Jimquisition: Online Passes Are Bad For Everybody

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

cookyy2k:

Catalyst6:
It's amazing that gamers are such entitled gits, really.

Entitled (verb); Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

Yep, we are entitled to buy pre-owned as it's legal.

Studios are also entitled to not bundle in multiplayer.

Enjoy your online pass.

cookyy2k:

Catalyst6:
It's amazing that gamers are such entitled gits, really.

Entitled (verb); Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

Yep, we are entitled to buy pre-owned as it's legal.

It's not illegal. It's just not something to be proud of.

dbphreakdb:

cookyy2k:

Catalyst6:
It's amazing that gamers are such entitled gits, really.

Entitled (verb); Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

Yep, we are entitled to buy pre-owned as it's legal.

Studios are also entitled to not bundle in multiplayer.

Enjoy your online pass.

Never bought an online pass and never will, the very existence of such makes me think twice if I actually want the game.

Also I would disagree with the entitled to withhold it pending extra payment. I have seen several games come out with multiplayer advertised on the box and no mention as to an extra charge to play it. I'm willing to bet the ASA would have something to say about such practices.

Catalyst6:

cookyy2k:

Catalyst6:
It's amazing that gamers are such entitled gits, really.

Entitled (verb); Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

Yep, we are entitled to buy pre-owned as it's legal.

It's not illegal. It's just not something to be proud of.

Why? I wasn't stupid enough to pay full price for something I can get at less than half price in a few months... I'm fairly proud of this.

Hit the nail on the head again Jim. The Online Pass is just rampant short-sighted greed that will do nothing but harm the industry. Instead of rewarding the consumer it is punishing them.

Does Jim have a private armory?

I can't see any valid points to the argument for online passes until they remove them from every game and make all people pay for them. Drop the price tag 10 quid and then charge me 10 quid for the online pass and all will be well. Then i can tell the developers exactly what i think of their game with statistics that actually have relevance. It could be said that if i buy a game new and never use the online pass i'm given then the publishers have stolen from me.

There's a nice switch around to calling me a thief all the time for buying second hand you bastards! You know who you are!

Kojiro ftt:
What a lot of people in the comments here are forgetting is Jim's first point, about how used games are traded in for NEW games. So when publishers say they don't see a dime of a used game sale, that is BS because they DO see it, in the NEW game sales.

It could be said that gamestop and the like are doing more for the games industry than DRMs and online passes...one makes new buyers out of people who can't afford it normally. The other turns you away if you don't conform to it's imposed rules. All hail the fourth reich of computer gaming...online passes

Azuaron:

Zom-B:

Azuaron:
I believe Penny Arcade said it best when they said: When you buy a game used, you are not a customer of the publisher, you're a customer of Gamestop (or wherever). (They talk, at length, about this in their news section that day.)

If nothing else, servers and bandwidth are expensive. If you want to use a publisher's servers and bandwidth, they have a right to bloody charge you.

Here's the thing though: regardless of whether the person playing the game bought it new or used, there's a finite number of games out there that are being used. Say, for simplicity's sake, it's 100. There's 100 games sold and 100 people playing on line. I sell my copy to you. I'm not playing anymore, but you are, so there are still 100 gamers playing the game. Yes, that's grossly simplified, but all Game Stop and other companies are doing is being the middleman between two customers. Sure, we could all use craigslist to sell and buy our used games and no one would make a peep, but no one wants to go through the hassle of posting listings every time they want to sell a game, or searching the internet for a used copy of something they want.

Irrelevant. Online passes don't guard against just Gamestop, but all reselling.

Zom-B:
As has been argued many, many times, used sales are not an issue in other media (books, CDs, movies, cars, etc.) so why games? I've yet to hear a good answer.

What I (and Penny Arcade) said isn't an indictment against the used games industry in general, but the defense of publishers using online passes. As I said somewhere else to someone else on this forum, when you buy a car new, you get the manufacturer's warranty. When you buy a car used, you don't, because the manufacturer only provides warranties to people who are actually their customers. If you want an additional service (e.g., online play with appropriate bandwidth and servers) you have to pay the people who are actually providing that service.

