used games buyers.
Also, I find ludicrous that 'If I am purchasing games in order to reward their creators, and to ensure that more of these ingenious contraptions are produced, I honestly can't figure out how buying a used game was any better than piracy.'. Because even if the money for a used game doesn't go directly to the creator, it goes to someone who might buy other games. And it contributes to keeping the value of the product, as opposed to piracy. Buying used, for one upfront sale 2, 3, 4 people max will play that game. With piracy it may be more like 100, devaluating the product.
I know I'm late to the party, but I wanted to say this. I also think that some of what I said is slightly different than previous arguments I've read.
#96
ThatNickGuy
*SOB!* No. No, no, no, no. I bought like a dozen games last year for $20. There were too many tempting deals, damnit!
ThatNickGuy
*looks at the long list of games he bought from the holiday sale last year*I can't wait for Xmas and Black Friday sales on Steam
*SOB!* No. No, no, no, no. I bought like a dozen games last year for $20. There were too many tempting deals, damnit!
#97
Chibibar
*SOB!* No. No, no, no, no. I bought like a dozen games last year for $20. There were too many tempting deals, damnit![/QUOTE]
but but... I support the developers AND get my games at a good price. *one of us! one of us!*
Chibibar
*looks at the long list of games he bought from the holiday sale last year*I can't wait for Xmas and Black Friday sales on Steam
*SOB!* No. No, no, no, no. I bought like a dozen games last year for $20. There were too many tempting deals, damnit![/QUOTE]
but but... I support the developers AND get my games at a good price.
*one of us! one of us!*
#98
Chazwozel
Chazwozel
I still don't understand how buying a physical product (like a console game cd) and then reselling it, equates to piracy.
#99
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
I think it's more in the sense of buying a used game, wherein the money wouldn't go to the company if you bought a new copy.
#100
Chibibar
buying used game = not getting any money
pirating = not getting any money
That is the ONLY thing I can think of.
Chibibar
Me neither. Unless it is about getting money from selling games.I still don't understand how buying a physical product (like a console game cd) and then reselling it, equates to piracy.
buying used game = not getting any money
pirating = not getting any money
That is the ONLY thing I can think of.
#101
Espy
Espy
Tycho wrote up some more stuff this morning, that helps clarify what he was thinking:
If you still don't get what he's talking about regarding used games and piracy etc, or still think he's saying they are the "same thing" then I don't really know what else to say. He can't be much clearer about his point.It turns out that used games are a tremendously controversial issue. Part of the reason response to the comic and post has been so massive is that (aside from our inflammatory presentation) this conversation has been a long time coming. The thing for the commentariat to do about this issue typically is to carve out as populist a stance as possible, to cluck and tut tut about it so as to ingratiate themselves to you as much as possible, and then follow up by posting a picture of a belt buckle. That strikes me as a bit precious.
Because this is the Internet, every argument was spun in a centrifuge instantly and reduced down into two wholly enraged, radically incompatible contingents, as opposed to the natural gradient which human beings actually occupy.
People who buy used games are not pirates, by definition. Used games (used everything, really) are and will continue to be a legal and protected form of commerce. Other industries have done what they can to co-opt, destroy, or harvest those markets, but their existence is settled law. What I have said is that the end result of that purchase from a developer perspective must be indistinguishable. Isn't it? That is the question I couldn't answer. I still can't answer it. And because I couldn't, I had to change the way I invested my leisure dollar.
People want to talk about used cars, or libraries, or any other thing really, but I'm not talking about the universe in general - I'm talking about the tiny part of it I have any control over. That bit up there is the part I can't resolve: the moral dimension contained within the purchase. Yes, I'm giving somebody money when I buy used. Is that sufficient? What is the end result, and what systems am I sustaining by doing so?
I'd rather not think about things like this, believe me. I'd rather be Mr. Perpetual Good Times, but I'm not built that way. On the whole, I'd say thinking has been a tremendous inconvenience.
#102
tegid
Luckily, I believe I do know. And, well, what we were arguing here is what he says he doesn't know, he thinks about, etc. so yay for us I guess.
tegid
I DID understand that he wasn't equating used games to piracy. What I didn't get was this: that he wasn't sure if both things were or not distinguishable from the developer's perspective. I read his previous post as saying they were indistinguishable. My bad. (You got to admit the strip+post together did seem to point that way, though)What I have said is that the end result of that purchase from a developer perspective must be indistinguishable. Isn't it? That is the question I couldn't answer. I still can't answer it. And because I couldn't, I had to change the way I invested my leisure dollar.
