this post was submitted on
49 points (67% like it)
93 up votes 44 down votes
shortlink:
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...

48
49

Why are publishers suddenly having a huge bitchfit over used game sales? (self.Games)

submitted ago by [deleted]

I've been buying used products for years. Books, DVD's, you name it. How is this any different, and how could publishers possibly get away with preventing it?

all 119 comments
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old

[–]admiralteal 85 points86 points ago

Because, for the first real time in history, they've been able to seriously do something about it through the magic of digital licenses.

Moral or not, this is undeniably a revenue stream lost for them. It's only natural they'd try to seal the leak.

Don't think for a second that Honda wouldn't do the same thing if they could make a digital license for your Civic.

[–]NotWrongJustAnAsshol 28 points29 points ago*

Honda used to advertise that they have the strongest resale value, though. I haven't seen those ads in a while, but it'd definitely shit all over that sales point.

More related to the subject, though, is, I wonder how people would react if Honda and people who make more traditional goods started using this approach? At some point it will be possible, but will people be willing to buy it? One of the absolutely strangest things to me is how many people seem to think there's nothing wrong with game companies going to great lengths to curb used game sales. Times are tough for people, too. Why should individuals make the sacrifice instead of companies? So strange to me.

[–]kalazar 14 points15 points ago

Honda used to advertise that they have the strongest resale value, though.

Cars are really a different beast, and the analogy doesn't hold up under much scrutiny.

The issue is that most people only own maaaayybee a half dozen cars in their lives. You don't just willy-nilly go buy cars. And the people that buy new cars, are pretty much going to do it regardless. Saying that you have good resale value could easily be the deciding factor. And when your customers only come around once or twice a decade, it's easy to say that used value is strong. Because like the new car buyers, used car buyers are going to buy used. If the fact that they have good resale value sells more new cars, then that's exactly what the want.

[–]NotWrongJustAnAsshol 8 points9 points ago

I see your point, but even if my analogy / point doesn't apply directly to cars, we can apply it to something else like maybe, let's say clothes. I guess you could argue clothes are somewhat different since they're considered a necessity, but by and large most people buy far more clothes than they actually "need" because they do it kind of impulsively. They see something they like, or something cheap, and they buy it. They go to thrift stores to find vintage stuff (apparently that's all the rage now).

Like software, clothes are covered by a lot of patents and IP (logos, shapes and cuts, even colors). I wonder how people would feel about not being able to buy / sell used clothes? Or, regarding anything that anyone tends to collect and buy willy-nilly? I think the software example sets a bad precedent. The argument people usually make is that you "never really own the software." But, that can work with pretty much any item in the world. "You never really own the shirt. You just bought a license to keep that one in your possession." There's absolutely no reason clothing companies can't make a claim like that, as far as I know. And even if they don't have a legal basis for saying something like that now, they can more than likely lobby enough to create one. I think if the software industry successfully moves toward destroying used sales, and consumers are receptive, it will set a very bad precedent for all other markets.

[–]Cyberdogs7 1 point2 points ago

Clothes degrade though. How many people would buy new clothes if they lasted forever?

[–]Setiri 12 points13 points ago

Software degrades in its' own way. Very few people in this world are still pirating Windows 3.1

[–]genericgamer 8 points9 points ago

time to pirate windows 3.1 just for the sake of it.

[–]Cyberdogs7 5 points6 points ago

Very true.

[–]Jamcram -2 points-1 points ago

Because its exactly that. It stems from the nature of capitalism. If clothing companies could make more money selling licenses they would, and it would be legal. (although I doubt they would be able to enforce it legally) You can only say its immoral because clothing is a necessity, but you can't say that about entertainment. If that's their terms and you agree by buying the product how is it unfair?

[–]NotWrongJustAnAsshol 6 points7 points ago

I'm not necessarily arguing one way or another that it's unfair or fair. I understand that it's generally in the EULA. I try as best I can to stray away from services or companies that actively restrict used sales, because I personally don't like it. My fear, though, is that most people seem to be perfectly fine with it. And, if most people are personally fine with it regarding video games, it will -- almost definitely -- eventually spread to other goods and services (as well as to the entire video game market). And that's going to really suck for me. And probably not just for me. I think that probably a lot of people will realize too late that these restrictions aren't as good of deal as they thought they were.

We've already got services like Steam which don't allow account transfers or sharing under any circumstances. If you read their agreement, you're not even allowed to share an account with your wife or kids. Not only that, you can't transfer an account. They make very clear that the account belongs, forever, to the person that made it, and it's not to be shared. So you can't give your game collection to your kids like we see all these people doing now with their old NES's and whatnot. I don't necessarily think it's unfair. I'm just convinced that if people really thought about it, they'd realize those aren't the kind of restrictions they want. They're certainly not the kinds of restrictions I want on my games. And, if those are the kinds of restrictions people are willing to accept now, how bad will it be in 10 years?

[–]Toastlove 0 points1 point ago

At the same time though there is absolutly nothing to stop you from sharing your steam account with people. My brother somtimes uses mine from New Zealand.

[–]NotWrongJustAnAsshol 0 points1 point ago

Ultimately, yes, it's just a rule. But I don't think I should have to break the rules to let my wife use my account, or give it to my kids when they're old enough to appreciate games.

[–]HuggableBear 1 point2 points ago

Yeah, but even with half a dozen cars, the manufacturers/dealerships are still trying to get the used business for themselves by selling "certified pre-owned" cars, which are exactly the same as one from a reputable used car dealer like CarMax or whatever, but cost 3 grand more because they're coming out of a dealership again.

This doesn't even count the ridiculously heavy emphasis they are putting on leasing cars nowadays, which is almost exactly like a digital license. You get to use the car but you never actually own it.

[–]Clumpy 0 points1 point ago

Hmm. Honda could add "premium" discount oil and tire changes which only apply to the original owner. I'd better shut up before they get ideas...

[–]pbaus 1 point2 points ago

It does work differently for cars, but I can see why EA selling online access makes sense, though.

Using the car analogy: Honda can push its strong resale value, because that gets customers into dealerships. Sell your old Honda, get a new one! And if you're the buyer, buying used is (generally) cheaper than buying new, and the dealership wins because it can sell you maintenance packages, additional warranties, any other addons. The dealer gets all that money, but the more money the dealership gets, the more cars they can buy from Honda.

I don't understand why people are railing against having to buy online access, honestly. It seems like a good way for the publisher to make money on a used sale. Don't like multiplayer? Then you aren't having to pay anyways.