Zom-B:
The bottom line is that you can't equate a used sale to a lost sale for the publisher one to one. It's just not the case. If I can't buy, say Madden 12 (just an example) used for $20, I simply will not buy it at all, period. So either way, as far as the publisher is concerned, it's a "lost sale".

Also irrelevant; I never said anything along those lines.

Zom-B:
Furthermore, in regards to that PA strip... guess what? Either way I'm a customer of Gamestop. The publisher does not sell directly to me. They've already made their profit from the copies that GS has ordered. I've never purchased a game directly from the publisher because the industry is not set up that way. EA, THQ or whoever does not care who is buying the games, just that they are purchased.

Incorrect assessment of industry structure, basic economics, and everything said in the PA strip. In a publisher->retailer->consumer relationship, the publisher makes money from the transaction, making the consumer a customer of the publisher (even if indirectly). In a consumer->reseller->consumer relationship, the consumer is not, in any way, a customer of the publisher; the publisher sees 0 of your dollars.

Further, I'm just going to repeat this:

Azuaron:
If nothing else, servers and bandwidth are expensive. If you want to use a publisher's servers and bandwidth, they have a right to bloody charge you.

In the case of online play, they don't care if the "lost sale" is because you bought it used or because you never bought the game at all: if you want to use their resources, you have to give them money. If you only give someone else money (Gamestop, some random guy, Amazon, etc.), you don't get to use publisher resources.

And if you want online play, you can complain to people whose profits you actually increased with your purchase (Gamestop, some random guy, Amazon, etc.) but you don't have any relationship with the publisher, so why should they care about you?

Just cause I don't want to spend a ton of time editing another comment, I'll just answer in order.

1. Regardless, the basis for this whole debate is that used games hurt publishers, which is a lie.

2. See above. Also, no one expects a warranty from a used game, but they do expect access to the full product. Whether or not the publisher defines what is available to games purchased new and used is entirely up to them. The larger effect is that, just like DRM, online passes and other downstream revenue schemes hurt paying customers.

3. Not all my comments were directed at you.

4. Whether or not my assessment is correct, we've arrived at the same conclusion: the actual publishers do not see money from my pocket. They get it from the retailer, so at no point am I a publisher's customer. We agree.

5. I may grant you that servers are expensive (I don't really know) but bandwidth and data transfer is actually dirt cheap. Big telecoms proliferate the myth that it is expensive to transfer data so they can continue to make money off of their customers.

6. In the case of online play, the should care about my "lost sale". Maybe I pick up CoD "X" used and like it so much I buy the next one full price? Business is more than just selling products, it's also cultivating a customer base, amongst other things.

I'd say that while I don't necessarily disagree withe online pass system, I don't think it really does anything to endear gamers- both new and used purchasers- to game publishers who are perceived to be out for nothing more than to make a buck. Yes, that's what business boils down to, but there's more than one way to conduct yourself and there are many examples in every industry of businesses that don't put their customers after the money they are willing to spend.

cookyy2k:

dbphreakdb:

cookyy2k:

Entitled (verb); Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

Yep, we are entitled to buy pre-owned as it's legal.

Studios are also entitled to not bundle in multiplayer.

Enjoy your online pass.

Never bought an online pass and never will, the very existence of such makes me think twice if I actually want the game.

Also I would disagree with the entitled to withhold it pending extra payment. I have seen several games come out with multiplayer advertised on the box and no mention as to an extra charge to play it. I'm willing to bet the ASA would have something to say about such practices.

and if your nice used car was bought in a box, would you be entitled to the orignal services included in that, i.e. the manufacturer's warranty? I think not. So yes, let's get this into court with a lawsuit, or even better yet, completely mediated in a legally bound manner, with a few consumer advocacy agencies, retailers that make a practice of buying and selling used games, and game development studios.

I bet that GameStop comes out of it with the worst, followed by gamers, and then the software studios.

cookyy2k:

Catalyst6:

cookyy2k:

Entitled (verb); Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

Yep, we are entitled to buy pre-owned as it's legal.

It's not illegal. It's just not something to be proud of.

