Jimquisition: Used Games Have A Right To Exist

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Ariyura:

Draech:

Crono1973:

Are you on drugs? I was talking about ownership and you are talking about everything else, move the goal post much? Now go away, I am not going to waste my time with someone who can't decided what they want to argue about.

I have been saying what I have always been saying. Publisher own their games before they sell them. They can chose the method of how they sell them. They can change it to a lease if they want. And you can only chose to do that with the games you own as well.

When you buy code a put it in you have made an account understanding full well what that means.

That you are resorting to ad hominum only show how little you have to stand on.

I'll take a stab at this. You're argument is stop whining because publishers are changing game models to a leasing policy? Or that they can if they want to because they own it? That's really beside the point because most of us can agree they can govern the online part of their games however they want. If you don't agree with it then you don't need to use it, but when talking about a physical entity that you own is something completely different.

The thing is Ariyra they can change games complete so you cant buy them to own at all. They are the producers, and can therefore control how the product is supplied to us. They have the right to do so. If you say that they cant make it leases then you say we cant make it leases when we own them.

The publisher do NOTHING with games already sold because they cant. For some reason Crono seems to be under the impression that they are doing that.

bringer of illumination:

Actually it is your problem if you want good games, and indeed if you want games at all, because if the games don't make a profit there will be no games.

If a company like EA can't stand up in the free market they don't deserve to be in business. It isn't my job to subsidize a company that asks more for their product than I think it's worth. I buy new every game that I view to be worth the full asking price.

If EA, to use one major example, go out of business they don't deserve to be in business. Let another company take their place. The demand for games won't go away just because one company goes under.

You obviously don't know anything, at all, about Gamestop, it's business model, or just how bad they are ripping you off. I mean, do you not read the news?

Please watch this series of videos (about an hour in total) They're made by a former Gamestop employee and they'll explain in great detail why you are a wrong.

I may get around to watching the videos, but I doubt I'll care. It's going to be an hour of a lot of nasty information about Gamestop, most of which will likely be true. My local Gamestop is run by good guys and they have games for reasonable prices. Are their corporate higher-ups jerks? Yeah, probably. That's true of just about anything anyone buys these days.

And if honestly think that $55 for a used game that looks like it's been trampled by buffalo and throw in the sever is a "great reduced price" then I really have to question your intellect.

Typically I wait until the game is cut to twenty-five dollars or less.

In the future, if you -must- attack someone's intelligence in argument, at least proofread your post and make sure it's coherent.

The fat cats at Gamestop don't provide you with ANYTHING, they're a glorified chain of pawn-shops based around buy games used from children and selling them back at more than twice what they give people for them and giving none of this revenue to the people who actually make the games.

They provide me with used games at significantly lower prices. So.. yes, they are a bit like a pawn shop for games. I fail to see the problem.

EA on the other hand actually provides you with many great games.

They might provide -you- with games you like. I find most of EA's recent releases to be garbage. Worse, they buy out -good- game studios and drive them into the ground. Bioware used to make solid products, and now they're steadily getting worse.

If used games kill EA.. good riddance.

I was comparing the relate damage that piracy/used games do to the industry to the harm that murder/assault does a person and the fact that Jim apparently considers a harmful act completely okay just because the is another act that does more harm. the legality of these acts are irrelevant to my analogy.

I suppose I differ from Jim in that I don't care whether or not used games harm the developers. At all.

Hahahahahaha,

Incredulity is not a proper substitution for an argument.

Yeah, because we all know that good games NEVER get bought used,

Great games don't have the same problem, no. Do you think Todd Howard (a lead director at Bethesda) is going to get on a soapbox and loudly weep about used games? No. Because his company makes games that are worth the price tag to a -lot- of people. Myself included. Go to your local Gamestop at 11:50pm on 11-10-11 and I assure you there will be a line. A really, really long line. Good games sell.

it's not like used games have literally murdered smaller studios before.

/sarcasm overload

I know, right! EA would -NEVER- buy a small studio, run it into the ground, and then toss it into a furnace.

Jim Sterling:
Used Games Have A Right To Exist

Publishers would have you believe that used games are the biggest threat to the games industry. Even gamers will sympathize with these huge companies and equate the used market with piracy. Unlike piracy, however, used games have plenty of right to exist and are not the demonic entity others make them out to be. Jim Sterling, naturally, has the band-aid of reality to plaster over your fantasy cuts.

Watch Video

I 100% agree that the publisher is batshit crazy for demanding more money.
BUT
What about the developer? Especially the small ones, that need every sale they can get to continue being a studio. Also, doesn't gamestop have enough money themselves?
How about this: when gamestop or a retailer sells a used game they get 50% and the developers of that game get 50%. The customer is happy, because they can sell their old games and they can buy cheaper games. The developer is happy because they get money to buy food and money to spend on their studio. So they can make more games, making the customer more happy.
The retailer is happy because they can make more money.
The publisher is unhappy, but fuck them.
They are the evil people here...... all we should care about is the developer and the customer.

Ledan:

Jim Sterling:
Used Games Have A Right To Exist

Publishers would have you believe that used games are the biggest threat to the games industry. Even gamers will sympathize with these huge companies and equate the used market with piracy. Unlike piracy, however, used games have plenty of right to exist and are not the demonic entity others make them out to be. Jim Sterling, naturally, has the band-aid of reality to plaster over your fantasy cuts.

Watch Video

I 100% agree that the publisher is batshit crazy for demanding more money.
BUT
What about the developer? Especially the small ones, that need every sale they can get to continue being a studio. Also, doesn't gamestop have enough money themselves?
How about this: when gamestop or a retailer sells a used game they get 50% and the developers of that game get 50%. The customer is happy, because they can sell their old games and they can buy cheaper games. The developer is happy because they get money to buy food and money to spend on their studio. So they can make more games, making the customer more happy.
The retailer is happy because they can make more money.
The publisher is unhappy, but fuck them.
They are the evil people here...... all we should care about is the developer and the customer.

Your plan would set a terrible precedent. Next thing you know every manufacturer would want a cut of used sales. You can't sell that coffee maker at your garage sale without drawing up paperwork and sending half the money to Black & Decker. You can't sell your car without half going to Ford.

It's a bad idea. No!