[–]NotWrongJustAnAsshol 0 points1 point ago

I'm opposed to both online passes and the one-time-unlock passes (like Catwoman in Arkham City or the sewers in Rage). Part of the reason for this is that at some point, those developers and publishers will all be defunct, and there will be no more new copies of the games to buy. At that point, no one can access the content that was locked behind a one-time pass without pirating it. So, basically, on the subject of preserving our "digital heritage", these kinds of restrictions very strongly go against it. Even if we manage to preserve the discs for 100 years, the only way to play the additional content is going to be if someone has tucked away a crack for it. That seems like a poor idea, long term.

[–]cerialthriller 1 point2 points ago

yeah, but Honda still makes a lot of money on their overpriced replacement parts. Games don't really wear out over time and by the time they do, they are out of print anyway. The Car to video game analogy doesn't work.

[–]NotWrongJustAnAsshol 0 points1 point ago

Suppose my neighbor buys a brand new Honda (or Toyota or whatever), and two months later he has serious financial trouble and he sells it to me for a loss. Now, I have a used car -- none of the money I paid for my car went to the dealer. But, it's not really a used car. It's pretty much a new car. Very, very little wore out on that car in the 2 months he owned it, and it still has a manufacturer warranty, so I won't have to pay for parts or labor for most problems for nearly 3 years still. Yet, absolutely none of that money I paid went to Honda. This "new" car has now had two owners, only one of which paid Honda any money at all. How is this type of scenario, as far as the manufacturer is concerned, drastically different from someone buying a brand new game, beating it in 2 months, and then trading it in? Should some of my money have gone to Honda?

[–]cerialthriller 0 points1 point ago

the difference is that the car will eventually at some point need repairs. It doesn't matter if you are paying for it or the guy you sell it to. When that car is 6 or 8 or 10 years old, its probably going to start generating money for Honda again. There is always potential for Honda to make money off of that car. Once a video game leaves the publishers hands, they will never see another dime for that disc again. Even if the Honda is totaled before it needs repairs, there is now one less car in the system and a new one needs to be made to replace it. Video game developers only make money when new units need to enter the market. Honda makes money on new units and old units that are deteriorating. Also, if your neighbor sells his new Honda to you at a loss, he probably still needs a car, just one that is more affordable for him. He may go buy an older Honda that will need repairs very soon.

[–]NotWrongJustAnAsshol 0 points1 point ago

I see the point you're making, but I feel there are a couple of issues. One is that just because a car needs repairs, doesn't mean Honda gets any money from the repairs. I work on my own cars, and I often but aftermarket parts since I've found the quality is generally sufficient and the price is much better. So, Honda makes no money on either the labor or the parts in that case. I understand for a lot of people this isn't the case, but should I have to pay more for my cars because Honda won't be making nearly as much (or maybe no) money on parts and labor for my used car?

Additionally, if you're not happy with the car comparison, we can think of numerous items that do last essentially forever which require no repair. A friend of mine has some cast-iron cookware that he got from his grandmother. We don't know where his grandmother got it from, but we figure it's probably 80 or 100 years old or so. Still works fine. In fact, it's a little better than new, because at this point the seasoning is so thick that you can scrub that thing like there's no tomorrow and not risk exposing the metal. So, it's actually, in my and his eyes, a little better than new, and it hasn't and mostly like won't need any parts or repair other than trivial maintenance he performs himself. Should he, in this scenario, have paid the manufacturer again? Basically, is there any physical item which you believe the manufacturer should be paid again for used sales, or is this just with video games? I contend that, for all intents and purposes, cast-iron cookware ages as gracefully as video games, and is pretty much just as likely to require parts as videogames.

An additional thing to think about is the manufacturer of the DVDs that video games come on. If a copy of Arkham City for 360 works in 100 years, it's in large part due to the efforts of the company that actually manufactured the DVD. Where do they fit in? Do they get a cut of the used money?

[–]cerialthriller 0 points1 point ago

thats not my point at all. The point is valid though that when someone buys a used video game, the developers/publishers just lost a potential sale. I don't see a problem with developers trying to find a way to negate the loss. You haven't been able to sell used PC games for a decade. Which don't get me wrong, I think that's bullshit. But it's hard to say that you can't see where they are coming from when there is a company making billions of dollars off of your industry and putting nothing back into it.

[–]NotWrongJustAnAsshol 0 points1 point ago

My point is that when I buy a used car, a used cast-iron skillet, etc, those people lost a sale also, and they're all kind enough to not demand money from me. Hell, if I buy a used 360 game, the company that presses the DVDs lost a sale, too. I understand where they're coming from, but I can't understand why game companies feel more entitled than anyone else does, and I can't understand why people are more willing to give in to their sense of entitlement than they are with other goods and services. That's the point I was trying to make. When you really break it down, there are things that, akin to video games, essentially last forever and never need parts or repair. Many companies that sell those goods have been doing so for hundreds of years, all the while allowing used sales and not whining about it. I can't understand why video game makers act like they're the first people to ever suffer from used sales, and I can't understand why they think they should be the first to be entitled to some type of resolution.

I agree. Not being able to sell used PC games is complete horse shit.

[–]cerialthriller 0 points1 point ago

Do you really think that if car companies and skillet companies could restrict used sales they wouldn't?

[–]NotWrongJustAnAsshol 0 points1 point ago

No, I think they would. I think that's the danger we're running if we start accepting these kinds of restrictions. At some point (probably already), it will be technically possible to restrict sales of these other items similarly to video games. Pretty soon, we can't buy or sale anything used. That's why I think consumers need to reject these kinds of restrictions for the aggressive money grabs that they are.

[–]TinynDP -2 points-1 points ago

Because Companies are made of individuals too. Individuals who lose their job if the game doesn't sell enough new copies. (used sales don't count) Individuals who can look at their game's Xbox Live numbers and see that twice as many gamertags have played their game than copies were printed, but management says they didn't make their sales numbers, and the division is being shut down and everyone is laid off.

As for individuals sacrificing, its a game. You don't need a game like you need food. If you can't support the developer who made the game, you don't get to play the game. Buying used doesn't support the developer.

Further, the group that does profit from used sales is the used retailer. (usually GameStop, though other places are getting in on the market). What right does the retailer have to profit so much from someone else's work? I'm not talking about the existing laws, I know them. I mean morally. The developer or publisher assumed the up-front risk of paying years of salaries to developers to develop the game, and the developers contributed the creative effort and talent to create the game. That gives them the moral claim to any profit generated from the game. The used game retailer invests a tiny amount to buy used copies from gamers, and flips the used discs for a rather huge margin. Its obviously good business to the used retailer, but they have no moral right to that profit at the expense of the original developer. (Yes, there is an assumption that used sales map directly to lost new sales. Any used sale that occurs within the first few months of a games release, where the used sale price is within $5-10 of the original price, is pretty obviously a lost new sale. Used sales that occur years later, at a vast discount, are not really the same thing, and are far less reprehensible. )

re: Honda. The car companies can't stop used sales, so they might was well use 'high resale' as a selling point. If they had a way to shut down used sales, they would do it in a minute, and the 'high resale' selling point be damned.

