|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Jan 4, 2013 16:28:24 GMT -5
Like hell. The guy I bought it from or who gave it to me still payed for it and as the owner of the product, has the right to sell it. And since they didn't have to spend a single penny to make a new product, there is no reason for them to recive one extra penny either. IKEA doesn't come crying when I buy furniture they made at a garage sale. By that logic, no-one should be allowed to make presents, ever. Did that IKEA funiture take millions of dollars to make? And I'm pretty sure those presents were bought new right? If I made 500 King Ghidirah tasty ass sandwiches, and I got 500 customers waiting, and the first 250 people decide to to sell their sandwiches to the 250 people behind them, well I'm left with 250 sandwiches and I lose out on money. No matter which way you slice is, Used games are hurting developers on the same level as Piracy is. That's... amazingly far-fetched, even ignoring that the food industry is a very specific one and therefore examples applying to it don't always apply to businesses that only sell a product, as food is obviously meant to be destroyed after consumption, unlike games and furniture, and is supposed to be purchased multiple times, also unlike games and furniture, so selling food you didn't eat would indeed hurt the original seller's business (and I'm pretty sure is illegal). But then there's the fact that at some points the developers stop producing a specific game (which these days, doesn't take long) whereas you can make sandwiches for as long as you please. So what if you want to play the game after it's no longer sold in stores? You're s*** out of luck if there is none to be found second-hand. And of course, developers don't directly sell their games to the clients but instead sell them in bulks to retailers, very much like how sandwich stores don't so no, they don't lose any money from the sale of second-hand, and in fact make money off games that DON'T get sold to clients. Retailers, on the other hand, can recoup their losses by selling used games. And considering the competition digital distribution gives them, they definitely want to. The only way this makes sense is if Sony wants retailers to go bankrupt.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Jan 4, 2013 16:29:36 GMT -5
I think we'll see something like this eventually for all media. With the embracing of stuff like Netflix we're seeing a shift away from the ownership model that we fought for and earned with stuff like the Betamax case. I will fight that with my last breath. I want to own something, not some digital data on a hard drive I could lose or crash. I want things on display on a shelf. Others do too. Digital distribution is likely the future, but it isn't my future. Oh I'm right there with you, I'm never gonna pay for a download.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jan 4, 2013 16:38:18 GMT -5
I never really understand when the concept of buying pre-owned games is made to look like a despicable act. Not even counting that it's a flawed argument when you consider that selling a game to a friend or giving a game to someone would be considered a "lost sale", but video games in general have such a short shelf-life that pre-owned really is a necessity in some cases. Plus, DLC is still a great way of supporting developers if you buy used.
|
|
King Ghidorah
El Dandy
On Probation for Charges of two counts of Saxual Music.
How Absurd
Posts: 8,330
|
Post by King Ghidorah on Jan 4, 2013 16:47:34 GMT -5
I never really understand when the concept of buying pre-owned games is made to look like a despicable act. Not even counting that it's a flawed argument when you consider that selling a game to a friend or giving a game to someone would be considered a "lost sale", but video games in general have such a short shelf-life that pre-owned really is a necessity in some cases. Plus, DLC is still a great way of supporting developers if you buy used. Kinda like streaming a WWE PPV and then buying a CM Punk shirt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2013 22:36:11 GMT -5
Because Gamestop exists. For other industries there isn't really a large, ubiquitous chain of stores that generates billions of dollars per year on used sales, or if there is I can't think of one. Greed, or being extra greedy, has nothing to do with it. Unless wanting to make money on something that they created makes video game companies greedy. Yes it is rather greedy because in the US at least we have what's called a first sales doctrine which gives us the right to resell something that we own. It doesn't have to be through the publisher or they have any right to a cut of what we resold. Just cause there is a company who takes advantage of this doesn't mean its wrong or that they have any inherent right to get a cut of used sales. How does first sales apply to the used media store reselling what we've already re-sold? Once we resell something we own, does that end any possible future sales? And does it apply to media where we merely receive the license to use said media? Honestly wanting to know, don't know too much about said doctrine. To the point of greed, it doesn't make the video game industry