Also, sending the money directly to the developers will benefit the publishers as they will simply pay the developers less and let the used sales pick up the slack. In other words, the publishers will end up richer than they are now. Sort of like how employers don't have to pay min wage to people who get tips, same thing would happen here.

Draech:
That is at the heart of this whole problem. Gamestop pissing in the pool sort of speak.

When you go into Gamestop right now you will see a list games on the wall going "Gamestop searches for: *Insert title*". They actively encourage people go buy the game new, play it through and then sell it so that they can sell it used while its attractive. Deus Ex is the most resent example.
You cannot convince me this doesn't have a negative effect on sales of a game, and I understand all the way that publishers want to get rid of this parasite.

To be honest I don't see how that makes Gamestop any different than any other business that sells used things. You wouldn't call a used TV shop evil just because they wanted to buy HD TVs when someone upgraded to 3D instead of advertising they wanting to buy analog TVs. A used car dealer isn't evil because he'd rather try to resell a 2009 Toyota Camry than a 1979 Toyota Camry. A used computer shop isn't evil because they advertise they are looking for used i-Pads rather than used Newtons. But somehow Gamestop is evil because they advertise they would like to buy back the newer hotter games.

I'm also not sure how big this impact of buying back a newer game is.

The big retailers are still likely moving more games than Gamestop so Gamestop is only one small part of the over all business of selling games. I'm sure Wal-Mart sells more games from their discount bin than Gamestop sells used games.

The people who are trading in newer games are likely going to put that credit toward another new game so that keeps them in the new market.

Just because you advertise you are looking for game "X" that doesn't mean people will trade the game in if they are really enjoying it.

I'm also not sure how many gamers are really buying newer titles used at Gamestop if they are only saving $5.

Maybe my local Gamestop is just a weird location but I don't see used games just flying off the shelves, but I do see the place being really busy on release dates with people picking up pre-orders because they know the Wal-Mart will sell out of the hot new game.

I'm not saying there is no cut in new game sells but I don't think publishers are going broke because Gamestop resold a copy of Gears of War 3. A weak economy cutting into the disposable income of gamers seems to be the biggest hurt on the new game market right now.

Draech:

Ariyura:

Draech:

I have been saying what I have always been saying. Publisher own their games before they sell them. They can chose the method of how they sell them. They can change it to a lease if they want. And you can only chose to do that with the games you own as well.

When you buy code a put it in you have made an account understanding full well what that means.

That you are resorting to ad hominum only show how little you have to stand on.

I'll take a stab at this. You're argument is stop whining because publishers are changing game models to a leasing policy? Or that they can if they want to because they own it? That's really beside the point because most of us can agree they can govern the online part of their games however they want. If you don't agree with it then you don't need to use it, but when talking about a physical entity that you own is something completely different.

The thing is Ariyra they can change games complete so you cant buy them to own at all. They are the producers, and can therefore control how the product is supplied to us. They have the right to do so. If you say that they cant make it leases then you say we cant make it leases when we own them.

The publisher do NOTHING with games already sold because they cant. For some reason Crono seems to be under the impression that they are doing that.

By leasing you mean online content? Or that you can only rent games for a certain amount of time if they decide you can only lease games and not own them.

Crono1973:

Ledan:

Jim Sterling:
Used Games Have A Right To Exist

Publishers would have you believe that used games are the biggest threat to the games industry. Even gamers will sympathize with these huge companies and equate the used market with piracy. Unlike piracy, however, used games have plenty of right to exist and are not the demonic entity others make them out to be. Jim Sterling, naturally, has the band-aid of reality to plaster over your fantasy cuts.

Watch Video

I 100% agree that the publisher is batshit crazy for demanding more money.
BUT
What about the developer? Especially the small ones, that need every sale they can get to continue being a studio. Also, doesn't gamestop have enough money themselves?
How about this: when gamestop or a retailer sells a used game they get 50% and the developers of that game get 50%. The customer is happy, because they can sell their old games and they can buy cheaper games. The developer is happy because they get money to buy food and money to spend on their studio. So they can make more games, making the customer more happy.
The retailer is happy because they can make more money.
The publisher is unhappy, but fuck them.
They are the evil people here...... all we should care about is the developer and the customer.

Your plan would set a terrible precedent. Next thing you know every manufacturer would want a cut of used sales. You can't sell that coffee maker at your garage sale without drawing up paperwork and sending half the money to Black & Decker. You can't sell your car without half going to Ford.

It's a bad idea. No!

Also, sending the money directly to the developers will benefit the publishers as they will simply pay the developers less and let the used sales pick up the slack. In other words, the publishers will end up richer than they are now. Sort of like how employers don't have to pay min wage to people who get tips, same thing would happen here.

Gamestop is NOT a garage sale. What I'm objecting to here is that the retailer can resupply their stock, get money, and screw the developers over.
If you want to sell your copy of deus ex human revolution to your friend for 5 bucks, go ahead. But if you sell it to gamestop for 5 bucks, and they sell it to your friend for 60 $, hasn't something gone wrong somewhere?

My point is: Do whatever you want at garage sales, but make sure gamestop splits the money with the developer. As for the publishers....... i wish they could just die in the flames of Anur....... idk the solution to that problem

Ledan:

Crono1973:

Ledan:

I 100% agree that the publisher is batshit crazy for demanding more money.
BUT
What about the developer? Especially the small ones, that need every sale they can get to continue being a studio. Also, doesn't gamestop have enough money themselves?
How about this: when gamestop or a retailer sells a used game they get 50% and the developers of that game get 50%. The customer is happy, because they can sell their old games and they can buy cheaper games. The developer is happy because they get money to buy food and money to spend on their studio. So they can make more games, making the customer more happy.
The retailer is happy because they can make more money.
The publisher is unhappy, but fuck them.
They are the evil people here...... all we should care about is the developer and the customer.

Your plan would set a terrible precedent. Next thing you know every manufacturer would want a cut of used sales. You can't sell that coffee maker at your garage sale without drawing up paperwork and sending half the money to Black & Decker. You can't sell your car without half going to Ford.

It's a bad idea. No!

Also, sending the money directly to the developers will benefit the publishers as they will simply pay the developers less and let the used sales pick up the slack. In other words, the publishers will end up richer than they are now. Sort of like how employers don't have to pay min wage to people who get tips, same thing would happen here.