[–]MBuddah 3 points4 points ago

if i couldn't buy used cars any more, i'd just download one.

[–]furyofvycanismajoris 12 points13 points ago

Moral or not, this is undeniably a revenue stream lost for them.

This is arguable.

Games have very highly elastic demand. Look at Steam sales. They say if they discount a game to 75% off, revenue goes up 400% (meaning units sold goes up 1600%).

If a company could sell a game for 60 dollars to anyone willing to pay it, and 40 dollars to anyone not willing to pay 60, and 30 to those not willing to pay 40, they would make FAR more money.

They can't do that directly, but used game sales perform some of that function. If you are willing to put in a little bit of effort, a 60 dollar game will only cost you 40, because you'll sell it back later. Most people will still pay 60 for it and keep it forever, but some of the people who would only pay 40 are now willing to buy the game.

Okay, so the bogus logic goes that we picked up some additional sales at 60 bucks, but they wipe out another 60 bucks when they are resold, so they don't really count, and to top it off, some of the people who were willing to pay 60 are going to resell it, too.

This is the same logic that equates one pirated copy with one lost sale. It's simply not true. The huge price elasticity of demand that Steam has demonstrated with their sales tells us that a large number of people who are willing to wait and buy a game at 40 dollars would never buy it at 60.

The economics behind used game sales more poorly understood than piracy, and developers and publishers respond to it in much the same way: By harming their products, possibly to their own detriment.

That said, I won't actually claim that used game sales are good for developers. It's possible the numbers work out that way, and it's possible they don't. It's very hard to know for sure, but I do know that the damages are greatly overstated whenever it's assumed that a used game sale is a lost sale.

I'll also note that there is a tragedy of the commons here, my comments apply to the effect on the entire industry. It may well be that a company would benefit from being the only company whose games aren't reusable. You benefit from others' used game sales when someone has 40 bucks in their pocket and somebody else's game to resell, but you don't provide that service back to the rest of the industry.

[–]cerialthriller 2 points3 points ago

this already happens with new games though. If you wait 1-2 months after a game comes out, its usually already down to $40 in stores, especially if its a game that doesn't revolve around online play.

[–]ColdSpiral 0 points1 point ago

You'd make a few good points here, but you've overlooked the basic reason why publishers are trying to phase out used sales: when you buy a preowned game, the money goes to the retailer and no further. It doesn't matter how many used units you sell at how many different price points, the publisher - let alone the developer - won't see a cent. So no, it's not arguable, it's fairly clear. If GameStop etc. had to pay a percentage of each used game sale back to the publisher, you would have made a good argument (but there'd be no issue with used sales). It's not the case, though, which is why used games are such a central point of their business.

[–]General_Mayhem 1 point2 points ago

I think you should reread his post. It doesn't matter that the publisher doesn't get any of the used sale, because they were never going to get that money anyway if the guy buying the used game wasn't willing to pay full retail price for it. I know that's true for me - if I have to pay $60 for every game, I'll just stop playing new games.

[–]ColdSpiral -1 points0 points ago

if I have to pay $60 for every game, I'll just stop playing new games.

Try moving to Australia. $60 for a new title is a bargain here. Console releases are usually twice that; new PC games are released at ~$80. Our exchange rate & cost of living is pretty much even right now.

On topic, getting a used game for a substantial discount is different to the current used markdown on new releases. I don't see $5 - $10 difference between new and used to be that much of a price drop, especially if a) I can support the devs, and b) I wind up with a bunch of extra content, such as Amalur's extra quest line, or Mass Effect 2's Cerberus network. If GameStop etc. didn't have used titles, I'm sure that the majority of gamers would be fine paying the release price (the pricing system itself being entirely broken, though, is something I agree with the previous post about. Then again, it's likely that the publishers are attempting to recoup profits lost from used sales, and in A Sane World* would be more flexible with pricing if they didn't have to compete).

It's a double-edged sword, though. I'm a retailer too; I work in a bookstore. The book industry in Australia is even more broken than games. We have to compete with offshore companies selling books for less than our cost price, with free shipping. Our running costs loom over us every single day. We often buy titles in deals to get an extra 10% margin, but we still generally have less than 45% markup on our books. From what I understand the markup on games is even lower, so I can sympathise with GameStop etc.. If books were normally undamaged by reading, like games, then yeah, we'd probably buy them back at 20% and sell them a bit cheaper than a new copy. But that would impact on our new sales, meaning we'd have to buy less from the publisher, and would likely be eligible for less of the deals and promos we currently enjoy.

*i.e. not going to happen.

[–]StormtrooperMario 2 points3 points ago

The thing about it though, is this. For the longest time, most used sales came from OLD games, retro games. Now, I'm not saying that there was never used games from systems in their hay day, but it's only because of the recession/depression, that things have really hit companies hard.

People will see a new game be slightly used and be 5 bucks cheaper. Of course they're going to buy used, they save a few bucks. The more educated gamer may be cautious due to the quality of the disk, but that's besides the point.

The game industry has been on the decline in year over year sales. Don't let all that "COD SOLD TUNZ U STUPID!" fill your head. If you look at the sales figures, they don't lie. And it's not because of the consoles' age either. The market is contracting, and the game companies either DON'T want to find out what the real problem is (the games suck, nickel and diming, releasing a bare bones edition, only to sell the "complete edition" two months later), and instead, have an easier scape goat.

I've found little to few games these days to hold my interest. I've invested more in tracking down older games via GOG.com, Steam Sales, and finishing my somewhat slim Super NES collection (All I need is Super Mario Allstars and World in one cartridge).

[–]Ilktye 1 point2 points ago

Because, for the first real time in history, they've been able to seriously do something about it through the magic of digital licenses.

First time? For example, Valve has been doing this since 2004, everyone seems pretty happy about it. Oh look sales!

[–]crossbrowser 0 points1 point ago

A crucial difference between selling a used car and a used video game is that the old car will not perform as well as a new one, but the old game will. With the digital license they are artificially crippling the game.

[–]jts4470 0 points1 point ago*

While most people and companies are greedy bastards in their own ways, the biggest distinction I see between entertainment content and your example is that vehicles essentially only provide value while they are possessed and that value is naturally maintained for a scale of years. Most games, movies, and even books and music dramatically drop in the amount of user interest they hold upon subsequent re-experience.

