|
Post by Varion on Aug 26, 2010 9:26:37 GMT -5
Basically, when someone buys a used game, the publisher doesn't curse the player's name... they curse the STORE'S name. And then proceed to give Gamestop exclusive DLC items to sell with their product so customers are forced to wander in there and buy lots of evil used games in the process. There are a lot of companies who just don't seem to know what they want. If you don't like used places like Gamestop, don't go out your way to support them! There's a lot to be said for Skeletore's point as well. This isn't directed as you, because I think the US release of Ys Seven is well worth its money ($30 for a regular, $50 for an LE full of stuff is great value), but consumers these days are really getting sick of this whole 'throw out a 10 hour game for full $60 RRP then release pointless DLC items and, even worse, unlock codes for things that were already in the game'. Again, lots of publishers seem to claim this sort of thing is to fight the evil used games because they can get all the money on DLC but if that's the case, why exactly are you punishing new customers by making them pay the same full price? If you chopped $10 off the game's value to make on-the-disc DLC out of it then go chop it off the game's price too, or a lot of people are just going to wait for the game to be 'finished' when the gap between new and used prices is much wider. What I find baffling aren't the people who buy used games at a fifth of the game's original price ten months down the line when the RRP just will not go down or whatever, it's the ones who will wander into Gamestop or whatever when a game's just been released and, when presented with a new copy at $60, or a used one at $55, will still buy the used one. I mean, $5 saving? Really? I can understand developers complaining about this at least.
|
|
|
Post by Nalacakes on Aug 26, 2010 9:56:08 GMT -5
There is a slight difference between a physical proprety (like a car) and an Intellectual one (a software). When you buy a car or any physical item you have a phisical possesion of it, so you can sell it whenever you want, when you buy a software or any intellectual property you only own the license to use it, and you can't "sell" it whitout the approval of the original owner (sofware house), There is that, but I wasn't talking about the difference legally. My understanding of the article was that it was attacking the morality of used games rather than the legality, and I honestly found it hard to see how, morally speaking, buying a used game could be any worse than, say, accepting a hand-me-down shirt from a sibling or sharing an appliance that someone else bought. In both cases it's one sale out of two people using an item, which was precisely the problem identified. And I doubt there are many people out there who haven't passed on something they no longer need to a friend or shared something with someone else at some point, so it seems strange to specifically target used games as morally rotten. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be snarky or anything. I'm just genuinely curious what makes one so much worse than the other, as, like I said, I've always thought of buying used items as being a pretty decent thing to do. Sorry, this post isn't really targeted at you, since you went on to say that you were simply playing devil's advocate. I just felt obliged to clarify what I meant.
|
|
RyuKisargi
Chryolos
Beating a Dead Horse
BAP BAP BAP BAP BAP BAP!
Posts: 554
|
Post by RyuKisargi on Aug 26, 2010 10:23:32 GMT -5
I try to buy new when I can, but at times used is the only way to go.
However, due to the fact that I ABHOR Gamestop's "new game" policy, I -only- buy new games that are unopened, still in the shrinkwrap.
I know for a fact that some games they get back used they just say are new.
|
|
|
Post by HJ on Aug 26, 2010 11:42:44 GMT -5
I don't buy used games! Not because I want to support the developer, but because I can't bear the thought of some filthy stranger having defiled my game before I got it.
Also, the difference between used and new here is absolutely laughable for games that aren't ancient. A few months after FFXIII was released, I saw some used copies sitting around on the shelves in Gamestop, and they went for 450 kr., while new copies were sold for 479. That's like a 5 dollar difference! Who the hell would buy the used copy then?
|
|
|
Post by Yakra on Aug 26, 2010 11:49:26 GMT -5
Somehow, I never really considered that... buying games second hand would actually do a company harm. Now when I think about it, it actually makes some sort of sense (and kind of explains why the inner pages of a book too often declare something on the lines of 'buying this book second hand is a crime! rawr!'.) I always did consider though, whenever I DID buy a game second hand (like say, all the Ys games adoru and skyewelse helped me collect) that I was, in some odd.... down the long chain way, helping Falcom (or whatever company whichever game belonged to). Because.... if someone like me wanted to buy it, and couldn't access a proper shop to buy new directly, this way, certain people would buy and either use and then sell cheap, or buy and know they can sell on at a higher price, and atleast ONE copy for the company that way would get sold, ne? Because otherwise, if after a certain point of trying, the (willing to buy second hand) buyer couldn't even get his/her used copy, they might just go off and simply pirate. (I'm probably making no sense here! What I just mean is... if say, someone actually bought a game with the intent of selling on, perhaps they might NOT buy if they knew they couldn't make their money back after playing? And so, perhaps, no copy might get sold at all? And at the end of the long run, someone who couldn't acquire a brand new copy, might not get the old copy either, simply because there was none to buy?) [Though I suppose, from a company's survival and business sense, this odd logic is probably of no use, and quite silly. Still~ I sort of always consoled myself with this thing. :'D]Indeed I agree people wouldn't sell back premium editions or anything that could potentially benefit them more if they kept them. Speaking of premium editions~! Somehow, it's actually these that might even convince me to buy second hand! :'D It's sort of like, say, if I missed the chance to acquire a LE version of a game, and I'm buying a game some time after it's release - I would probably try to search around for the nicest, most special, fullest copy of a game I can buy. Premium versions that is! I mean... if a used LE is about the same price as a brand new game from some online store, then.....