Gamestop is NOT a garage sale. What I'm objecting to here is that the retailer can resupply their stock, get money, and screw the developers over.
If you want to sell your copy of deus ex human revolution to your friend for 5 bucks, go ahead. But if you sell it to gamestop for 5 bucks, and they sell it to your friend for 60 $, hasn't something gone wrong somewhere?

My point is: Do whatever you want at garage sales, but make sure gamestop splits the money with the developer. As for the publishers....... i wish they could just die in the flames of Anur....... idk the solution to that problem

So you want to set a dangerous precedent so you can hurt Gamestop and it never occurs to you that the dangerous precedent has a much wider reach than just Gamestop.

It will start with Gamestop then move to eBay and Amazon and from there to thrift stores, pawn shops and eventually garage sales. Sort of like how Sony, EA and soon everyone else is adding a "no class action lawsuits" clause to their EULA's because there was a precedent set.

BTW, Gamestop selling used games doesn't screw developers over anymore than me buying a used car screws Ford over.

Ashley Blalock:

Draech:
That is at the heart of this whole problem. Gamestop pissing in the pool sort of speak.

When you go into Gamestop right now you will see a list games on the wall going "Gamestop searches for: *Insert title*". They actively encourage people go buy the game new, play it through and then sell it so that they can sell it used while its attractive. Deus Ex is the most resent example.
You cannot convince me this doesn't have a negative effect on sales of a game, and I understand all the way that publishers want to get rid of this parasite.

To be honest I don't see how that makes Gamestop any different than any other business that sells used things. You wouldn't call a used TV shop evil just because they wanted to buy HD TVs when someone upgraded to 3D instead of advertising they wanting to buy analog TVs. A used car dealer isn't evil because he'd rather try to resell a 2009 Toyota Camry than a 1979 Toyota Camry. A used computer shop isn't evil because they advertise they are looking for used i-Pads rather than used Newtons. But somehow Gamestop is evil because they advertise they would like to buy back the newer hotter games.

I'm also not sure how big this impact of buying back a newer game is.

The big retailers are still likely moving more games than Gamestop so Gamestop is only one small part of the over all business of selling games. I'm sure Wal-Mart sells more games from their discount bin than Gamestop sells used games.

The people who are trading in newer games are likely going to put that credit toward another new game so that keeps them in the new market.

Just because you advertise you are looking for game "X" that doesn't mean people will trade the game in if they are really enjoying it.

I'm also not sure how many gamers are really buying newer titles used at Gamestop if they are only saving $5.

Maybe my local Gamestop is just a weird location but I don't see used games just flying off the shelves, but I do see the place being really busy on release dates with people picking up pre-orders because they know the Wal-Mart will sell out of the hot new game.

I'm not saying there is no cut in new game sells but I don't think publishers are going broke because Gamestop resold a copy of Gears of War 3. A weak economy cutting into the disposable income of gamers seems to be the biggest hurt on the new game market right now.

The main thing is that you cant compare it to TV/cars/whatever because it would be pointless for the consumer to buy the TV and then sell them after a week once they are finished with them. Games dont follow the markets or trends of other products, for the obvious reasons of them being other products. To compare the goods is ridicules. If you are allowed to say "Movies arn't affect by used so it shouldn't affect games" then you are allowed to say "Games arn't affected by ticket sales so it shouldn't affect Movies". The premise is ridicules.

Fact is almost all of Gamestops profits comes from used games. It has a much bigger effect on this particular business than any other business before it.

Draech:

Ashley Blalock:

Draech:
That is at the heart of this whole problem. Gamestop pissing in the pool sort of speak.

When you go into Gamestop right now you will see a list games on the wall going "Gamestop searches for: *Insert title*". They actively encourage people go buy the game new, play it through and then sell it so that they can sell it used while its attractive. Deus Ex is the most resent example.
You cannot convince me this doesn't have a negative effect on sales of a game, and I understand all the way that publishers want to get rid of this parasite.

To be honest I don't see how that makes Gamestop any different than any other business that sells used things. You wouldn't call a used TV shop evil just because they wanted to buy HD TVs when someone upgraded to 3D instead of advertising they wanting to buy analog TVs. A used car dealer isn't evil because he'd rather try to resell a 2009 Toyota Camry than a 1979 Toyota Camry. A used computer shop isn't evil because they advertise they are looking for used i-Pads rather than used Newtons. But somehow Gamestop is evil because they advertise they would like to buy back the newer hotter games.

I'm also not sure how big this impact of buying back a newer game is.

The big retailers are still likely moving more games than Gamestop so Gamestop is only one small part of the over all business of selling games. I'm sure Wal-Mart sells more games from their discount bin than Gamestop sells used games.

The people who are trading in newer games are likely going to put that credit toward another new game so that keeps them in the new market.

Just because you advertise you are looking for game "X" that doesn't mean people will trade the game in if they are really enjoying it.

I'm also not sure how many gamers are really buying newer titles used at Gamestop if they are only saving $5.

Maybe my local Gamestop is just a weird location but I don't see used games just flying off the shelves, but I do see the place being really busy on release dates with people picking up pre-orders because they know the Wal-Mart will sell out of the hot new game.

I'm not saying there is no cut in new game sells but I don't think publishers are going broke because Gamestop resold a copy of Gears of War 3. A weak economy cutting into the disposable income of gamers seems to be the biggest hurt on the new game market right now.

The main thing is that you cant compare it to TV/cars/whatever because it would be pointless for the consumer to buy the TV and then sell them after a week once they are finished with them. Games dont follow the markets or trends of other products, for the obvious reasons of them being other products. To compare the goods is ridicules. If you are allowed to say "Movies arn't affect by used so it shouldn't affect games" then you are allowed to say "Games arn't affected by ticket sales so it shouldn't affect Movies". The premise is ridicules.

Fact is almost all of Gamestops profits comes from used games. It has a much bigger effect on this particular business than any other business before it.

When they say TV I think they mean in terms of DVDs and Blu ray movies. As well as Cd's. It's relatively the same thing, the turn around rate is just as high.

Draech:

Ashley Blalock:

Draech:
That is at the heart of this whole problem. Gamestop pissing in the pool sort of speak.