Once you've played through a single-player game, watched a movie, or read a book, you've likely already consumed the majority of enjoyment from that product you ever will. (I think music and DVD purchases are filtered through selection bias because purchasers will have already experienced the material in some venue.) A car, or an appliance like a washing machine, is something that needs to be available essentially every day, and high retail prices are amortized over longer useful lives.

Games are in the bad position of being generally priced above impulse purchase range for most consumers while not generally offering much longevity. PC games on distribution networks like Steam have lower reseller overhead than physical retail (~30% vs. ~70% I hear) and no platform fees like for MS/Sony, so elastic demand curves can be more profitably explored. For example, I can buy titles 8-12 months after anyone else cares about them, and I won't feel angry if they disappoint or even if I just don't have time to play them.

Yes, companies are bastards, but I think your point has some drastic oversights in how different market segment operate.

[–]FrankManic 0 points1 point ago

It is not natural. It is a reprehensible abomination.

[–]jts4470 19 points20 points ago

It seems to me that Gamestop's actions might be the single largest reason for this. They aggressively pressure customers to purchase used copies of games over new copies as well as to trade in used copies as quickly as possible. This means that brand new games are effectively being forced to compete in the market against used copies that very likely would have stayed in consumers' game libraries otherwise.

My personal examples from this holiday season were buying Skyward Sword at release (US$50), receiving emails for special "limited time" trade-in offers for the same game not two weeks later ($25 maybe?), and seeing used copies on-shelf in that same time frame not very much discounted over new copies ($45?). Whenever I've gone in to buy a game more than a week or two past the release date, I get tons of pressure to buy a used copy. It may not be entirely rational, but I just feel that my finances aren't so tight that I need to shaft the developers out of any money while seeing all the profits go solely to Gamestop. This seems to me an almost pure parasitic relationship at present, and I would hate Gamestop quite dearly were I a publisher.

[–]faschwaa 1 point2 points ago

My problem with this is that Gamestop causes problems, and the publishers act against consumers. Sure, Gamestop might get hit, too, but the bomb's falling on us.

[–]BigTomH 13 points14 points ago

You can buy used books, sure, but your local Waterstones doesn't sell used books. It doesn't stick them at the front of the store and bury the new ones at the back. A used book tends to be a dog eared old thing someone cleared out when they moved house. A used game is functionaly no different from a new one, and is often only fractionaly cheaper.

Game stores, on the other hand, agressively push used stock over new ones. Trying their level best to get people to trade things is as fast as possible in order to re-sell the same item multiple times in order to turn maximum profit without giving a penny to the publishers or developers. They under-order new games so that they can push the used version instead.

Basically, retailers were too aggressive in how hard they pushed used content. They already dictated the market (the 'PC gaming is dead' myth is largely pushed by retailers, and then parroted by publishers as a consequence, as are pre-order exclusives), but they were basically completely dicking the publishers over and then expecting to be thanked for the priveledge.

Publishers grew to despite this, but they didn't have any way to fight it. Now that digital distribution is so commonplace, they can. They don't have to dance to the retailer's tune, so they're getting their own back.

Honestly, I'm on the publisher's side on this one. Retail power is bad for the industry, it stunts creativity and promotes conservatism. I always buy my games new, because I want my money to go to the developers, not to prop up a glorified pawnshop.

[–]pikpikcarrotmon 20 points21 points ago

I don't really ever appreciate rights management garbage, but I think this new crusade against used games is actually based in reality and far more justified than the crusade against piracy. Someone who downloads a a game could have any number of reasons for doing it - they don't want to pay, they can't pay, they want to try the game - and none of these things directly mean lost profits, while someone who buys a used game for $5-10 less than a new game was absolutely willing to pay money for the product and chose to give that money to a party that is completely separate from the publisher and developers. To me that's clearly a lost sale.

I can see a logical argument being made against piracy as a moral issue, but it is not the cancer killing the industry that the big businesses want us to believe. GameStop on the other hand is an enormous leech that's directly sucking profits away from the publishers. I honestly don't know if I agree or disagree with the idea of blocking used games. I mean, I am a Steam user and none of the games in my library can ever be traded, but the idea of limiting a physical copy does bother me.

The big issue of course is that when resale is removed from the picture, perceived value plummets. A console game can go for $60 new because there's this unstated implication that the buyer can later sell it for $30-40. After purchasing it, even if the initial buyer never trades or sells it, it has monetary value. On the other hand, a digital license can never be transferred and therefore is worthless beyond the value of the entertainment offered to that initial buyer.

I am curious to see how this turns out on the Xbox 720. They may find that people are unwilling to pay $60 for a one-use license and be forced to adopt the PC model of dropping prices quickly after release and offering enormous sales on older games. Will that mean net losses or net profits? Who can say?

[–]faschwaa 1 point2 points ago

There's no denying why the game industry doesn't like used sales, but that doesn't make it right to push day 1 DLC on us and try to deny us the ability to buy used if we can't afford new games. On top of that, when's the last time you saw a new copy of, say, Final Fantasy VII? Their argument falls apart at the seams a few years after the game is released.

[–]kahoona 1 point2 points ago

Day 1 DLC has nothing to do with used games though; unless it is offered for free when purchasing a new copy of the game. That DLC is also not denying you the ability to buy a used game, just not the entire package if bought brand new. The way I see it, you don't pay full price for the game so you don't get the full game. Why should you be rewarded for not giving the developers / publishers a dime and giving all of your money to Gamestop when they had no part in creating the game?

Final Fantasy VII is over a decade old, that is more than 'a few years after the game is released'. I bet you can find launch date games from this cycle of consoles that are brand new and in the wrapping pretty easily and not for ludicrous prices.

[–]faschwaa 0 points1 point ago

unless it is offered for free when purchasing a new copy of the game

I was referring to EA's "Project Ten Dollars," which is exactly this. That's also not what I meant by denying the ability to buy used games - that referred to the rumors about the next Xbox. If that pans out, it absolutely means that after about a decade, it will be nearly impossible to find a majority of that console's games offline. I'm not okay with that. Every industry needs to deal with used sales. Just because video games are newer doesn't mean they should be exempt.

[–]kahoona 0 points1 point ago

As of right now, those rumors are still...well, rumors. They haven't been confirmed in any way yet so I don't lend much credibility to them. Unless the big three collaborated and put anti-used game sales features in all of their consoles, Microsoft's console would be shoved aside for the other two.

Also, my point still stands. Didn't pay full price for the game? You shouldn't expect to get the full package. In my eyes, "Project Ten Dollar" is perfectly legitimate considering it IS available for free if you merely pay the people who make it rather than the retailer.