Why? I wasn't stupid enough to pay full price for something I can get at less than half price in a few months... I'm fairly proud of this.

You can buy a microwave from a fence instead of Best Buy for half the price as well.

cookyy2k:

Catalyst6:

cookyy2k:

Entitled (verb); Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

Yep, we are entitled to buy pre-owned as it's legal.

It's not illegal. It's just not something to be proud of.

Why? I wasn't stupid enough to pay full price for something I can get at less than half price in a few months... I'm fairly proud of this.

I'm proud too. Economics for dummies!

Shhh...it might catch on :o)

cookyy2k:

Catalyst6:

cookyy2k:

Entitled (verb); Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

Yep, we are entitled to buy pre-owned as it's legal.

It's not illegal. It's just not something to be proud of.

Why? I wasn't stupid enough to pay full price for something I can get at less than half price in a few months... I'm fairly proud of this.

well then, why not just wait the few months and get a new game that forces your retail level store to go to the manufacturer for a new one.

Well, I don't care much for multiplayer, especially on consoles. So, I'll probably just buy used out of spite anyway.

WilliamRLBaker:
Except publishers and developers dont see a dime of that used game money...so most every scenario you put forth loses that developer money because they all require massive influxes of used games where only the first few only have to buy that game new...used means 5 million people can go buy that game used and keep selling it back and 10 million get to play it and the developer or publisher doesn't see a dime from those 10 million users.

This is so wrong. It doesn't matter who owned the game first, who sold it or who bought it used. If there are five million copies sold of a game it doesn't really matter how they got out there. There are five million copies and that's what the company sold. There is no way to prove
that if used sales were taken away it would immediately translate into more new sales. i.e. without used sales, it doesn't automatically mean there would be 10 million copies sold. I'm sure it would translate into some, of course, but there's no real way to know the numbers, so there's no way to quantify it as "lost money". It's only lost if they had it in the first place.

CannibalCorpses:

cookyy2k:

Catalyst6:

It's not illegal. It's just not something to be proud of.

Why? I wasn't stupid enough to pay full price for something I can get at less than half price in a few months... I'm fairly proud of this.

I'm proud too. Economics for dummies!

Shhh...it might catch on :o)

It's called consumer capitalism, the consumer goes and looks for the best value and shops there. If the new market isn't the best value then I ain't going to shop there.

dbphreakdb:

Studios are also entitled to not bundle in multiplayer.

Enjoy your online pass.

To be honest, most games would be better off without multiplayer modes that are only included because all the cool kids have them, because they're usually shit and no-one ever plays them because they're not Call of Duty anyway.

There is a direct 1 to 1 ratio of used game sales and people who decided a game was worth whatever demeaning offer the game store will give you for your trouble. Picture September 26th a Gamestop. Why yes we will give you 8 dollars for gears of war 3 in a mint box with the instructions.

Developers need to take that finger pointing at used games and point it right back at them selves because every used game is a gamer that jumped ship, and that is the creators fault

Online passes and other used market dickery are just ways companies screw themselves out of players, because that is what companies need, customer happiness drives this industry. No one wants to play a game with 20 people online at any given time let alone pay 10 bucks extra for that "privilege".

When did we become sluts for games, instead of its fuel and its fans. So it's okay to put out a cigar on our arm because we will come back for more? Why would anyone defend this industry who spend millions of dollars to make a bone average game and then gripe at us for buying used, and all their shit dlc.

I'm not entitled to free content and companies aren't entitled to with hold all the good stuff until I invest 40 dollars in dlc onto a 70 dollar game.

yeah yeah gripe and groan all you want before we all end up stoned, braiding our hair, drop acid, forming a drum circle and start spouting off phrases like." The whole scenes gotten too commercial maaaan. It's no longer about the game play or the story its all about the almighty dollar."

Zom-B:

WilliamRLBaker:
Except publishers and developers dont see a dime of that used game money...so most every scenario you put forth loses that developer money because they all require massive influxes of used games where only the first few only have to buy that game new...used means 5 million people can go buy that game used and keep selling it back and 10 million get to play it and the developer or publisher doesn't see a dime from those 10 million users.