When you go into Gamestop right now you will see a list games on the wall going "Gamestop searches for: *Insert title*". They actively encourage people go buy the game new, play it through and then sell it so that they can sell it used while its attractive. Deus Ex is the most resent example.
You cannot convince me this doesn't have a negative effect on sales of a game, and I understand all the way that publishers want to get rid of this parasite.

To be honest I don't see how that makes Gamestop any different than any other business that sells used things. You wouldn't call a used TV shop evil just because they wanted to buy HD TVs when someone upgraded to 3D instead of advertising they wanting to buy analog TVs. A used car dealer isn't evil because he'd rather try to resell a 2009 Toyota Camry than a 1979 Toyota Camry. A used computer shop isn't evil because they advertise they are looking for used i-Pads rather than used Newtons. But somehow Gamestop is evil because they advertise they would like to buy back the newer hotter games.

I'm also not sure how big this impact of buying back a newer game is.

The big retailers are still likely moving more games than Gamestop so Gamestop is only one small part of the over all business of selling games. I'm sure Wal-Mart sells more games from their discount bin than Gamestop sells used games.

The people who are trading in newer games are likely going to put that credit toward another new game so that keeps them in the new market.

Just because you advertise you are looking for game "X" that doesn't mean people will trade the game in if they are really enjoying it.

I'm also not sure how many gamers are really buying newer titles used at Gamestop if they are only saving $5.

Maybe my local Gamestop is just a weird location but I don't see used games just flying off the shelves, but I do see the place being really busy on release dates with people picking up pre-orders because they know the Wal-Mart will sell out of the hot new game.

I'm not saying there is no cut in new game sells but I don't think publishers are going broke because Gamestop resold a copy of Gears of War 3. A weak economy cutting into the disposable income of gamers seems to be the biggest hurt on the new game market right now.

The main thing is that you cant compare it to TV/cars/whatever because it would be pointless for the consumer to buy the TV and then sell them after a week once they are finished with them. Games dont follow the markets or trends of other products, for the obvious reasons of them being other products. To compare the goods is ridicules. If you are allowed to say "Movies arn't affect by used so it shouldn't affect games" then you are allowed to say "Games arn't affected by ticket sales so it shouldn't affect Movies". The premise is ridicules.

Fact is almost all of Gamestops profits comes from used games. It has a much bigger effect on this particular business than any other business before it.

Where used sales are concerned, there is no difference.

You may as well be saying "You can't compare cars to games because cars have a steering wheel", it irrelevant because what matters is that you OWN the car and therefore have the right to resell it and the same is true for games, cd's, dvd's, coffee makers, foot massagers, TV's, etc...

I have the right to sell Super Mario Galaxy because I own it. I also have the right to sell Portal 2 because I own it but the DRM prevents that. The right is still there and the DRM is the problem. I think DRM crosses the line when it interferes with the First Sale Doctrine.

Crono1973:

Ledan:

Crono1973:

Your plan would set a terrible precedent. Next thing you know every manufacturer would want a cut of used sales. You can't sell that coffee maker at your garage sale without drawing up paperwork and sending half the money to Black & Decker. You can't sell your car without half going to Ford.

It's a bad idea. No!

Also, sending the money directly to the developers will benefit the publishers as they will simply pay the developers less and let the used sales pick up the slack. In other words, the publishers will end up richer than they are now. Sort of like how employers don't have to pay min wage to people who get tips, same thing would happen here.

Gamestop is NOT a garage sale. What I'm objecting to here is that the retailer can resupply their stock, get money, and screw the developers over.
If you want to sell your copy of deus ex human revolution to your friend for 5 bucks, go ahead. But if you sell it to gamestop for 5 bucks, and they sell it to your friend for 60 $, hasn't something gone wrong somewhere?

My point is: Do whatever you want at garage sales, but make sure gamestop splits the money with the developer. As for the publishers....... i wish they could just die in the flames of Anur....... idk the solution to that problem

So you want to set a dangerous precedent so you can hurt Gamestop and it never occurs to you that the dangerous precedent has a much wider reach than just Gamestop.

It will start with Gamestop then move to eBay and Amazon and from there to thrift stores, pawn shops and eventually garage sales. Sort of like how Sony, EA and soon everyone else is adding a "no class action lawsuits" clause to their EULA's because there was a precedent set.

BTW, Gamestop selling used games doesn't screw developers over anymore than me buying a used car screws Ford over.

Hurt gamestop? No, HELP THE DEVELOPER. Like Taleworlds, or Mojang (if they hadn't had the success of minecraft :P) or xenonauts developer, or the developers of other independent games. They NEED every cent they can get. Otherwise they go bankrupt.

Ford? They have money, and don't need publishers (as far as I know). Taleworlds does.

Precedents..... to me it isn't the same situation. Besides.... all the game discs say "not for resale". Sure, you selling your game to your friend, nobody should care. But when a huge multinational corporation does it? There is something wrong there.
Idk the exact solution for your precedent worry, but i really dont think it is something to worry. BTW, i don't think this whole "you cant sue us" is going to fly. It isn't legal here in Europe.
Bottom line is:the developers need the money. So they can eat, sleep, and make more games for the customer. Especially the indie developers. Idk for the publishers or retailers.

More or less the perfect argument against anyone who argues and accepts otherwise. Nice work Jim hope to see more serious stuff like this.

Ledan:

Crono1973:

Ledan:

Gamestop is NOT a garage sale. What I'm objecting to here is that the retailer can resupply their stock, get money, and screw the developers over.
If you want to sell your copy of deus ex human revolution to your friend for 5 bucks, go ahead. But if you sell it to gamestop for 5 bucks, and they sell it to your friend for 60 $, hasn't something gone wrong somewhere?

My point is: Do whatever you want at garage sales, but make sure gamestop splits the money with the developer. As for the publishers....... i wish they could just die in the flames of Anur....... idk the solution to that problem

So you want to set a dangerous precedent so you can hurt Gamestop and it never occurs to you that the dangerous precedent has a much wider reach than just Gamestop.

It will start with Gamestop then move to eBay and Amazon and from there to thrift stores, pawn shops and eventually garage sales. Sort of like how Sony, EA and soon everyone else is adding a "no class action lawsuits" clause to their EULA's because there was a precedent set.