It isn't about the maturity of video games that is the issue with used game sales. Video games are much more expensive than both music and movies which gives them better resale value currently.

Besides, PC games have had anti-used sales measures in them for more than a decade now and people don't complain about those. Why should it be any different on consoles?

[–]faschwaa 0 points1 point ago

Think about text books. Publishers of text books, which are as or more expensive than video games, absolutely despise used sales. If they added online components of the book that you couldn't access if you bought it used, would that be okay? I don't know, judging by your arguments so far, you might actually be okay with that. Here's my two biggest concerns:

Gamestop is really the problem, here. They offer unfair prices for buying and selling because they don't have any really major competition for the used games trade. The publishers are upset about it, and they point the finger at Gamestop, but their measures hit the consumers. It's maybe not the same, but a really similar issue as DRM.

Second, if we lose the ability to trade used games, we lose a significant chunk of cultural history. Games are part of our culture, and if it becomes impossible to play a used game, it's likely that a lot of games will eventually be completely lost. A lot more than would happen otherwise. Maybe it's because I'm married to an archivist, but that doesn't sit well with me. I'm sure you're right, and the next Xbox won't end up having that "no used games" feature, but the fact that publishers would definitely want is alarming to me.

[–]kahoona 0 points1 point ago

Many textbooks already have extra online material that you get by entering a key that comes with them.

[–]faschwaa 0 points1 point ago

Wow, that sucks. I'll bet there's some outcry at that, too. Publishers have dealt with used sales since the advent of selling stuff, and it hasn't broken the market. In fact, it's given access to more people. They have an opportunity to crush it on the horizon, but I'm very concerned about the things that would be crushed in the crossfire. I'm starting to see video games at libraries, and that's fucking awesome. I want that to continue, and nixing used sales would prevent that. If it spreads to movies, books, and music, libraries would be in even more danger. Can we at least agree that that's not cool?

[–]domcolosi 1 point2 points ago

Does it?

There's a new copy of Final Fantasy VII right here.

You don't need a used copy. You don't even need a PSX!

[–]faschwaa 1 point2 points ago

Okay, maybe it was a bad example, but the point still stands. What if I want to play it on a PSX? What if I want to play a more obscure game that hasn't been ported or remade? Without used games (or piracy), it would be damn near impossible.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

OK, so ... today Reddit has been weird for me, I'm seeing various articles that are complementing eachothers information. One article says this, another says that.

http://technologizer.com/2012/01/23/why-history-needs-software-piracy/

And yes, I totally agree, without used game sales, we are forfeiting control to the publishers again, helping them effectively dictate pricing aggressively.

[–]darkstar3333 10 points11 points ago*

Its been an issue for 5 years.

Over the course of 5 years gamestop has posted massive consecutive quarterly gains in revenue. Quarter over quarter you can see the increase in used game sales at the expense of new game sales.

From 2011 Q3 Earnings Summary "Total company comparable store sales were -0.6%, primarily impacted by lower than expected sales of new software. GameStop's digital sales showed continued strength, increasing 59%, with console digital growing 63% and PC digital growing 51%. Pre-owned sales increased 3.1%."

That's a 3.7% drop in sales going back to the industry that quarter alone.

In some cases GameStop now makes more money then the publishers and assumes 0 risk. THQ is looking pretty rough these days and is in danger of going under in the next 5 years.

See for yourself, this financial data is open to the public by law.

[–]ozuri 1 point2 points ago

5 years? Hah. I think you are exceedingly generous.

[–]sime 0 points1 point ago

Where is that 3.7% figure coming from?

[–]darkstar3333 0 points1 point ago

Pre-owned sales increased 3.1%... store sales were -0.6%...of new software

-3.1 + -0.6 = -3.7

[–]sime -1 points0 points ago

Sorry, your math is nonsense. Expressed algebraically this is what you said:

p=pre-owned sales
n=new sales

-0.031p - 0.006n = -0.037???

So that is -3.7% of what exactly? We don't know the values of p & n, so we can't say what combined loss in sales was.

[–]darkstar3333 0 points1 point ago

Its -0.6% of X and +3.1% of X...

Regardless of X it represents a -3.7% change for new sales which reinforces my point.

[–]Surprise_Buttsecks 0 points1 point ago

At least a little bit longer than 5yrs. Mark Rein) has been talking about wanting to receive royalties on used game transactions since 2005.

[–]JayDecay 3 points4 points ago

I wouldn't mind giving all the money to the developers if they drastically lowered the price of a game after it was a year or so old, like what used game retailers do. When you buy a used game when it's recently been released, you only usually save about $5 anyways.

Developers make the majority of their profits when for a game when it's first released, anyways. I think it's bullshit that you have to pay more the $20 for a game that's 2 years old, that isn't really bringing any substantial revenue to the company at all. Also, digital copies of a game should always be at least $10 cheaper than the physical copy.

[–]son-of-chadwardenn 3 points4 points ago

I do see a lot of (non used) games drop in price a while after release. Go look at popular games that are a couple of years old on Amazon, see how many are well under $60 for an unused copy. Arkham Asylum for 360 is only 17 bucks new on Amazon right now.

[–]darkstar3333 0 points1 point ago

6-8 weeks in general, this prevents people from buying the game day 1 and price adjusting it to the sale price a month later. You can however buy it week 3-4 and get the adjustment and save yourself 30%+.

I pre-ordered Skyrim for $25 off so you can save money if your a smart consumer. RSS Feeds... RSS Feeds...

[–]Ralith 2 points3 points ago

I wouldn't mind giving all the money to the developers.

I do mind giving all the money to the publishers.

[–]Jamcram 2 points3 points ago

I think the problem with this is if you buy 6 10$ you are going to be satisfied and not buy a new game for longer than if you buy 3 20$ games.

[–]shinbreaker 6 points7 points ago

It's a combination of a lot of factors. I think the key thing is that the amount of publishers are dwindling to several big time publishers. As the case with when there's less competition, those in charge want to start cutting down on anything that is taking away from their profits.

In the 80s when gaming was all about the NES, Nintendo tried to take down video game rentals and the Game Genie because they viewed it as hurting their profit margin. Same thing here and sadly, the publishers are going about the path of least resistance or at least the path with the least amount of work for them to do. I mean the online passes right now may suck, but is it really stopping people from buying the game? If anything, it's making a decision for most people that why bother getting it used when you can get it new and not worry about anything. See the other paths require work on their end. Hell if Valve didn't have Steam, they may been right there with other publishers bitching about used game sales. They had to revolutionize selling videogames thus they are thriving for it. A lot of game companies don't want to go that route because of lack of resources, patience of the stockholders, or lack of expertise.