This is so wrong. It doesn't matter who owned the game first, who sold it or who bought it used. If there are five million copies sold of a game it doesn't really matter how they got out there. There are five million copies and that's what the company sold. There is no way to prove
that if used sales were taken away it would immediately translate into more new sales. i.e. without used sales, it doesn't automatically mean there would be 10 million copies sold. I'm sure it would translate into some, of course, but there's no real way to know the numbers, so there's no way to quantify it as "lost money". It's only lost if they had it in the first place.

That's a very true and valid argument. Noone knows how the sales will translate.

The very basic laws of supply and demand, however, can project that if there is no option to buy second hand, then more new units would be purchased.

Catalyst6:

cookyy2k:

Catalyst6:
It's amazing that gamers are such entitled gits, really.

Entitled (verb); Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

Yep, we are entitled to buy pre-owned as it's legal.

It's not illegal. It's just not something to be proud of.

Something not to be proud of? I'm sorry, but I don't have $60 laying around every time I want a game. I have a car, have to pay gas and insurance, I also have bills... Should I be proud if I skip out on eating for a few days to afford a half-assed 4 hour campaign? I mean, I buy CD's preowned all the time and buy used movies. Artists or directors don't go around complaining constantly about that. They also don't try to screw us over by make 25 minute CD's with half the songs being intros/filler/outros. They also don't make movies that are only 45-50 minutes then released extended parts of it later for a fraction of the price.

All in all, I find it rather humorous that the sector of gaming that doesn't require locking in a registration... is essentially having to do just that.

Needless to say, I will only be releasing the games i make for xbla and pc.

You know, in such a manner so that i know the only people who are hogging my bandwidth, are the ones that paid me and my employees.

Azuaron:
you didn't actually read what I said:

Azuaron:
If you want to use a publisher's servers and bandwidth, they have a right to bloody charge you.

The game is a product. Online play is a service. If you want the service, you have to pay the people who are providing it, not Gamestop.

Or, in the used vehicle analogy of which people are so fond: the warranty only applies to the first owner; manufacturers provide no warranty for vehicles sold used. Why? Because they only provide a warranty to people who are actually their customers.

Oh i read what you said, but here's some question's.

Someone has already paid the cover charge to access the content. Your merely taking their place. From a company's perspective there is no cost conveyed to them by a second hand player using the online service, than there is if the original purchaser has played consistently over the next 2 years.

If these used copies meant that the original owner and the used owner were both able to play the game at once then there would be some credibility to your statement. As it stands regardless of how people have gotten a legitimate copy of the game. The rest of it should have been budgeted for by the company.

Sucal:
Just pointing out, that any american who complains about $60 games should come buy games in Australia.

I agree with this. If I'm forking out half of my weekly pay from my shit part-time job to buy your game, I don't expect you to make me pay another $10 and wait another hour or so just so I can play your multiplayer.

dbphreakdb:
Flatly speaking, and I reiterate, that the used game industry benefits noone save for the store. It bilks money from the studios, and it cheats consumers out of their hard earned money by an artificial value depreciation by the same retail store.

Untrue. The used industry benefits those unable to afford new prices. You may not like it, but that's a tangible benefit for many people. Secondly, regardless of what you think, it's also people voting with their wallets, by saying "I do want this game, but I believe that the MSRP for a new copy is too much." That's what's happening when you purchase a used game.

Those new prices are fine for many people, but for many others they aren't. Why do you think we have thrift stores, 2nd hand stores, garage sales, eBay, craigslist and any other way for people to trade goods with each other directly, without buying from the manufacturer? Sometimes, it just makes sense: I'm done with this game, why don't you give m X dollars (less than retail) because it's "used"?

Your logic seems to indicate that as consumers we should only buy things "brand new" and when we are done with them it is immoral to sell them, so they should just be thrown into the trash. That's ludicrous, wasteful and flies in the face of a free society. I purchased the license for a particular game and when I'm done with it the law says I'm free to give it away, resell it, let it sit on my shelf or destroy it, just like any other product I've purchased. Game publishers don't have to like it, but that is how it is and it won't be changing anytime soon.