BTW, Gamestop selling used games doesn't screw developers over anymore than me buying a used car screws Ford over.

Hurt gamestop? No, HELP THE DEVELOPER. Like Taleworlds, or Mojang (if they hadn't had the success of minecraft :P) or xenonauts developer, or the developers of other independent games. They NEED every cent they can get. Otherwise they go bankrupt.

Ford? They have money, and don't need publishers (as far as I know). Taleworlds does.

Precedents..... to me it isn't the same situation. Besides.... all the game discs say "not for resale". Sure, you selling your game to your friend, nobody should care. But when a huge multinational corporation does it? There is something wrong there.
Idk the exact solution for your precedent worry, but i really dont think it is something to worry. BTW, i don't think this whole "you cant sue us" is going to fly. It isn't legal here in Europe.
Bottom line is:the developers need the money. So they can eat, sleep, and make more games for the customer. Especially the indie developers. Idk for the publishers or retailers.

Where on earth does it say not for re-sale. anyway the developer is paid by the publlisher to make a game. That is where they get their goddamned money from. They make good games so they will be able to sell contracts for future successful games. Thought hey occasionally seem like it the publisher and developer are partners for the most of the time. Money does not go straight to the developers the same way when you buy coffe the farmer does not get a cut when itsells as he has already been paid by the shop.

If my wording is confusing then sorrybut you can see what i am getting at.

Hurt gamestop? No, HELP THE DEVELOPER.

There's no difference here, you have specifically said that you want ONLY Gamestop to give half their money to the developers. Not individual sellers on eBay, Amazon or locally, just Gamestop. Would you also rob a bank to help the developer? No, but it's ok to rob Gamestop. Gamestop is conducting legal business and has no obligation to give their money away. The developers already got paid when the game was sold new.

Like Taleworlds, or Mojang (if they hadn't had the success of minecraft :P) or xenonauts developer, or the developers of other independent games. They NEED every cent they can get. Otherwise they go bankrupt.

That's business for you but if Gamestop goes bankrupt from giving half of it's money away, that's ok?

Gamestop has to front the money to buy the used game and they have to pay for their store expenses like utilities and labor so when all is said and done, they are not even making the same amount they would be giving away (unless the developers are going to start paying for Gamestops costs).

Precedents..... to me it isn't the same situation.

How so?

Besides.... all the game discs say "not for resale".

No they don't. The only game discs that I have that say that are free discs like the Zelda Collectors Edition discs that came with a Wind Waker pre-order. Guess what, I bought them used because putting "not for resale" on a disc doesn't have any power over ownership rights.

Sure, you selling your game to your friend, nobody should care. But when a huge multinational corporation does it? There is something wrong there.

No there isn't.

Idk the exact solution for your precedent worry, but i really dont think it is something to worry. BTW, i don't think this whole "you cant sue us" is going to fly. It isn't legal here in Europe.

I think it is something to worry about because the POINT of a precedent is to set a standard for all to follow.

It's funny, you say the "you can't sue us" thing isn't legal in Europe so why can't you understand that here in the US the First Sale Doctrine is more important than the wishes of the publisher/developer?

Bottom line is:the developers need the money. So they can eat, sleep, and make more games for the customer. Especially the indie developers. Idk for the publishers or retailers.

It's not the indie developers fighting used sales, it's the billion-dollar publishers. This "do it for the indie devs" makes no sense to me since indie devs don't usually bitch about used sales or even piracy. I think Notch even said he didn't mind people pirating Minecraft because it gets the game out there and many people will eventually buy it if they like it.

Ariyura:

Draech:

Ashley Blalock:

To be honest I don't see how that makes Gamestop any different than any other business that sells used things. You wouldn't call a used TV shop evil just because they wanted to buy HD TVs when someone upgraded to 3D instead of advertising they wanting to buy analog TVs. A used car dealer isn't evil because he'd rather try to resell a 2009 Toyota Camry than a 1979 Toyota Camry. A used computer shop isn't evil because they advertise they are looking for used i-Pads rather than used Newtons. But somehow Gamestop is evil because they advertise they would like to buy back the newer hotter games.

I'm also not sure how big this impact of buying back a newer game is.

The big retailers are still likely moving more games than Gamestop so Gamestop is only one small part of the over all business of selling games. I'm sure Wal-Mart sells more games from their discount bin than Gamestop sells used games.

The people who are trading in newer games are likely going to put that credit toward another new game so that keeps them in the new market.

Just because you advertise you are looking for game "X" that doesn't mean people will trade the game in if they are really enjoying it.

I'm also not sure how many gamers are really buying newer titles used at Gamestop if they are only saving $5.

Maybe my local Gamestop is just a weird location but I don't see used games just flying off the shelves, but I do see the place being really busy on release dates with people picking up pre-orders because they know the Wal-Mart will sell out of the hot new game.

I'm not saying there is no cut in new game sells but I don't think publishers are going broke because Gamestop resold a copy of Gears of War 3. A weak economy cutting into the disposable income of gamers seems to be the biggest hurt on the new game market right now.

The main thing is that you cant compare it to TV/cars/whatever because it would be pointless for the consumer to buy the TV and then sell them after a week once they are finished with them. Games dont follow the markets or trends of other products, for the obvious reasons of them being other products. To compare the goods is ridicules. If you are allowed to say "Movies arn't affect by used so it shouldn't affect games" then you are allowed to say "Games arn't affected by ticket sales so it shouldn't affect Movies". The premise is ridicules.

Fact is almost all of Gamestops profits comes from used games. It has a much bigger effect on this particular business than any other business before it.

When they say TV I think they mean in terms of DVDs and Blu ray movies. As well as Cd's. It's relatively the same thing, the turn around rate is just as high.

The production cost of movies isn't covered by DVD/Blue-ray sales alone. Same with CD's.

If you took ticket sales from the movie industry you wont be seeing any DVD million dollar productions any time soon.

Lets change the medium to get the point across. "Maintenance cost doesn't affect games therefore it shouldn't affect cars". Again its ridicules. Different factors will affect each medium differently. Even within the same genre each product will have different factors affecting it. To cut everything from the same cloth is oversimplifying it.