more greedy than other industries because they are more actively trying to cut down on used sales. If there were a Gamestop-like company that dealt primarily in used movies, then the movie industry would likely be using the same tactics. The appearance of greater greed exists only because the market for used games is so much larger than that of other media, and also the specific market for new used games. That is, games that have only been out for a short period of time but are already filling the used shelves at places like Gamestop. If it were just older, out-of-print titles I doubt many industry types would care. Don't get me wrong, I think that if this were ever to be implemented it would be a monumentally stupid idea. I enjoy that there is a large used game market, because I did not have the money to buy every game I wanted when they were new. And if I want to pay $90 for a copy of Suikoden II, I'm glad that it's out there in some form. At the same time, if a store around here happened to have Suikoden II new, I would rather purchase that than buy it second-hand. I think the easier answer is to re-release older games that are out of print and also out of stock from retail outlets. Of course, physical re-releases wouldn't be feasible for a lot of games due to a lack of demand, but in those cases at the very least a digital re-release would be worth a shot.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jan 4, 2013 23:12:22 GMT -5
Yes it is rather greedy because in the US at least we have what's called a first sales doctrine which gives us the right to resell something that we own. It doesn't have to be through the publisher or they have any right to a cut of what we resold. Just cause there is a company who takes advantage of this doesn't mean its wrong or that they have any inherent right to get a cut of used sales. How does first sales apply to the used media store reselling what we've already re-sold? Once we resell something we own, does that end any possible future sales? And does it apply to media where we merely receive the license to use said media? Honestly wanting to know, don't know too much about said doctrine. To the point of greed, it doesn't make the video game industry more greedy than other industries because they are more actively trying to cut down on used sales. If there were a Gamestop-like company that dealt primarily in used movies, then the movie industry would likely be using the same tactics. The appearance of greater greed exists only because the market for used games is so much larger than that of other media, and also the specific market for new used games. That is, games that have only been out for a short period of time but are already filling the used shelves at places like Gamestop. If it were just older, out-of-print titles I doubt many industry types would care. Don't get me wrong, I think that if this were ever to be implemented it would be a monumentally stupid idea. I enjoy that there is a large used game market, because I did not have the money to buy every game I wanted when they were new. And if I want to pay $90 for a copy of Suikoden II, I'm glad that it's out there in some form. At the same time, if a store around here happened to have Suikoden II new, I would rather purchase that than buy it second-hand. I think the easier answer is to re-release older games that are out of print and also out of stock from retail outlets. Of course, physical re-releases wouldn't be feasible for a lot of games due to a lack of demand, but in those cases at the very least a digital re-release would be worth a shot. Just to comment on your last point, I think re-releases is a good idea but the problem comes with pricing. How do you price a re-release? Do you make it $60 and make people want to buy the older copy pre-owned for cheaper or do you price it at something like $29.99 and lose some money because you didn't price it like a new game? I'm just not sure how developers could really entice people to buy new rather than pre-owned (and yes, if this is as big an issue as it seems to be then game developers should be enticing people to buy new).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2013 23:27:38 GMT -5
I'd say current prices for digital re-releases are decent. Physical games are a bit tougher, but there are examples of collections of older games being re-released for newer consoles at a lower price than a new game. Not sure on how all the costs and converting work, but I'm sure there is considerably less expense and work involved in re-releasing an old game or a collection of old games than there is in releasing a new title, just based on not having to build an entire game from nothing. I think pricing older games at a lower point than new games is the only way to go, definitely. It's the only way most people who weren't already fans of the old game will bother checking it out.
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,011
|
Post by nate5054 on Jan 5, 2013 0:17:47 GMT -5
I always find it funny when things like this come up. People get mad at companies trying to stop Piracy. Is it wrong for then to want to make money off their games. This is hardly piracy though. Since when is selling your own copy of something piracy?