Assassin Xaero:

Catalyst6:

cookyy2k:

Entitled (verb); Give (someone) a legal right or a just claim to receive or do something.

Yep, we are entitled to buy pre-owned as it's legal.

It's not illegal. It's just not something to be proud of.

Something not to be proud of? I'm sorry, but I don't have $60 laying around every time I want a game. I have a car, have to pay gas and insurance, I also have bills... Should I be proud if I skip out on eating for a few days to afford a half-assed 4 hour campaign? I mean, I buy CD's preowned all the time and buy used movies. Artists or directors don't go around complaining constantly about that. They also don't try to screw us over by make 25 minute CD's with half the songs being intros/filler/outros. They also don't make movies that are only 45-50 minutes then released extended parts of it later for a fraction of the price.

If you can't afford the game, then don't buy the game. It's economics. Yes, I like all people wish that games were cheaper and every person could own every game. That would be a wonderful world. But it doesn't work like that, alas, economics gets in the way every time. If it's so "half-assed" that you can't stand to hand over ten dollars to the dev for making it (a fee that many times won't add up to the price of a new copy) then why are you buying it at all?

EDIT: I'm not saying that you can't buy it used. I'm saying that if you consider it a game worthy of spending X amount of money on then you shouldn't have any issue giving a few bucks to the people that actually made the product as well as the people that could sell them out of a trenchcoat in a back alley and be all the same.

alinos:

Azuaron:
you didn't actually read what I said:

Azuaron:
If you want to use a publisher's servers and bandwidth, they have a right to bloody charge you.

The game is a product. Online play is a service. If you want the service, you have to pay the people who are providing it, not Gamestop.

Or, in the used vehicle analogy of which people are so fond: the warranty only applies to the first owner; manufacturers provide no warranty for vehicles sold used. Why? Because they only provide a warranty to people who are actually their customers.

Oh i read what you said, but here's some question's.

Someone has already paid the cover charge to access the content. Your merely taking their place. From a company's perspective there is no cost conveyed to them by a second hand player using the online service, than there is if the original purchaser has played consistently over the next 2 years.

If these used copies meant that the original owner and the used owner were both able to play the game at once then there would be some credibility to your statement. As it stands regardless of how people have gotten a legitimate copy of the game. The rest of it should have been budgeted for by the company.

The company did budget for online access. From a single user.

Alot of people think that game creation is not categorically researched and planned, when it is. The initial purchaser of the game license is budgeted into operating cost, with some fuzzy equations that take into account the variables for diminishing returns on game enjoyment, sequel replacement, and a host of several other semi-predictable normalized variables.

The IT sector is replete with mathematical and theoretical geniuses who actually track these sort of statistical probabilities. Used Games falls outside of a guaranteed services contract, and thus, fall outside of these equations, as they are wildcards that cannot be projected in a consistent manner, due to their very nature.

Also: Selling a ticket for less than what you paid for it, just to get a return is, known as scalping here in the states. Only authorized ticket agents really have the legal right and ability to sell a ticket.

dbphreakdb:

Zom-B:

WilliamRLBaker:
Except publishers and developers dont see a dime of that used game money...so most every scenario you put forth loses that developer money because they all require massive influxes of used games where only the first few only have to buy that game new...used means 5 million people can go buy that game used and keep selling it back and 10 million get to play it and the developer or publisher doesn't see a dime from those 10 million users.

This is so wrong. It doesn't matter who owned the game first, who sold it or who bought it used. If there are five million copies sold of a game it doesn't really matter how they got out there. There are five million copies and that's what the company sold. There is no way to prove
that if used sales were taken away it would immediately translate into more new sales. i.e. without used sales, it doesn't automatically mean there would be 10 million copies sold. I'm sure it would translate into some, of course, but there's no real way to know the numbers, so there's no way to quantify it as "lost money". It's only lost if they had it in the first place.

That's a very true and valid argument. Noone knows how the sales will translate.

The very basic laws of supply and demand, however, can project that if there is no option to buy second hand, then more new units would be purchased.