|
|
|
Post by Varion on Aug 26, 2010 14:03:39 GMT -5
I do the same thing. And in Japan, people sold back LEs all the time, oddly. But it seems rare in the U.S... when people buy LEs, they KEEP them. -Tom I was always more inclined to buy used in Japan than I am here. In the UK 'used' means 'throw around, chucked in some mud and possibly beaten with a sledgehammer', whereas in Japan 'used' means 'handled only once in a dustfree environment wearing a full body suit and gloves'. I did notice how Sofmap and other used stores would generally take at least a week or two to get enough used games to start reselling them though - and seen as most games in Japan get most of their sales in the first few months I imagine that helps lessen the impact somewhat.
|
|
|
Post by Lunar on Aug 26, 2010 14:08:02 GMT -5
I don't typically buy used games unless they're out of print or if I'm getting a steal on them from an ignorant pawn shop/thrift store owner. Case in point, I spent less than $10 combined on Valkyrie Profile and Earthbound.
|
|
|
Post by AllenSmithee on Aug 26, 2010 14:09:07 GMT -5
Lucky as a fucky! D:< I'm playing Earthbound now, and as much as I enjoy it, I hate playing things emulated.
|
|
RyuKisargi
Chryolos
Beating a Dead Horse
BAP BAP BAP BAP BAP BAP!
Posts: 554
|
Post by RyuKisargi on Aug 26, 2010 14:37:37 GMT -5
What I do is I buy new if it's in it's original packaging (( I'm too entrenched in gamestop, I usually have 20-40$ in credit there. )) , basically unopened.
If I buy used, it's either 10-15$ less than the new price, or it's if a new copy isn't available.
|
|
|
Post by Skeletore has a boner on Aug 26, 2010 15:16:21 GMT -5
I'm well aware that *small* publishers often sell on consignment. But when game companies start trying to bring ethics into it and make people feel bad for them with guilt-trips, that issue isn't of any concern.
In neither a buying new or buying used scenario, does money go directly back to the developer, making it ethically neutral.
I fully admit this sounds dumb as hell, *but that is the argument the industry is promoting* not me.
As I said above, this ALL boils down to the simple truth that the game industry is not selling products that people deem valuable, and charging too much for them.
It's a simple economic truth that the USED MARKET for any product is proportional to how OUT OF RANGE it is for the target consumer. That is to say, the larger a USED market is, the more over-priced the retail market is, which creates the USED market.
For example:
DVDs sell for $5-$20... ever stopped for a moment and considered the size of the used DVD market(where the retail market is 20x bigger) compared to the used game market?
There's like 40 gamestops within 20 miles of me, how many used DVD shops are there? 0(outside the the piddly amount some gamestops themselves carry).
The reason is that DVDs are priced right for their target market, and when this happens *used markets do not form*.
I know there are used DVD places, but they're rare, and for most people if you want used you pretty much have to go to online(and always did).
The industry knows this, they know that their products are over-priced, they know they should be targeting the $10-$30 range(and many small companies do, including yours Wyrd, I own every Xseed game ever released, as a note, well, used to until my recent sale).
I have LONG hypothesized that game prices are a willing collusion among the upper echelons of the game industry, and that is slowly becoming a multiopoly.
The purpose of which is to KEEP small studios out, because when it comes to intellectual property, especially where any jack-off with a low-end computer has the tools to make a blockbluster game in front of them, they are DEATHLY afraid of this becoming the norm.
So they keep game prices high, limiting the market, they keep pressing fees high, limiting the competition, and they keep sales low(low in terms of numbers, not revenue), discouraging people from trying.