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,011
|
Post by nate5054 on Jan 5, 2013 0:20:19 GMT -5
Like hell. The guy I bought it from or who gave it to me still payed for it and as the owner of the product, has the right to sell it. And since they didn't have to spend a single penny to make a new product, there is no reason for them to recive one extra penny either. IKEA doesn't come crying when I buy furniture they made at a garage sale. By that logic, no-one should be allowed to make presents, ever. Did that IKEA funiture take millions of dollars to make? And I'm pretty sure those presents were bought new right? If I made 500 King Ghidirah tasty ass sandwiches, and I got 500 customers waiting, and the first 250 people decide to to sell their sandwiches to the 250 people behind them, well I'm left with 250 sandwiches and I lose out on money. No matter which way you slice is, Used games are hurting developers on the same level as Piracy is. That is such a poor example that I'm stunned anyone would really try to make it. Yikes.
|
|
|
Post by ShaolinHandLock on Jan 5, 2013 1:05:58 GMT -5
I think we'll see something like this eventually for all media. With the embracing of stuff like Netflix we're seeing a shift away from the ownership model that we fought for and earned with stuff like the Betamax case. I will fight that with my last breath. I want to own something, not some digital data on a hard drive I could lose or crash. I want things on display on a shelf. Others do too. Digital distribution is likely the future, but it isn't my future. Agreed 100%. I'm a physical media collector (games, movies, music) and if physical media ever went away.....I don't know what I'd do, but I'd be very upset about it. EDIT - As for the "used games = piracy" stuff, I don't agree with that at all. I mostly only buy used games for older consoles, the exception being when a game is rare (some games on the PS3 have very low print runs). Besides that, with piracy, nobody is getting money from it. With used games, game stores get the money for it, and the game companies get the initial sale, so I don't see the problem. So yeah, used games are not even close to piracy in my opinion.
|
|
King Ghidorah
El Dandy
On Probation for Charges of two counts of Saxual Music.
How Absurd
Posts: 8,330
|
Post by King Ghidorah on Jan 5, 2013 1:50:05 GMT -5
I always find it funny when things like this come up. People get mad at companies trying to stop Piracy. Is it wrong for then to want to make money off their games. This is hardly piracy though. Since when is selling your own copy of something piracy? So tell me this Sandow, For a developer what's the difference between someone buying a game and uploading it to the internet to sell, and you buying the game used. They still get the initial sell, and then make no money from someone downloading it, or buying it second hand. There is no difference. You can buy DLC on pirated copies too, is it suddenly different because you paid a store for it instead? It's just a different way for developers to get nothing from their game selling.
|
|
King Ghidorah
El Dandy
On Probation for Charges of two counts of Saxual Music.
How Absurd
Posts: 8,330
|
Post by King Ghidorah on Jan 5, 2013 1:52:08 GMT -5
I will fight that with my last breath. I want to own something, not some digital data on a hard drive I could lose or crash. I want things on display on a shelf. Others do too. Digital distribution is likely the future, but it isn't my future. With used games, game stores get the money for it, and the game companies get the initial sale, so I don't see the problem. So yeah, used games are not even close to piracy in my opinion. It's ok as long as someone is making money! Just not the company that made the game.
|
|
|
Post by ShaolinHandLock on Jan 5, 2013 2:32:33 GMT -5
With used games, game stores get the money for it, and the game companies get the initial sale, so I don't see the problem. So yeah, used games are not even close to piracy in my opinion. It's ok as long as someone is making money! Just not the company that made the game. But the company who made the game has already made their money from the initial sale. So they are making their money, and I don't see where all this not making money stuff is coming from. What about buying other second hand things? Like houses? What about books? Cars? Anything? I don't see why used games are always singled out. They have made their initial sale when a copy of a game is purchased. Done. Whether someone decides to sell it on after that should be their choice. I'm anti-piracy in general, and I don't get the argument at all.
|
|
|
Post by Sponsored by Groose Wipes on Jan 5, 2013 2:34:17 GMT -5
The system that's going to ban used games is A. not going to sell, or B. Asking to get hacked.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Jan 5, 2013 2:56:27 GMT -5
I fail to see how if someone makes 500 sandwiches expecting 500 people to pay for those sandwiches that the people amongst those 500, say half, who end up buying second-hand version of those sandwiches are at fault for buying second-hand sandwiches when, in fact, the person making 500 sandwiches, who expects people to pay for product at full retail price no less, completely misses the point as to the most basic articulation of supply and demand.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Jan 5, 2013 3:35:15 GMT -5
Okay. If that's the argument, then going further (and on the "wait until the bargain bin" claim):
I bought WWE '13 on the day it came out for $60- selling one copy of the game [and giving them the sales for that.] Today, I went into Gamestop, where WWE '13 has been reduced to $30. Therefore, in order to give the same amount of profit THQ made on my one purchase of the game, THQ has to sell two copies of the same game for that money- thus halving their profit value- and it goes down from there for new games.