Really? So if all games were magically sold new at $60, there would automatically be more sales? Ummm...what about people like me? I don't want to pay 50 or 60 for a game. For me, the cut off point is 40. Beyond that, and I won't buy your game. If I can get it used cheaper, great. I've saved myself a bit of money. You're forgetting the very basic laws of supply and demand. The demand for cheap used games is a huge market, and one that should not be made disappear.

dbphreakdb:

alinos:

Azuaron:
you didn't actually read what I said:

The game is a product. Online play is a service. If you want the service, you have to pay the people who are providing it, not Gamestop.

Or, in the used vehicle analogy of which people are so fond: the warranty only applies to the first owner; manufacturers provide no warranty for vehicles sold used. Why? Because they only provide a warranty to people who are actually their customers.

Oh i read what you said, but here's some question's.

Someone has already paid the cover charge to access the content. Your merely taking their place. From a company's perspective there is no cost conveyed to them by a second hand player using the online service, than there is if the original purchaser has played consistently over the next 2 years.

If these used copies meant that the original owner and the used owner were both able to play the game at once then there would be some credibility to your statement. As it stands regardless of how people have gotten a legitimate copy of the game. The rest of it should have been budgeted for by the company.

The company did budget for online access. From a single user.

Alot of people think that game creation is not categorically researched and planned, when it is. The initial purchaser of the game license is budgeted into operating cost, with some fuzzy equations that take into account the variables for diminishing returns on game enjoyment, sequel replacement, and a host of several other semi-predictable normalized variables.

The IT sector is replete with mathematical and theoretical geniuses who actually track these sort of statistical probabilities. Used Games falls outside of a guaranteed services contract, and thus, fall outside of these equations, as they are wildcards that cannot be projected in a consistent manner, due to their very nature.

I call hogwash. The amount any given user plays online and how long it takes them to stop are both wildcards in the fact they arn't certain values. You cannot tell me that resale cannot be factored into those models, because seriously if they can't do it I'm avaliable to sort a model out and charge an appropriate freelance fee, I'm no stranger to building theoretical models.

Zom-B:

dbphreakdb:
Flatly speaking, and I reiterate, that the used game industry benefits noone save for the store. It bilks money from the studios, and it cheats consumers out of their hard earned money by an artificial value depreciation by the same retail store.

Untrue. The used industry benefits those unable to afford new prices. You may not like it, but that's a tangible benefit for many people. Secondly, regardless of what you think, it's also people voting with their wallets, by saying "I do want this game, but I believe that the MSRP for a new copy is too much." That's what's happening when you purchase a used game.

Those new prices are fine for many people, but for many others they aren't. Why do you think we have thrift stores, 2nd hand stores, garage sales, eBay, craigslist and any other way for people to trade goods with each other directly, without buying from the manufacturer? Sometimes, it just makes sense: I'm done with this game, why don't you give m X dollars (less than retail) because it's "used"?

Your logic seems to indicate that as consumers we should only buy things "brand new" and when we are done with them it is immoral to sell them, so they should just be thrown into the trash. That's ludicrous, wasteful and flies in the face of a free society. I purchased the license for a particular game and when I'm done with it the law says I'm free to give it away, resell it, let it sit on my shelf or destroy it, just like any other product I've purchased. Game publishers don't have to like it, but that is how it is and it won't be changing anytime soon.

It is your complete right to buy or sell the physical media as you please. I am not saying that you should be wasteful or always buy new. As a matter of fact, that would be, as you pointed out, ludicrous.

What I am saying is that decrying the model that most game manufacturers have decided upon, with online passes, is not wrong. While they could come up with new models to curtail this sort of behavior from release, they do indeed deserve to be paid for any and all work, products, or services they provide.

If buying a game used + online pass is cheaper than a new copy, then do it. But don't complain when you can't use a service that you as a second or third hand customer are not guaranteed unless you pay for it.

It's just hypocritical.

Zom-B:

alinos:

except the games industry is like no other.

when you buy a used car it has wear and tear. A game does not. (if a used game has wear and tear generally it's painstakingly obvious. But trying telling whether or not the headgasket on the used car you have bought doesn't have a crack in it. That's going to break in a month.