Luckily, I believe I do know. And, well, what we were arguing here is what he says he doesn't know, he thinks about, etc. so yay for us I guess.
#103
Espy
Espy
I think his point is to try and get people to think about what their money is supporting. If you want to support Gamestop, buy their used games, if you want to support BioWare, buy a new game. Most people probably NEVER think about where those dollars are going. If the discussion has done one good thing it's getting folks to merely consider that their money supports one system or the other. Thats usually good.
#104
SpecialKO
For big games, developers are usually paid for their contributions before the game has even hit the retail chains, and the vast majority of developers don't make any kind of commission bonus based on overall sales. They may get a promise from the publisher to get a bigger budget next time, but it's not quite the same thing, especially if "next time" isn't on paper as an obligation. The folks who work at publishers, for that matter, are similarly paid before the retail chains fork over a dollar. Some of them will profit considerably from a big winner in retail sales, but those people tend to be shareholders, C-levels, and the sales/marketing team. It doesn't really trickle down much farther.
The only time when buying new is guaranteed to help the development company is when you buy directly from them, with no publishers, distributors, or distributions platforms in the way.
SpecialKO
Even new, usually not the developer. That's what's a bit irritating about Tycho's pseudo-moral stance. His whole stance was based on being "one of the creative people", but the "creative people" for big games most of the time don't see the slightest difference in personal income whether a game does well or not, because most big games are sold by publishers, not developers, and they make most of their money from selling to distribution chains, not customers (MMO subscription models are big precisely because they allow publishers to cut out the middleman).Most people probably NEVER think about where those dollars are going.
For big games, developers are usually paid for their contributions before the game has even hit the retail chains, and the vast majority of developers don't make any kind of commission bonus based on overall sales. They may get a promise from the publisher to get a bigger budget next time, but it's not quite the same thing, especially if "next time" isn't on paper as an obligation. The folks who work at publishers, for that matter, are similarly paid before the retail chains fork over a dollar. Some of them will profit considerably from a big winner in retail sales, but those people tend to be shareholders, C-levels, and the sales/marketing team. It doesn't really trickle down much farther.
The only time when buying new is guaranteed to help the development company is when you buy directly from them, with no publishers, distributors, or distributions platforms in the way.
#105
Espy
Espy
No, his stance was based on, as he said, meeting the creative folks behind games, not that he is one of them (although he kind of is I guess, with OTRSPOD and all), and I don't think I read anything from him about your dollars literally paying for anyones paycheck. He uses the term "support" quite a bit. "Support" is very different from the way you are describing it.
When you buy a new game, despite your last line there, you are supporting the companies who made the game, no matter if you buy it directly from them or Best Buy. They get part of the sales. Boom. Now, does the individual developer? Of course not, no one but you brought that up. But it does support the company, it does show support for the game and it does give incentive for them to make more games, as suddenly their games make profit.
You go buy that game used from Gamestop, which is fine and legal, and it does none of that. It doesn't make it "Bad" or "evil" but it doesn't support the company. At least thats how I'm understanding his point.
When you buy a new game, despite your last line there, you are supporting the companies who made the game, no matter if you buy it directly from them or Best Buy. They get part of the sales. Boom. Now, does the individual developer? Of course not, no one but you brought that up. But it does support the company, it does show support for the game and it does give incentive for them to make more games, as suddenly their games make profit.
You go buy that game used from Gamestop, which is fine and legal, and it does none of that. It doesn't make it "Bad" or "evil" but it doesn't support the company. At least thats how I'm understanding his point.
#106
figmentPez
figmentPez
Buying a used game may not benefit the company that made the game, at least not directly, but it does benefit the game industry, as a whole, in ways that piracy does not. Therefore the result of buying a used game is not the same as pirating it.You go buy that game used from Gamestop, which is fine and legal, and it does none of that. It doesn't make it "Bad" or "evil" but it doesn't support the company. At least thats how I'm understanding his point.
#107
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
It certainly does. I'm not trying to equate the level of support between buying new from anywhere versus buying used (my apologies if I gave that impression). But Tycho's confusion is based around the idea that there is no functional difference in levels of support between the used market and piracy, and at absolute bare minimum, the used market has demonstrated a propensity to actually pay for games from that company. Unlike a pirate, you can make a reasonable assumption at a chance to convert a used buyer to a "new" buyer when the sequel rolls around.But it does support the company, it does show support for the game and it does give incentive for them to make more games, as suddenly their games make profit.