Used games have a much bigger effect on the games industry that any other used retailers before it. Its a fact. Im not saying we should make special laws for specific industries. I am saying that as a part of the industry the publishers HAS TO take this into account when deciding how to sell their game. A business model for movies doesn't work for games so they have to change it. And we have to deal with that.

Draech:

Ariyura:

Draech:

The main thing is that you cant compare it to TV/cars/whatever because it would be pointless for the consumer to buy the TV and then sell them after a week once they are finished with them. Games dont follow the markets or trends of other products, for the obvious reasons of them being other products. To compare the goods is ridicules. If you are allowed to say "Movies arn't affect by used so it shouldn't affect games" then you are allowed to say "Games arn't affected by ticket sales so it shouldn't affect Movies". The premise is ridicules.

Fact is almost all of Gamestops profits comes from used games. It has a much bigger effect on this particular business than any other business before it.

When they say TV I think they mean in terms of DVDs and Blu ray movies. As well as Cd's. It's relatively the same thing, the turn around rate is just as high.

The production cost of movies isn't covered by DVD/Blue-ray sales alone. Same with CD's.

If you took ticket sales from the movie industry you wont be seeing any DVD million dollar productions any time soon.

Lets change the medium to get the point across. "Maintenance cost doesn't affect games therefore it shouldn't affect cars". Again its ridicules. Different factors will affect each medium differently. Even within the same genre each product will have different factors affecting it. To cut everything from the same cloth is oversimplifying it.

Used games have a much bigger effect on the games industry that any other used retailers before it. Its a fact. Im not saying we should make special laws for specific industries. I am saying that as a part of the industry the publishers HAS TO take this into account when deciding how to sell their game. A business model for movies doesn't work for games so they have to change it. And we have to deal with that.

You're telling me that movie making isn't million dollar production worth? I'd have to disagree with you there. How much do you think it costs to make those movies? You are exactly saying there should be special laws for specific industries.

Ariyura:

Draech:

Ariyura:

When they say TV I think they mean in terms of DVDs and Blu ray movies. As well as Cd's. It's relatively the same thing, the turn around rate is just as high.

The production cost of movies isn't covered by DVD/Blue-ray sales alone. Same with CD's.

If you took ticket sales from the movie industry you wont be seeing any DVD million dollar productions any time soon.

Lets change the medium to get the point across. "Maintenance cost doesn't affect games therefore it shouldn't affect cars". Again its ridicules. Different factors will affect each medium differently. Even within the same genre each product will have different factors affecting it. To cut everything from the same cloth is oversimplifying it.

Used games have a much bigger effect on the games industry that any other used retailers before it. Its a fact. Im not saying we should make special laws for specific industries. I am saying that as a part of the industry the publishers HAS TO take this into account when deciding how to sell their game. A business model for movies doesn't work for games so they have to change it. And we have to deal with that.

You're telling me that movie making isn't million dollar production worth? I'd have to disagree with you there. How much do you think it costs to make those movies? You are exactly saying there should be special laws for specific industries.

"Im not saying we should make special laws for specific industries."
Is my exact words. And no I am not saying "You're telling me that movie making isn't million dollar production worth?". I am saying DVD's alone isn't worth millions of dollars in production. And I am right. Take away ticket sales and you are already bleeding money there. Take away TV licensing fees for your movies and it gets worse. Take away merchandising that also includes games and DVD's sales looks like nothing.

They set up a business model that allows them to make million dollar productions.

Games are doing the same. As the market changed they change their business model.

i find it hilarious that everyone is so willing to wave around first sale doctrine, and yet..... they don't take into account that it doesn't guarantee services attached to the product. It's called a matchmaking service for that reason.

What a bunch of ill informed cretins. Noone is telling you to 'subsidize' EA games. Funny thing is, you are saying 'subsidize my want for games, by dropping the whole legal grey area question'. First Sale Doctrine in relation to video game has yet to be ruled on. Hell, on any form of computer software.

As for GameStop's practices? they are crappy, and I will be glad for the day that they go belly up. That way I no longer have to subsidize their practice of selling used to morons who can't tell that they are gladly ripping themselves off by dealing with GameStop.

HQ stream isn't working. Please fix. I seem to have this problem every week with the Jimquisition.

How can you people argue that the game industry NEEDS money and used games are taking that NEEDED money when seeing the kind of profits EA makes (other big publishers are making nice profits too I'd wager).

I mean really, the car companies needed help from the government but even they aren't complaining about used car sales but this spoiled industry does it nonstop while growing bigger and bigger and you people defend it. How can you do it with a straight face?

Pandabearparade:
I suppose I differ from Jim in that I don't care whether or not used games harm the developers. At all.

Then any argument we have is pointless, if we don't agree on what the ideal state of the video-game market is, then we cannot discuss in any meaningful way about how to achieve that state.

There's only one thing I want to address, you seem to believe that I somehow like or want to defend all the douche-baggery that EA has made gamers put up with, or all their other stupid decisions.

I don't.

However if a want to defend all the companies that AREN'T staffed exclusively by greedy assholes, then I also have to defend EA.

phreakdb:
i find it hilarious that everyone is so willing to wave around first sale doctrine, and yet..... they don't take into account that it doesn't guarantee services attached to the product. It's called a matchmaking service for that reason.

What a bunch of ill informed cretins. Noone is telling you to 'subsidize' EA games. Funny thing is, you are saying 'subsidize my want for games, by dropping the whole legal grey area question'. First Sale Doctrine in relation to video game has yet to be ruled on. Hell, on any form of computer software.

As for GameStop's practices? they are crappy, and I will be glad for the day that they go belly up. That way I no longer have to subsidize their practice of selling used to morons who can't tell that they are gladly ripping themselves off by dealing with GameStop.

Did you actually read the thread?

No one has said that online passes violated the First Sale Doctrine, we just think online passes are stupid and greedy but they have every legal right to impose fees for online play, it will only hurt them in the end.

First Sale Doctrine allows resale of video games until ruled otherwise. The First Sale Doctrine is inclusive, not exclusive.

Hey buddy let me ask you something. If I buy Super Mario Galaxy II from Gamestop for $34.99 (minus 10%) and you buy it from Wal Mart for $49.99, who got ripped off?