The other thing is actually having a sit down with Gamestop to work on some sort of deal. Back when DAT came out, the music industry was pissed that someone could record CD quality audio on the go, so they worked it so that a tax would be implemented on the sales of machines and blank tapes that would go to them. I mean hell, with as little publishers there are out there, all they need to do is band together and tell Gamestop that they're not shipping them games until they come up with a deal. But again, this is another path that requires too much work on their part, hence, taking the easy way out by putting it on the consumers.

The music and movie industry had their way of handling similar problems. The music industry went the path of least resistance really getting on the consumer by overdoing certain records, adding anti-pirating onto discs that would screw things up, and the whole suing people that were hardly pirates. All in all, it made them look like dicks. The movie industry, on the other hand, had companies that were all about providing consumers with movies in new ways such as Netflix, Videos on Demand, and other services. Hell, people have become huge movie buffs lately. I've never seen so many people actually watch documentaries, but on Netflix, it's a popular category. Of course, the movie industry showed their dickish side by really pushing SOPA, reminding everyone that they want more of your money.

[–]chubb001 2 points3 points ago

The problem with used games is that retailers such as Gamestop in the US and Game in UK started abusing the shit out of the used game market. These retailers make a killing off the second hand market which the publishers/developers dont get any cut of. Its not fair that these retailers scrounge off the developers hard work so i find it completely fustifiable to have a "online pass" so they can get at least some money out of the sale.

The only time I ever buy used is when a game is no longer being made and a used copy is the only way i can get it.

However, there is a big problem with these online passes in that in 10 years time the online service wont be there anymore and youll be left with a stipped down version of the game.

[–]LotusBunny 4 points5 points ago

Let's regulate everything we don't like!

[–]StManTiS 4 points5 points ago

Well the thing about media businesses is that they need to be seen as changing. When the stock holders ask, "well we're spending more money, but how do we get more money out of it?" The CEO or whoever needs an answer. Currently pirates and used games are those scapegoats. And some sort of cobbled together action is being taken for the sake of action.

[–]mbm7501 5 points6 points ago

Well you are kidding yourself if you don't think used games and pirating take away from game sales. It's pretty simple. When gamestop sells a used game the dev's get 0% profit. (Obviously same with piracy).

[–]mistersillybutts 2 points3 points ago

Times are tough right now, they need to maximize profits.

[–]Ralith 5 points6 points ago

Yeah, Activision and EA sure are bordering on bankruptcy.

[–]darkstar3333 1 point2 points ago

Nor is GameStop

THQ however is not doing so hot.

[–]mistersillybutts 0 points1 point ago

they need to maximize profits.

[–]PowderblueKes 0 points1 point ago

With the sheer quantity of studios that both publishers have under their umbrellas, there's even more danger of a single year of less income causing massive issues.

[–]herp_derpingham 6 points7 points ago

THEY WANT MORE MONEY.

if you don't boycott* this bullshit, it will become the norm. there's also apologists who feel they need to defend giant corporations for their anti-consumer decisions.

just think about it on your own terms. does any other industry impose these restrictions on used items?

it's really just a stopgap for now. once digital distribution becomes the norm these money hungry publishers will never have to worry about used games ever again. so they'll win this battle, they'll win it all, because money talks.

*also is it really boycotting if you're just genuinely turned off by ~90% of games coming out nowadays?

[–]TinynDP 3 points4 points ago

Other industries have other factors that limit used sales. Material goods like clothes or cars degrade, so the used market limits itself. A game on a disc never really degrades.

And don't forget, giant corporations are made out of individuals. Fuck the fat cats at the top, but don't the guys at the bottom, who actually made the games, deserve the benefits of their game selling? If the game sells, they keep their jobs, if the game doesn't sell they get laid off. Used sales don't contribute to them keeping their job.

[–]darkstar3333 7 points8 points ago

Per use licenses is already the norm, see PC/SmartPhone gaming and the software industry.

Most people cannot separate the product from the service despite the fact that these combined sale approach are used on a number of items (New Cars + Warranty, Cable Boxes + Service, Cell Phones + Plan etc etc)

You can't own a service or IP unless you are the one who created it.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

Because someone got their heads out of their asses and realized its ACTUALLY losing them money. Unlike piracy which is virtually impossible to determine if it leads to a lost sale or not, you know 100% that a used game sale really did mean a lost sale because theres no money going to the publisher/developer, even though there was clearly a money transaction, the only ones that are winning out big time (like biiiig time, ever sold a game for 5 bucks in a store only to see the store clerk put it up for 30 in the used games section?) are the game stores who sell used games.

[–]sterlon 1 point2 points ago

Not 100% true. If I won't but a game new but 6 months after release I will buy it used for less than $30 than they have lost nothing as I would not pay $60 for the game. The only issue I have with the used market is that the retailer give so small a value for a game and turns such a small value into a 50%-100% profit. There are very few games I pick up at launch only 2 in the previous year (Skyrim and Portal 2). But when the price comes down I buy a ton of games at least 30 this year mostly on steam sales. I do agree with xtolled comment bellow that the publishers need to take up the issue with Gamestop and stop trying to punish those that can't or won't buy a new game at $60.

[–]lime148 1 point2 points ago

If I won't but a game new but 6 months after release I will buy it used for less than $30 than they have lost nothing as I would not pay $60 for the game

But you did pay $30, of which the developer saw $0.

[–]sterlon 0 points1 point ago

No I generally don't buy used. The few times I have it was for new IP's that I was unsure of. After buying used if I felt the IP was good I buy new but rarely at $60. At this point I have generally stopped buying console games and play mostly on PC.

[–]firsthour 1 point2 points ago

Used game does not equal lost sale, chances are I never would have bought that game at the price the publisher wanted it new.

Also, buying games cheap means I may pay for their sequel full price. I bought Mass Effect 1 used, and bought ME2 Collector's Edition new, and have ME3 Collector's Edition (or whatever it's called) preordered. I also bought ME1 and ME2 on Steam which goes directly in their pocket.

[–][deleted] ago*

[deleted]

[–]McLargepants 2 points3 points ago

That's the thing though. People who buy X game used aren't customers of X game's dev. X game's dev see none of the money from the sale of used X game.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Can you, as a consumer, stop apologizing for anti-consumer action by multi-million dollar retailers? Please?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

Ofcourse they should, but when has the industry ever done anything right.

[–]PokemasterTT 1 point2 points ago

You can't sell games on steam.