#108
Espy
And thats great, but it's not what the discussion is about. You want to bring up this vague, insupportable idea that buying used games benefits "the industry". Great. I'm sure there are fantastic numbers to back that up. But it's still not what the discussion is about. It's just a way to argue that buying used games isn't all bad, which is true. However, in regards to directly supporting the game publisher/developer, the only way to do that is to buy their game new. So for the developer, if you pirate their game or buy a used copy it all equals out to the same (in general, not counting any vague "it supports the industry" stuff that is probably true but not really quantifiable) in their pockets and numbers. Does that make sense? I'm not trying to say you are a "pirate" if you buy a used game, in fact, as has been pointed out about a billion times, NO ONE IS, but it has a similar effect is Tychos argument. And he's right. It doesn't make it bad or evil or wrong, in fact I would argue that game developers would push for 2 things to fight this: 1) Lower game costs to begin with and 2) ANYTHING other than piracy, because with piracy NO ONE benefits at all.
Espy
Buying a used game may not benefit the company that made the game, at least not directly, but it does benefit the game industry, as a whole, in ways that piracy does not. Therefore the result of buying a used game is not the same as pirating it.[/QUOTE]You go buy that game used from Gamestop, which is fine and legal, and it does none of that. It doesn't make it "Bad" or "evil" but it doesn't support the company. At least thats how I'm understanding his point.
And thats great, but it's not what the discussion is about. You want to bring up this vague, insupportable idea that buying used games benefits "the industry". Great. I'm sure there are fantastic numbers to back that up. But it's still not what the discussion is about. It's just a way to argue that buying used games isn't all bad, which is true. However, in regards to directly supporting the game publisher/developer, the only way to do that is to buy their game new. So for the developer, if you pirate their game or buy a used copy it all equals out to the same (in general, not counting any vague "it supports the industry" stuff that is probably true but not really quantifiable) in their pockets and numbers. Does that make sense? I'm not trying to say you are a "pirate" if you buy a used game, in fact, as has been pointed out about a billion times, NO ONE IS, but it has a similar effect is Tychos argument. And he's right. It doesn't make it bad or evil or wrong, in fact I would argue that game developers would push for 2 things to fight this: 1) Lower game costs to begin with and 2) ANYTHING other than piracy, because with piracy NO ONE benefits at all.
#109
figmentPez
Why assume that the video game industry is any different? Video game publishers are claiming the exact same thing as book publishers, yet I see no reason to think their fears are any more founded.
figmentPez
How is that not what this discussion is about? Tycho said that "the end result of that [used] purchase from a developer perspective must be indistinguishable [from piracy]". I'm saying that devlopers need to take a broader view of the used market, just as book publishers, music companies and the car industry have to (heck, car makers even use resale value to sell new cars). The game industry is not alone in this. Take this New York Times article for example: Reading Between the Lines of Used Book Sales. To quote "there are two distinct types of buyers: some purchase only new books, while others are quite happy to buy used books. As a result, the used market does not have a big impact in terms of lost sales in the new market. Moreover, the presence of lower-priced books on the Amazon Web site, Mr. Bezos has noted, may lead customers to "visit our site more frequently, which in turn leads to higher sales of new books.'" The study found that "only about 16 percent of the used book sales directly cannibalized new book sales" and that's despite a much steeper price difference between new and used books. Used books typically sell for 75% of the new price (and used textbooks go for even less), whereas popular games often sell for 90% of the original price. Even Madden 2011 (which has a $10 fee for used to play online) is selling for 80% of it's new price. All this despite book publishers claiming that used sales on Amazon will "will cut significantly into sales of new titles, directly harming authors and publishers."And thats great, but it's not what the discussion is about. You want to bring up this vague, insupportable idea that buying used games benefits "the industry". Great. I'm sure there are fantastic numbers to back that up. But it's still not what the discussion is about. It's just a way to argue that buying used games isn't all bad, which is true. However, in regards to directly supporting the game publisher/developer, the only way to do that is to buy their game new. So for the developer, if you pirate their game or buy a used copy it all equals out to the same (in general, not counting any vague "it supports the industry" stuff that is probably true but not really quantifiable) in their pockets and numbers. Does that make sense? I'm not trying to say you are a "pirate" if you buy a used game, in fact, as has been pointed out about a billion times, NO ONE IS, but it has a similar effect is Tychos argument. And he's right. It doesn't make it bad or evil or wrong, in fact I would argue that game developers would push for 2 things to fight this: 1) Lower game costs to begin with and 2) ANYTHING other than piracy, because with piracy NO ONE benefits at all.
Why assume that the video game industry is any different? Video game publishers are claiming the exact same thing as book publishers, yet I see no reason to think their fears are any more founded.