You don't buy a car drive it to Mcdonalds then decide you want a new car. take it down to the lot you just bought the thing from slap a 10% discount on it and sell it. It simply doesn't work that way.

The only other industries that have even a comparable product to games are DVD's and Music CD's. Most of which when you buy you don't resell. And if you do you resell them yourself. They aren't being sold next to brand new copies of the same product the very next day.

I agree that the games industry is not quite like any other, but I disagree with your other assumptions.

A game may not have "wear and tear", but there are other considerations. Does it have online play? Are people still playing, are the servers up? Is the manual beat up?

Some people do in fact, buy a new car once a year and trade the old one in, or lease yearly.

So, you've never, ever been to a store that sells both new and used DVDs/CDs? I sure have. In fact, there's still one big one going in my city. Just because you don't personally see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Never said any such thing about it not happening. But last i checked, Every Gamestop, Game, EB. All of them all sell Used copies of product's right next to new ones around the country. That simply doesn't happen with DvD's and CD's yes there are used stores and yes they sometime's are couple with the very same new product's. But they are not the majority of retailers that sell these product's. Which when it comes to games are

As for the other consideration's

A) Does it have online play. Not sure how this is a consideration it's sorta like asking does it have single player it's a game feature it's not dependent on the game being used or new(If we ignore the whole Pass thing which i think shouldn't really exist)

B) Does it still have players online if it has online, Well some good foruming will tell you the answer to that before you lay down your cash. and if it doesn't and you already bought it, you can just trade it back(hell depending which store if your quick enough you could take it back and get a refund on a used game)

C)Is the manual beat up, Generally speaking much like looking at the disc for obvious sign's of scratches, you can also see said manual when you purchase the game. Which like with my car example you can't see with a cursory look whether or not the head gasket has a crack or whether the exhaust is going to rust through in 2 months

And yes people do cycle through cars within a year. But that's the operative word "YEAR" these companies get a long period of time to sell a bunch of their nice shiny new cars before they have to worry about used sales cutting in significantly. They have a window where the market simply doesn't get flooded with used version's of their car's instantaneously.

Which can't be said of used games. I've seen game go out of the store at 9am and be back in store by the end of the day with a used sticker on them. Because people rush through them an breakneck speeds because they want to make sure they get maximum cash back.

Most games will have maybe a couple of days grace before the store is flooded with used copies again.

And i can almost guarantee if there was definitive evidence that a player buying a used copy of a game was 50-70% more likely to trade the game back in with 1-5 days. If they could get the profit margin to work you'd have companies start selling new copies of the game for 5 dollars less under a Used copy heading, because the game would be more likely to re-enter the store so they could re-sell it 10 more times.

Catalyst6:

Assassin Xaero:

Catalyst6:

It's not illegal. It's just not something to be proud of.

Something not to be proud of? I'm sorry, but I don't have $60 laying around every time I want a game. I have a car, have to pay gas and insurance, I also have bills... Should I be proud if I skip out on eating for a few days to afford a half-assed 4 hour campaign? I mean, I buy CD's preowned all the time and buy used movies. Artists or directors don't go around complaining constantly about that. They also don't try to screw us over by make 25 minute CD's with half the songs being intros/filler/outros. They also don't make movies that are only 45-50 minutes then released extended parts of it later for a fraction of the price.

If you can't afford the game, then don't buy the game. It's economics. Yes, I like all people wish that games were cheaper and every person could own every game. That would be a wonderful world. But it doesn't work like that, alas, economics gets in the way every time. If it's so "half-assed" that you can't stand to hand over ten dollars to the dev for making it (a fee that many times won't add up to the price of a new copy) then why are you buying it at all?

I can afford the game pre-owned, hence it's bought pre-owned. You keep going on like the new price is literally the only option.

I completely and totally agree with Jim on the online pass thing. Online passes are complete crap. When I buy a car, or a t.v, or anything else, I can go resell it, and whoever the original producer was won't get jack from that. I want to know why the game industry thinks it's so special.