Therefore, by the same logic of taking away used game sales, a company that can block second-hand game sales should therefore take the additional step of having the price of games never go down, even if it means that Walmart is still selling that cobweb-covered copy of "Rock Band: AC/DC" or five-year-old copies of Madden for $60. (And this ISN'T as absurd as it may sound- the prices of new compact discs hasn't dropped much from the price they were in 1987 through a similar move by record companies.)
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,011
|
Post by nate5054 on Jan 5, 2013 4:08:25 GMT -5
This is hardly piracy though. Since when is selling your own copy of something piracy? So tell me this Sandow, For a developer what's the difference between someone buying a game and uploading it to the internet to sell, and you buying the game used. They still get the initial sell, and then make no money from someone downloading it, or buying it second hand. There is no difference. You can buy DLC on pirated copies too, is it suddenly different because you paid a store for it instead? It's just a different way for developers to get nothing from their game selling. Provided the person loses the initial copy there is nothing different about it. The whole point of selling something is that the person who sells it loses the value of the good but gains the value of the money exchanged for the good. Be it video games, movies, furniture, paintings, or anything else that has some tangible value.
|
|
ToyfareMark
Vegeta
A WINNER IS YOU!
In Hutch I trust!
Posts: 9,593
|
Post by ToyfareMark on Jan 5, 2013 5:05:48 GMT -5
Again... This isn't going to happen, there is too much to lose.
But to add to this whole new vs. used thing. Who buys a car, or a house and then trades it in after a week? Or even a couple of days? There is such a quick turnaround from buying a game to trading it for something else. Sure not everyone does that, but if you walk into a Gamestop on a Thursday, more than likely they'll already be selling used copies of games that came out 2 days before.
If the turnaround wasn't so fast, this wouldn't be much of an issue. The best way to solve this issue is for the publishers and console makers to play hardball with Gamestop. Set a period of time before they can sell titles used. People can trade them in, but they can't sell them until lets say 30 days after initial release. If they refuse? Cut them off from new games. The vast majority of new games aren't sold by Gamestop anyway, but Gamestop needs them to entice people to trade in games.
Is that unfair to Gamestop? Yes. Does it matter? No it doesn't.
|
|
King Ghidorah
El Dandy
On Probation for Charges of two counts of Saxual Music.
How Absurd
Posts: 8,330
|
Post by King Ghidorah on Jan 5, 2013 7:00:37 GMT -5
Let's try again Someone Pirates a game, developer will receive $0 Someone buys a used game, developer will receive $0
The only difference is that someone paid money for one. When someone tete to buy a game new at gamestop, it automatically brings up a promote to offer it used. Now $54.99 is not a big difference, but how many decide to stick with the new price tag. That's $54.99 that gamestop made off someone else's hardwork and the developer sees not a single cent.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 22,715
|
Post by Legion on Jan 5, 2013 8:01:56 GMT -5
But, in order for someone to buy a used game, that game has to have been bought in the first place, so developer did get money at one point. Sure, Gamestop in America, or Game in the UK, make money off the trade ins, but those trade ins were either against the value of a new game, which the developer will get money from because that game will have still been sold, even if the shop is making up the money because they accepted goods for it, or they were for cash, cash which the shop has obtained from selling predominantly new goods.
As such, the developers/studios etc. have never not been getting money, they have just not been getting all the money, as the shops have found that the pre-owned market have helped keep them alive. Without the shops to sell their hard copy games, the developers will lose money as not everyone will want to purchase digital copes of large games and can spare the bandwidth to download them, or have the speed to do so in the first place and not wait 45 weeks for the GB's to DL.
This is, if true and implemented, nothing but greed motivated and incredibly short sighted within the structure of the current games market, and indeed the current retail market.
With piracy, which more people will turn to for games if they cant get things cheaper second hand, no one gets anything except the pirate. That is totally different and always worth trying to stop. But this isn't that remotely.
|
|