Crono1973:

phreakdb:
i find it hilarious that everyone is so willing to wave around first sale doctrine, and yet..... they don't take into account that it doesn't guarantee services attached to the product. It's called a matchmaking service for that reason.

What a bunch of ill informed cretins. Noone is telling you to 'subsidize' EA games. Funny thing is, you are saying 'subsidize my want for games, by dropping the whole legal grey area question'. First Sale Doctrine in relation to video game has yet to be ruled on. Hell, on any form of computer software.

As for GameStop's practices? they are crappy, and I will be glad for the day that they go belly up. That way I no longer have to subsidize their practice of selling used to morons who can't tell that they are gladly ripping themselves off by dealing with GameStop.

Did you actually read the thread?

No one has said that online passes violated the First Sale Doctrine, we just think online passes are stupid and greedy but they have every legal right to impose fees for online play, it will only hurt them in the end.

First Sale Doctrine allows resale of video games until ruled otherwise. The First Sale Doctrine is inclusive, not exclusive.

Hey buddy let me ask you something. If I buy Super Mario Galaxy II from Gamestop for $34.99 (minus 10%) and you buy it from Wal Mart for $49.99, who got ripped off?

Firstly, I got done playing Super Mario games circa 1991 or so. Secondly, I can be sure that if I buy a game new, I am getting a fresh (hopefully) undamaged product. Thirdly, I can be sure it's not stolen property. Fourthly, I can return my broken new game to Wally world, and exchange it for an equally mint copy. Fifthly, I can be sure that I contributed something to a series of games I find enjoyable (considering I generally only play games that have been proven to be worth it, or that I have played before and personally enjoyed, OR have been recommended by a friend or have been reviewed very well by someone who is actually more worried about a game's quality than whatever little bit of money they can get from a studio for saying it is good). Sixthly, I know my monetary contribution made it into the right 'corporate fatcat' pocket that it belonged in.

All of that taken into consideration, I will reiterate, that I myself am an Independent IT Consultant/Troubleshooter with a very small and loyal client base. While I can hardly afford the time to play a game, those I do play, I research thoroughly, and they all generally fall into simulations/strategy games, and i have probably 3 I have installed and play at any one time (One of my constants is Masters of Orion 2/Galactic Civilizations, another is Civilization series).

Furthermore, I play PC games. You get more out of your money in the way of 'oooooh shiny-flashy'. I mean, assassin's creed on pc vs console is just so much more eye candy (though the gameplay got dull halfway through). I find also that PC games have better support and patches for free. I also don't have a problem with overpriced games, and i can find all of my good old games that i like to play through... good old games. :P

Ok. so I rambled. Anyway, the core thing is, I know my money went where it was supposed to go, and I also know that when I buy new from wal-mart, it is guaranteed new.

Piracy my ass. Used games are FAR from being illegal and it's simply stupid to think otherwise.

phreakdb:

Crono1973:

phreakdb:
i find it hilarious that everyone is so willing to wave around first sale doctrine, and yet..... they don't take into account that it doesn't guarantee services attached to the product. It's called a matchmaking service for that reason.

What a bunch of ill informed cretins. Noone is telling you to 'subsidize' EA games. Funny thing is, you are saying 'subsidize my want for games, by dropping the whole legal grey area question'. First Sale Doctrine in relation to video game has yet to be ruled on. Hell, on any form of computer software.

As for GameStop's practices? they are crappy, and I will be glad for the day that they go belly up. That way I no longer have to subsidize their practice of selling used to morons who can't tell that they are gladly ripping themselves off by dealing with GameStop.

Did you actually read the thread?

No one has said that online passes violated the First Sale Doctrine, we just think online passes are stupid and greedy but they have every legal right to impose fees for online play, it will only hurt them in the end.

First Sale Doctrine allows resale of video games until ruled otherwise. The First Sale Doctrine is inclusive, not exclusive.

Hey buddy let me ask you something. If I buy Super Mario Galaxy II from Gamestop for $34.99 (minus 10%) and you buy it from Wal Mart for $49.99, who got ripped off?

Firstly, I got done playing Super Mario games circa 1991 or so. Secondly, I can be sure that if I buy a game new, I am getting a fresh (hopefully) undamaged product. Thirdly, I can be sure it's not stolen property. Fourthly, I can return my broken new game to Wally world, and exchange it for an equally mint copy. Fifthly, I can be sure that I contributed something to a series of games I find enjoyable (considering I generally only play games that have been proven to be worth it, or that I have played before and personally enjoyed, OR have been recommended by a friend or have been reviewed very well by someone who is actually more worried about a game's quality than whatever little bit of money they can get from a studio for saying it is good). Sixthly, I know my monetary contribution made it into the right 'corporate fatcat' pocket that it belonged in.

All of that taken into consideration, I will reiterate, that I myself am an Independent IT Consultant/Troubleshooter with a very small and loyal client base. While I can hardly afford the time to play a game, those I do play, I research thoroughly, and they all generally fall into simulations/strategy games, and i have probably 3 I have installed and play at any one time (One of my constants is Masters of Orion 2/Galactic Civilizations, another is Civilization series).

Furthermore, I play PC games. You get more out of your money in the way of 'oooooh shiny-flashy'. I mean, assassin's creed on pc vs console is just so much more eye candy (though the gameplay got dull halfway through). I find also that PC games have better support and patches for free. I also don't have a problem with overpriced games, and i can find all of my good old games that i like to play through... good old games. :P

Ok. so I rambled. Anyway, the core thing is, I know my money went where it was supposed to go, and I also know that when I buy new from wal-mart, it is guaranteed new.

1) Irrelevant, Super Mario Galaxy was only an example.

2) True that, I buy new too when the packaging is important to me but it isn't always important to me.

3) This is really a concern for you? As long as you don't steal and you aren't buying it from a thief then that should be good enough for you.

4) You can return an unplayable game to Gamestop too. Even better, you can return a game to Gamestop for any reason in the first 7 days (I think it's 7 days) and get a full refund in the form of a store credit. Try that at Wal Mart. Take back Super Mario Galaxy II, tell them you don't like it and want Black Ops instead.

5) Fair enough but you could also do that by buying the DLC or the sequel on Day one. Happens all the time.

6) Fair enough but this goes back to 5.