#110
SpecialKO
Example in spoiler tags for length:
SpecialKO
Actually, thanks to the tubes, and depending on the game, it can be very quantifiable, at least as a ratio of boxes sold vs # of registered players, boxes sold vs active players, etc.So for the developer, if you pirate their game or buy a used copy it all equals out to the same (in general, not counting any vague "it supports the industry" stuff that is probably true but not really quantifiable) in their pockets and numbers.
Example in spoiler tags for length:
Say, to make things simple, a publisher knows that they've sold 15,000 copies of a game at $50, for a $30 profit. They have 20,000 players who've registered to use their matchmaking system. Thanks to an online "check in" system they've implemented, they know that everyone in their player pop had a legally acquired copy at the time they registered (no pirates), so they know that 25% of their legal playerbase bought used/rented/acquired a legal copy in some way that didn't give them money directly.
So we have 5,000 players who haven't bought anything directly yet, but are still invested in the game. In fact, these 5,000 players bought their games via Gamestop from the 5,000 "new" players who bought the game for $20 and then got tired of having it. So instead of the active player base going down to 10,000 from 15,000, the addition of the secondary market maintains the pop at 15,000.
Now the pub has released their first DLC for $10. 75% of their remaining original base chooses to buy it (7,500). Let's say that the second-hand users are, for the most part, thrifty folks with not a lot of immediately available budget, and only 50% of them buy the DLC (2,500).
So:
1) 7,500 "new" players who are worth $40 each ($30 new + $10 DLC)
2) 7,500 "new" players who are worth $30 each (new only), 5,000 who left
3) 2,500 "used" players who are worth $10 each (used only)
4) 2,500 "used" players who are worth nothing except their company in helping maintain the community
$550,000 in revenue
vs
Only the first 2, which comes to $525,000. And a smaller playerbase for the future.
Now, there are definitely assumptions, to be sure. Conversion rates, sales rates, abandon rates, are all assumed. We're assuming no "new" batch of customers, that some undefinable proportion of the "used" group wouldn't bite the bullet and buy "new", and that the pub doesn't sell advertising at a very profitable margin within the game. And there's no use-cost per registered user.
But the point is, it can be very, very quantifiable, and can be directly tied to direct revenue to the publisher. It really just depends on what the pub is willing to track, and how they're willing to exploit behavior to monetize it.
So we have 5,000 players who haven't bought anything directly yet, but are still invested in the game. In fact, these 5,000 players bought their games via Gamestop from the 5,000 "new" players who bought the game for $20 and then got tired of having it. So instead of the active player base going down to 10,000 from 15,000, the addition of the secondary market maintains the pop at 15,000.
Now the pub has released their first DLC for $10. 75% of their remaining original base chooses to buy it (7,500). Let's say that the second-hand users are, for the most part, thrifty folks with not a lot of immediately available budget, and only 50% of them buy the DLC (2,500).
So:
1) 7,500 "new" players who are worth $40 each ($30 new + $10 DLC)
2) 7,500 "new" players who are worth $30 each (new only), 5,000 who left
3) 2,500 "used" players who are worth $10 each (used only)
4) 2,500 "used" players who are worth nothing except their company in helping maintain the community
$550,000 in revenue
vs
Only the first 2, which comes to $525,000. And a smaller playerbase for the future.
Now, there are definitely assumptions, to be sure. Conversion rates, sales rates, abandon rates, are all assumed. We're assuming no "new" batch of customers, that some undefinable proportion of the "used" group wouldn't bite the bullet and buy "new", and that the pub doesn't sell advertising at a very profitable margin within the game. And there's no use-cost per registered user.
But the point is, it can be very, very quantifiable, and can be directly tied to direct revenue to the publisher. It really just depends on what the pub is willing to track, and how they're willing to exploit behavior to monetize it.
#111
D
Dubyamn
D
Dubyamn
No that is exactly what the argument is about. It's about the used game market vrs. the new game market. It isn't about the out of context and worthless comparison of new game purchase vrs. used game purchase.And thats great, but it's not what the discussion is about. You want to bring up this vague, insupportable idea that buying used games benefits "the industry". Great. I'm sure there are fantastic numbers to back that up. But it's still not what the discussion is about.
No it doesn't and that is where they are wrong. According to Gamestop about 1/3rd of the money spent on new games in their stores comes from the trade in of old games. Now how much of their sales come from Gamestop and how much comes from the big retailers I don't know. But if the players trading in their own games have a 33% increase in their buying power it is exactly quantifiable and it does have a sizable increase in their profits.It's just a way to argue that buying used games isn't all bad, which is true. However, in regards to directly supporting the game publisher/developer, the only way to do that is to buy their game new. So for the developer, if you pirate their game or buy a used copy it all equals out to the same (in general, not counting any vague "it supports the industry" stuff that is probably true but not really quantifiable) in their pockets and numbers.