[–]pakoito 1 point2 points ago

Maximize all profits.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

I can't justify buying a game for $60 that I'll most likely play through once and rarely play, if at all, afterwards. For this reason, I only rent games from Gamelfy or buy three games for $10 at Gamestop. In addition, I don't want to risk in buying a crappy game (I've gotten a few games from Gamestop that I have sent back the same day I received them). The only reason why I play console games is because of the used market; if this is done away with, then I'll probably stop playing games entirely, save for Starcraft 2 and D3.

[–]drp604 0 points1 point ago

I am curious about renting games nowadays with the advent of online passes. Have you rented a game that required one and how did that work? Was it simply not there and you couldn't access that content/online portion of the game?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I have not got a game that has this "feature" yet. I will be receiving Battlefield 3 soon and will probably not be able to play online.

[–]Wise_Guy_57 0 points1 point ago

Just know what you're buying. Its as simple as that. And for the most part, I understand why companies do this. If a company requires a key for a multiplayer aspect, that especially makes sense. The Catwoman section s in Arkham City are a bit of a different story, but are basically mandatory DLC that everyone gets if they buy the game new.

Know what you're buying. It's not immoral for them to sell you it if you're fully capable of determining what it is they're selling.

[–]McLargepants 0 points1 point ago*

Think of it this way. They want to expand their customer base. Used game buyers are not their customers, and online codes and such don't do anything to people who buy new games. So it doesn't hurt the developers customers, except if you want to play certain games online at a friend's house or something, you have to bring your system.. or your log on? I'm not really sure I guess.

The point being, they can harass (not sure harass is the best word, but I'm going with it) used game buyers and maybe that gamestop customer won't buy the game as a result. But that doesn't hurt the developer, because they weren't seeing any of that money anyway.

This next paragraph is purely hypothetical, and some conjecture. Say we have 100 people who want to buy Uncharted 3 used. I just looked on Amazon and you can get the game new from amazon for $53.77 (free shipping), or $35 used ($4 shipping). The online pass costs 10 dollars. So 100 people, 70 people get pissed off at Naughty Dog or Sony or whatever and decide not to get the game at all, 20 people buy it used, get the online pass and save 10ish dollars. 10 People decide to buy the game new to avoid the hassle. Sure, 70 fewer people are buying the game, but the devs are getting 540 more dollars than they would have otherwise. It makes sense, to me at least, why they are going that route.

That's not to say it is a perfect system. There are people that will refuse to buy the game at all even if the code doesn't affect them (for example, someone was going to buy the game new, heard about the online pass, and decided not to buy the game at all as a result). Also, many devs aren't on board with this, for example David Jaffe, who has spoken out against used game sales and how it hurts the companies to not see any money for those games. But he also came out saying that he really wanted Twisted Metal to not use the online pass, because the game is so online focused, and it's not fair to cut that out of the game for anyone. Twisted Metal is coming with the online pass because of Sony, though.

[–]rockerman100 0 points1 point ago

used games are like pirated games the devolper and publisher get no money from it. They have the right to do this.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

How is it like piracy? Nothing is being copied.

Your friend buys a sofa from the furniture store. After a while he doesn't want it anymore, and you buy it from him. The furniture store got money from the first transaction, but not the second one. Are you a criminal now? Does the furniture store have a right to take the sofa away from you, and force it to either return to your friend or be destroyed?

[–]darkstar3333 0 points1 point ago

If that sofa had a non-transferable warranty on it that customer would not be entitled to cleanings or repair from the original purchase. He would get the complete product but would not be entitled to the service.

Side-note: Furniture stores do this for new products, our sofa has a 10 year damage warranty including a yearly cleaning service.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

What you're describing is another reason used games are no different from any other used products.

Of course you wouldn't be entitled to the warranty. I seriously doubt anyone expects any warranty from any sort of used product. When I buy a used game, I accept that I won't be able to get it replaced, and won't be able to download DLC. I just want the game.

[–]darkstar3333 0 points1 point ago

I’ve been reading a lot his weekend about Fat Cats and how fat they are and how they want your money, but the only choice you get in this matter (aside from the wholly valid “not buying it” choice, of course) is which supposed Fat Cat to enrich. You can enrich the people who made the game you are enjoying, or you can enrich people who had nothing to do with the game. Policies like this are designed to incentivize new purchases: that is to say, sales. We call those sales.

We have somehow arrived at a point where you must fully enunciate an idea like buying products. I find this conversation incredibly strange.

http://penny-arcade.com/2012/01/30

[–]bythewar 0 points1 point ago

I know this will get buried down at the bottom, but it also has a lot to do with the fact that we now have a national company (gamestop) who actively promotes the used game model as their primary model of selling games.

While there may be used book stores, or used media stores, people have generally desired to purchase new products from major stores. Nobody walks into a Barnes and Noble for a used book, and Barnes and Noble would laugh at the idea of selling used books.

[–]Gatesmcfaddn 0 points1 point ago

Be a smart consumer. Spend your money where it provides the greatest benefit to you. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. It's actually one of the better parts of capitalism.

The publishers and developers have to accommodate US. Not the other way around.

[–]bajster -1 points0 points ago

They're just being greedy. Call it the shitty economy, or technology finally allowing them to do what they want. Used games, movies, CDs, etc have existed for decades. Much like DLC is all the craze, these online passes are just a variant of your standard map pack.

But it's also because Gamestop continues to grow, and used sales continue to grow thanks to the loyalty program. People with a discount card are more likely to buy a preowned copy than a new copy, and preowned sales = more cash in Gamestop's pockets. Devs have tried to make a deal where they get a cut of preowned sales, but obviously they haven't worked out. If Gamestop gave in, maybe these stupid passes would go away. Or maybe not. Either way, I see this as the beginning of the end for the company. If they decide to cut a deal, I guarantee you the amount of money they would lose to EA, THQ, Ubisoft, Sony, etc would be enough to shut down a few stores. Either that, or trade in value's will suffer. Or preowned pricing will get even more ridiculous (anyone seen GoW3 pricing these days? $39.99 new, $37.99 preowned. What?). It's only a matter of time before a $57.99 price comes rolling out of those label printers.

[–]nothis 0 points1 point ago

Because they smell money in digital distribution. Why do "online passes" exist? Because they can.

All their ethical justifications are bullshit. Every entertainment industry has a used market, from books to movies to music CDs. The games industry is no special snowflake that magically gets destroyed because of it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

That's pretty much what I was getting at here. I find it hard to understand why software is put on such a pedestal, in that I'm buying a scared collection of polygons and textures that I must have a "license" for. Why? Netflix built an empire on the redistribution of physical copies, why shouldn't games be able to retain such an opportunity (Gamefly would be obsolete)?