Companies like yours if anything should be entirely against these trends, because it hurts them more than helps.
|
|
|
Post by AllenSmithee on Aug 26, 2010 15:19:50 GMT -5
Hah, well regardless, I don't really give a shit, as long as I get my games. I'm not a charity, so, it's not like I really care. Of course, there is the issue of voting with my wallet
|
|
|
Post by gnosis301 on Aug 26, 2010 18:02:31 GMT -5
Excuse the difference in opinion, but I believe "cartel" would be a more descriptive word than "multiopoly."
|
|
|
Post by Incog Neato on Aug 26, 2010 21:13:33 GMT -5
I buy used for the cheaper price despite knowing that the money isn't going back to those that deserve it. (Well, not new games though because there really is no real difference between new and used prices on the those.)
I also tend to wait until a sale/discount for new games that I don't really want right away ... like those $20 or less games at Wal-Mart. XD
Incidentally, used games that don't include the manual shouldn't be the same price as the ones that do. >:( I know that overall the manual doesn't factor into the cost that much (or does it even???) but the fact that the entire "package" isn't there leads me to believe that there should be some sort of price difference to reflect it.
And I still think digital games and physical copies of the games shouldn't cost the same either! XD
|
|
|
Post by psybuster on Aug 27, 2010 1:27:22 GMT -5
Given that basically every other industry has to deal with this, there isn't really any reason to make an exception for the game industry. I can't say I feel any sympathy for them; they are businesses and if they want my money they have to give me a good reason to fork it over to them as opposed to their competitors, whether it's GameStop, a friend, or that garage sale down the street.
Some random points though:
1) Yes, initially only $5 off at GameStop for a used copy does look kinda funny at first, and most of the time that's true. Wait until a B2G1 though and you're suddenly looking at $110 for what would have cost you $180 in new games.
2) Anyone who tries to tell me that I am not allowed to do whatever I damn well please (within legal limits) with any physical object I purchase is off their rocker.
3) Consumers are, on average, morons and businesses are going to take advantage of them anyway regardless of what they claim.
|
|
RyuKisargi
Chryolos
Beating a Dead Horse
BAP BAP BAP BAP BAP BAP!
Posts: 554
|
Post by RyuKisargi on Aug 27, 2010 12:29:41 GMT -5
It's too bad there's -only- Gamestop now.
Any game that's not in plastic wrapping is used, and they know it, but they sell used "new" games like no tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by schlagwerk on Aug 27, 2010 12:51:38 GMT -5
Any game that's not in plastic wrapping is used, and they know it, but they sell used "new" games like no tomorrow. This is the main reason why I don't buy from Gamestop unless I absolutely have to. There was a stint there where I purchased 3 "new" games from them in a row and got pre-opened ones.
|
|
RyuKisargi
Chryolos
Beating a Dead Horse
BAP BAP BAP BAP BAP BAP!
Posts: 554
|
Post by RyuKisargi on Aug 27, 2010 13:02:30 GMT -5
They tried to sell me an opened copy of DQIX when I pre-ordered it. I went to another store, and the associate that pulled that on me was fired.
Turned out he was holding it for himself.
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Aug 29, 2010 23:55:15 GMT -5
If the industry doesn't like used game sales: Make a product worth buying at it's MSRP End.of.Story. There's dozens of resources at this point that show games cost too much, the industry needs new business models, it's getting like the Music/Movie industry, collapsing under it's own bloat. Problem with the ethical argument people throw out(buying used=not supporting developers) is that buying new technically does the same thing... When you buy a game off a store shelf new...it was already sold. The store bought it, from a distributor. This is identical to buying used at that point. You can extend such faulty logic all the way back to the source. Smartest post ever. Topic done.
|
|
RyuKisargi
Chryolos
Beating a Dead Horse
BAP BAP BAP BAP BAP BAP!
Posts: 554
|
Post by RyuKisargi on Aug 30, 2010 1:12:29 GMT -5
I buy new over used, depending on price.
If used is $10 or more under new, I buy used. Otherwise, I buy new.
And I try to make sure I get an unopened copy.
|
|
|
Post by Skeletore has a boner on Aug 30, 2010 1:41:49 GMT -5
Uh, except it's not. The first half of that post assumes that people won't STILL a buy a game used, even if it's only like, $5 new. I bet half the people who played games would buy them for $4 used over $5 new! They will, generally consumer buying habits are if new is 25% or less(more) than used, they will be inclined to buy new, this percentage get's lower this higher the value of an item, and higher the lower the value($3 used game vs $5 new 40% difference but majority will buy the new copy). Buying "new" is a heavily ingrained psychological habit in people. The majority will always buy new over used unless the price difference is a wide gap...like it is with used game sales after a few weeks to a month. As for second part, the entire point is that line of logic is dumb, but it's the line of logic the industry is using(selling on consignment is the exception, not the rule). The over-arching point remains...robust used markets are an economic sign of a over-valued asset, i.e. Games cost too much to begin with, and that is the root of this entire debate, the industry is missing the forest for the trees...on a massive and as I hypothesize purposeful scale.
|
|