Bullshit Tycho compared the used game market to piracy for one reason only. He wanted to link the two in the reader's mind and by saying that there is no difference in the effect a clear lie he is condeeming them both equally.Does that make sense? I'm not trying to say you are a "pirate" if you buy a used game, in fact, as has been pointed out about a billion times, NO ONE IS, but it has a similar effect is Tychos argument. And he's right.
Would be great if they were proposing anything like this. They aren't of course. If it wasn't for the fact that they were starting to get behind Steam I would be comparing them to the CD industry in their stupidity.It doesn't make it bad or evil or wrong, in fact I would argue that game developers would push for 2 things to fight this: 1) Lower game costs to begin with and 2) ANYTHING other than piracy, because with piracy NO ONE benefits at all.
#112
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Is there a link to the decision somewhere? I don't trust AP stories (the story the author links to) on items like this because AP writers often go a bit far on implications and big picture in their attempt to make it "legible" for general audiences.
#113
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Civilization is now over...
and money won. Just not the buyer's money.
How much damage will this do to the gaming industry? I don't know if I would buy a normal console style game on first release, if I don't have the ability to resell the game if it does not meet my expectations.
and money won. Just not the buyer's money.
How much damage will this do to the gaming industry? I don't know if I would buy a normal console style game on first release, if I don't have the ability to resell the game if it does not meet my expectations.
#114
Espy
Espy
I gotta be honest here, despite agreeing with Tycho, this doesn't sound like a good thing at all.
#115
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Thanks, Tin. That really doesn't sound good.
That said, until console publishers are willing to include licensing agreements in all their games including a pre-paid return for a full refund option (like all commercial software publishers do), there's no immediate concern.
Also, folks should note that the circuit court specifically states that the defense charge that the copyright holder misused their copyright, which was ignored by the district court as not being necessary to the proceedings, is a valid charge by the defense and should be addressed by the district court. So this could still go in multiple directions.
That said, until console publishers are willing to include licensing agreements in all their games including a pre-paid return for a full refund option (like all commercial software publishers do), there's no immediate concern.
Also, folks should note that the circuit court specifically states that the defense charge that the copyright holder misused their copyright, which was ignored by the district court as not being necessary to the proceedings, is a valid charge by the defense and should be addressed by the district court. So this could still go in multiple directions.
#116
Frankie Williamson
Frankie Williamson
Shitty news.
#117
Jay
Jay
Their industry is gonna expect a lot of losses with this new concept. Let me be honest, just made me 100% inclined to torrent your shit unless I REALLY love it and has good MP.
I'm not paying 30-80$ for a game I CANNOT RESALE.
I'm not paying 30-80$ for a game I CANNOT RESALE.
#118
Cheesy1
Cheesy1
At the very least, they're gonna have to put out better products to make people want to spend that much money on something they'll HAVE to keep. Buying something that ends up being shit doesn't hurt AS bad if you know you can get some of your money back by reselling it.
#119
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Don't licenses require contracts? And can anyone think of any other license outside of the entertainment industry that has to be consented to AFTER paying for it? Hell, your not even able to SEE the contract until after you've payed for it. For that matter, if resale is illegal, then isn't the initial sale at the store illegal because it's simply a resale of a license of a product that the store bought from the company first?
I think that unless the ENTIRE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY is willing to completely control the supply chain and sell their products directly to the population, cutting the 3rd Party "storefront" (in whatever form it takes) out of the equation entirely, there is no way this decision can stand. It has the potential to utterly devastate the shopping industry to it's very core, depending on how you interpret it.
I think that unless the ENTIRE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY is willing to completely control the supply chain and sell their products directly to the population, cutting the 3rd Party "storefront" (in whatever form it takes) out of the equation entirely, there is no way this decision can stand. It has the potential to utterly devastate the shopping industry to it's very core, depending on how you interpret it.
#120
@Li3n
@Li3n
The way i understand it the decision was based on the fact that the EULA stated the software license couldn't be transferred, so it's not about being a law against reselling games, but about contractual obligations and shit. Still, that's exactly what cause the 1st sale doctrine to exist in the first place, BS notices on books... licensing game for a flat fee is just a way to bypass it, and really shouldn't count... one should be able to transfer a license after buying it too.
Of course it's BS if the guy just got the software from a sale and didn't click Ok on any EULA...
Of course it's BS if the guy just got the software from a sale and didn't click Ok on any EULA...