TK421:
I completely and totally agree with Jim on the online pass thing. Online passes are complete crap. When I buy a car, or a t.v, or anything else, I can go resell it, and whoever the original producer was won't get jack from that. I want to know why the game industry thinks it's so special.

Because they apparently have customers willing to put up with their crap, unlike every other industry on Earth.

They should go the mass effect route offer free dlc for a new game ad used gamers haev to pay for that. I think that is fair.

Catalyst6:

Assassin Xaero:

Catalyst6:

It's not illegal. It's just not something to be proud of.

Something not to be proud of? I'm sorry, but I don't have $60 laying around every time I want a game. I have a car, have to pay gas and insurance, I also have bills... Should I be proud if I skip out on eating for a few days to afford a half-assed 4 hour campaign? I mean, I buy CD's preowned all the time and buy used movies. Artists or directors don't go around complaining constantly about that. They also don't try to screw us over by make 25 minute CD's with half the songs being intros/filler/outros. They also don't make movies that are only 45-50 minutes then released extended parts of it later for a fraction of the price.

If you can't afford the game, then don't buy the game. It's economics. Yes, I like all people wish that games were cheaper and every person could own every game. That would be a wonderful world. But it doesn't work like that, alas, economics gets in the way every time. If it's so "half-assed" that you can't stand to hand over ten dollars to the dev for making it (a fee that many times won't add up to the price of a new copy) then why are you buying it at all?

But if it is used, I can afford to buy it. Why do I not care much to hand money over to devs? Because games are lower quality than they used to be. Games on the PC especially are constantly shafted for the 360, same with single player campaigns for multiplayer. I don't feel bad at all spending half or less of the price to support a local game retail store.

cookyy2k:

dbphreakdb:

alinos:

Oh i read what you said, but here's some question's.

Someone has already paid the cover charge to access the content. Your merely taking their place. From a company's perspective there is no cost conveyed to them by a second hand player using the online service, than there is if the original purchaser has played consistently over the next 2 years.

If these used copies meant that the original owner and the used owner were both able to play the game at once then there would be some credibility to your statement. As it stands regardless of how people have gotten a legitimate copy of the game. The rest of it should have been budgeted for by the company.

The company did budget for online access. From a single user.

Alot of people think that game creation is not categorically researched and planned, when it is. The initial purchaser of the game license is budgeted into operating cost, with some fuzzy equations that take into account the variables for diminishing returns on game enjoyment, sequel replacement, and a host of several other semi-predictable normalized variables.

The IT sector is replete with mathematical and theoretical geniuses who actually track these sort of statistical probabilities. Used Games falls outside of a guaranteed services contract, and thus, fall outside of these equations, as they are wildcards that cannot be projected in a consistent manner, due to their very nature.

I call hogwash. The amount any given user plays online and how long it takes them to stop are both wildcards in the fact they arn't certain values. You cannot tell me that resale cannot be factored into those models, because seriously if they can't do it I'm avaliable to sort a model out and charge an appropriate freelance fee, I'm no stranger to building theoretical models.

The law of averages for access time comes into play. For every person that plays a game 8 hours straight every day throughout the week, there will be someone who is only able to play it twice a week for 4 to 6 hours a day. when you add the two together, they come up with a median user.

Take into account that most of the gaming crowd is a set demographic (25 to 35), and most 25 to 35 year olds are busy working jobs to pay their bills, or going to college or whatever, and balance that against the 12-17 and 18-25 demographic theoreticals, and you come out with a median online access time of 20 hours in any given week for any given player.

Then, you take those numbers, and compare cost of access to cost of game, and schedule your sequel release date accordingly.

Now, there are anomalies to this equation, namely in a company named Blizzard. 8 years for a sequel is rather long. However, their products were good enough that they weren't really forced to go to the shelf with a new volume. Also take into consideration that both Diablo 2 and Starcraft, amongst others, require unique keys for online access. They didn't care if you bought the game used for multiplayer

(as a matter of fact, my first copy of each of those games were second hand retail, as they were still sealed, but from a game store that closed down and liquidated their stock to a used games store in the area)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here