Yeah I like PC games more too because of the faster loading times, better graphics and of course, the keyboard and mouse. You can't buy PC games used anymore and that is because those "fatcat" publishers have used DRM to fight the used market and won. They will do the same to the console market if people let them. I would encourage people not to let them.

sleeky01:

Verlander:
I stopped watching this show after a couple of episodes, and thought I'd give it another shot. Wow. Talk about pandering to the stupid masses.

The whole argument here is "they did something bad, so they can't be upset when I do something that seems less bad from my perspective!!". What awful logic. By that train of thought, Josef Fritzl was forgiveable because Hitler was worse.

I feel cheated out of seven minutes of my life listening to an (for want of a better word) "argument" that any 12 year old could successfully obliterate. Thank God I gave up on this show so early on.

I presume you are going to want the additional 30 sec that you took to type this post back as well?

Nah, that was my gift to the public.

Seriously though, such shameless pandering to the whims of self-righteous kids, and people are falling for it!

I fucking burst with all the truth that just got unloaded into me. He is so right, fuck you publishers!

BgRdMchne:
When I saw the Bullfrog logo, I got a little depressed. Then I thought of what EA did to Origin Systems and I cried a little.

On topic: This whole episode was irrelevant to me, as I'm mostly a PC gamer and the industry managed to shut down the used game market there a long time ago.

Also, where I'm from, it's an infraction to put money into someone else's parking meter. Big Bro gets more money from tickets than from the meters.

I feel your pain its just like what happened with Sierra when Vivendi/Activision took over :-(

ImSkeletor:
Thank you Jim for speaking the truth. It ticks me off that people say that I am as bad as people who PIRATE just because I LEGALLY sell my games and buy used games. Am I a bad person if I freaking sell my car to someone after I buy it?

Ford would say so. But I'm on your side!

The problem is that developers get screwed, which irks me, I don't give a fuck about the bottom line of the publishers. This is an idustry where a developer can make one bad game, or at even a decent one, but it has poor marketing, or comes out in a crowded release window, and just because of some stupid reason like that the developers lose a lot of money, and can often get shut down. One game can equal the death of a developer, and in the end that means less risk, less inovation, more grey and brown.

Hitchmeister:
Do more research. You buy a movie ticket and it turns out you don't like it, are you allowed to resell that? No you suck it up and learn to accept that there will be an occasional bomb, and try to learn to avoid them.

The only problem is that when you buy a ticket, you're buying * admittance*, not a copy of a movie. You're buying the privilege to see the movie just once.

When you're buying a copy of a game, you're buying just that. A COPY of a game. You don't own the game, not at all. But you own the copy. And it is your right and decision to so whatever with your possessions.

After all, Possession is 9/10's of the law :)

Anyway, to my point.

I want to ask everyone where does Intellectual Property end and begin? From how I understand it, and it's true I could be wrong, but when you buy a game, cd, book, or even some food with a special recipe that's copyrighted, you're buying an unit derived by the Intellectual Property. You paid money to have access to that unit to do as you wish.

I want to know what makes games so special that their inherent copyrights and IP issues are to be held over all others. Look up "what is IP" according to the United States government. Oh, no matter. I'll link ya.

Now a few of you think that I might have stuck my foot in my mouth with linking that. Especially with the Copyrights there. But you're not reading carefully enough. It protect Authorship. A quick jaunt to dictionary.com, and one will see that Authorship deals with the source or origin of an idea.

So. Me selling a game I bought with legal tender to someone else for whatever reason... might seem not really cool.

Me selling a game that's already been established and saying that I own the rights to it and the characters are mine? That's a problem.

But again, I'm studying Engineering. You lawyers in the room will probably know better.

'This isn't bad because something else is worse' is a weird argument

Hitchmeister:

Inkidu:
Sometimes someone doesn't do enough research or it just doesn't turn out as advertised. So what? I should keep it forever?

Do more research. You buy a movie ticket and it turns out you don't like it, are you allowed to resell that? No you suck it up and learn to accept that there will be an occasional bomb, and try to learn to avoid them.

Really bad comparison. No I don't actually own the movie. I'm paying for the right to watch it.

Chiefly why this is a bad comparison though is it's grossly disproportionate. A movie is at most asking me to invest twelve bucks, and that's if it's 3D, for at most three hours of my time. A game is asking me to invest sixty bucks and anywhere from six to forty hours of my time. That's five times the cost and twice to ten times the time.

All the research in the world can only take you so far. Ideally it's supposed to keep you away from things you don't or may not like. However, when the game is good it's really irksome that it just doesn't mesh with you. It's not even that you buy a crappy game. Sometimes it's good, and it's just something you personally don't like. I mean I love science fiction but I hated Avatar which is generally touted as great. It got good reviews, but it still bored me to tears.

Crono1973:

1) Irrelevant, Super Mario Galaxy was only an example.

2) True that, I buy new too when the packaging is important to me but it isn't always important to me.

3) This is really a concern for you? As long as you don't steal and you aren't buying it from a thief then that should be good enough for you.

4) You can return an unplayable game to Gamestop too. Even better, you can return a game to Gamestop for any reason in the first 7 days (I think it's 7 days) and get a full refund in the form of a store credit. Try that at Wal Mart. Take back Super Mario Galaxy II, tell them you don't like it and want Black Ops instead.

5) Fair enough but you could also do that by buying the DLC or the sequel on Day one. Happens all the time.

6) Fair enough but this goes back to 5.

Yeah I like PC games more too because of the faster loading times, better graphics and of course, the keyboard and mouse. You can't buy PC games used anymore and that is because those "fatcat" publishers have used DRM to fight the used market and won. They will do the same to the console market if people let them. I would encourage people not to let them.

I just realized something. It struck me like a bolt of lightning.

I was cruising through wal mart the other night, and I noticed that some of the games i saw in the 360/ps3 case for 50-60 bucks, were 30-40 for pc. For the same game. With better graphics and everything.

Maybe, the fact that DRM killed the used PC Games sector, allowed them to make the money they wanted. Now, I'm not saying that the price stuck for every game at that, but as the general rule, that's what it was.

Maybe, the lack of a used game market, as well as the lack of having to give everyone a cut off of the game's sale (console company, gamestop shelving fee, etc.) caused this phenomenon to occur?

I dunno. I think there is something there though.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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
Registered for a free account here