Honestly, I don't see games much differently from DVDs, at least in the simplest of terms. I buy a game or DVD, I get a certain amount of entertainment out of it, and then it becomes another thing in my life (I'm willing to pay more for games because they typically have more entertainment value than movies). Sometimes I just want to get rid of it. Sometimes I want to go to a flea market and pick through a supply. I find it absolutely depressing that some huge corporation could take that away from me.

[–]superchill -4 points-3 points ago

They can get away with it because its their product.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

Well it becomes my purchase after I buy it, doesn't it? Don't I have some right to do what I want with it (such as sell it)?

[–]PartyMark 6 points7 points ago

read the legal fine print. On most games and software you are buying a licence to use their product or something like that. Especially with stuff like PC digital downloads, you are not really buying the game as a product.

[–]Clumpy 5 points6 points ago

Unfortunately, publishers now have the ability to actually enforce the ramifications of that license.

[–]Brimshae 1 point2 points ago

Buy game.

Bacckup game.

Use Steam emulator (as an example).

[–]son-of-chadwardenn 0 points1 point ago

Microsoft has been enforcing it on Windows licences for years.

[–]darkstar3333 3 points4 points ago

With IP your buying the rights to use it, if you owned the IP that means you could sell it as you see fit. Example: If you owned a song off iTunes you could sell it to a commercial and take the profit from it.

IP/Consumer protection laws needs major re-visioning but until people stand up and contact local representation its going to be a slow process.

[–]Kinseyincanada 0 points1 point ago

And you can sill sell the game, and the publishers can do whatever they like with the game.

[–]valleyshrew -5 points-4 points ago*

Games are far more expensive than they were in the past, yet game prices have gone down due to inflation. Used games are inarguably harming the industry. That's money that should be going to support the people that contribute to the industry and not retailers. That's why I don't like Steam. It takes in a billion dollars a year, and what do valve do with that? Pretty much nothing. They develop incredibly slowly and cheaply for the amount of profits they generate and release very few games. They could not have steam at all and still have released the exact same games they have done with still large profits. Steam is just as bad as a retailer, valve do not contribute positively to the game industry but suck money out. But you'll never see criticism of them, even though they do not allow used game sales on their service. At least EA use their profit to develop more games and take risks and have ambition (valve should be operating a dozen development studios by now like Rockstar do but Gabe obviously has no ambition), but unfortunately they've had to close down lots of studios because of things like used games.

Gamers are the most ignorant entitled fucks. Games should be costing over $100 now if they kept up with inflation, and $3000 if they scaled with production costs. It's a fucking privilege to be able to get a game as deep and rich with content as GTAIV for a mere $60. It's not selfish of the industry to want to cut out used sales. It is better for gamers and developers if this happens. It's just sad to see people say developers and publishers are greedy when they're mostly all losing money.

[–]Warskull 1 point2 points ago*

When gamers sell games used, they get money and credits they can use to buy more new games. Games are overpriced and Valve has proven it time and time again. The big problem is how inflexible publishers are with the prices of their games. There are a small handful of games that can charge the full $60, the major blockbuster releases of the year, usually highly anticipated sequels. The rest are going to get ignored until they hit an appropriate price level. On top of this used game sales help future game sales. A gamer is more likely to buy the next game in the series new if they enjoyed the used game they bought.

If they charged $3000 a game, people wouldn't buy them and the studios would go out of business. By trying to kill off the used game business publishers are shooting themselves in the foot. Gamers will be forced to wait on games instead of selling some older used games to fund a new game purchase.

If publishers want to sell more used games they need to do the following:

  • Offer incentives to buy new instead of trying to kill the used market
  • Make higher quality games that people actually want to hold on to
  • Become more flexible and aggressive with their pricing to squeeze out the used market.

The biggest thing the used market and steam sales show is that publishers aren't meeting customer pricing demands and as a result the retailers are filling the gap with used sales.

Don't forget there is competition too. If the major game publishers try to squeeze their customers too hard, people will turn to free to play games, iOS/Mobile games, or inde developers to have their needs met. They may feel as a creator their work is worth $10,000, and the game really could be that good, but it has to be sold at a price that people will buy it.

[–]darkstar3333 0 points1 point ago

Overpriced? Hardly.

Find me a similar product that provides a better value per dollar proposition.

[–]Downrigger -4 points-3 points ago*

HEY FUCKFACES, WE PC GAMERS HAVE BEEN EATING THIS SHIT FOR A WHILE NOW GET USED TO IT. XD

Edit: although we do have the benefit of a robust digital distribution system with many vendors and semi frequent sales.

[–]jaesin -2 points-1 points ago

That's what I don't understand, if they want to sell me a digital license, no physical product, no distribution, no overhead, and no resale value... there's no way I'm paying full retail price.

Charge me less, don't let me sell it, and I'm satisfied. After all, that's how I buy games on steam.

[–]TinynDP 4 points5 points ago

Do you get how 'full retail' is just a label? What if I told you the game's full retail price was $120, but you can get it new, on a disc, at GameStop for 50% off, so $60! Now its no longer 'full retail', its 50% off! But its the same price.

[–]jaesin 0 points1 point ago

If the pricing structure wasn't commonly understood as $60 for new release physical copies (for consoles) and $50 for PC for the most part, I'd think your argument had merit.

[–]TinynDP 0 points1 point ago

But that is still just an expectation. It could be changed with a little bit of marketing.

My point is that people generate 'value' out of a kind of fuzzy logic, and things like "Steam Sale 25% Off' generates a lot of fuzzy value without actual value, and that losing your resale value costs fuzzy value without actual value. Everyone reaction is these issues is not actually proportionate to the issues themselves.

[–]JoeyMontezz 0 points1 point ago

I think its bullshit. If a company creates a product then sells it I feel as though their job is done. Why is it ok for them to combat other companies for gaining on something they already sold once. I understand it is a revenue loss but to take out other legitimate businesses when they could make the games cheaper or have them go on sale or whatnot to generate more revenue angers me. The used game vendors are fully in their right to buy and sell pre-played games. they got a sale once already if the company wants more, sell them for cheaper. By the logic the parent companies have publishers should do the same for used book/movie stores... yet no way has been declared on those businesses....yet....

[–]fldash -4 points-3 points ago

They aren't innovating which is resulting in a lack of new game sales. So, in turn, they are trying to eliminate used game sales.

[–]ilovesharkpeople -1 points0 points ago

With all the "85%" games that require DLC to play the remaining part of the game and features only available to the first owner of a game, I have to say I find myself buying fewer and fewer console games. I'm just not getting anywhere near the value for my money that I can get on a PC.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 27980 on app-81 running 86c9e1d.