More game developers whining about used games...

Eldron on 20/5/2011 at 12:06

I don't think joe average understands the concept of supporting a developer, all they see it as is buying a game at $5 off! what a win!

And to add, I'm not too sure developers are after peoples rights to sell their old games, I think they're after gamestops industrialization of that right, the kind where they'll cut into the revenue of even the first weeks of sale, the most crucial one, all because some guy wanted to save $5 without realizing that it meant $0 to the developers.

And the second add: Gamestop are the ones that have either bought up or driven the smaller more awesome used games stores out of business, the ones where you could find genuinely old and rare games, for pc and old consoles, now it's all about cutting into the retail revenue.

Nameless Voice on 20/5/2011 at 12:27

Quote Posted by theBlackman

I comprehend the sentiment expressed by the money behind the development and sales. But please (no sarcasm intended) explain to me Pointless.

I explained my philosophy before, but I'll explain it again: it's pointless because it doesn't give anything to the developers. The only reason to buy a game should be because you want to support the developers, so buying second-hand games is pointless - you might as well just pirate it for the amount of good it gives to the developers -- to whit, one more person playing it (which devs will always like) and possibly praising it, but no direct financial aid.

As for the cost of games, I'll grant you that digital distribution of new games is ridiculously overpriced in comparison to retail prices (e.g. Steam is always more expensive for a new game than buying it on Amazon), but I won't agree that games are necessarily overpriced in general. See the beer money / night drinking example I made in an earlier post. A night of drinking last a few hours. Compare that to the maybe ~€37 I spent on Fallout: New Vegas, which I played for 123 hours.
(I think I mentioned already that all my analyses only apply to actually good games. When you throw in paying €50 for a rubbish game you couldn't even bear to play, nothing really applies. It's not good value and you never wanted to support the developers in the first place...)

Kuuso on 20/5/2011 at 12:46

The reason for buying a game is always, above everything else, because you want what it gives to you. If you just want to support the developer, you would just give them money. If you're nice, you tell yourself that you're supporting the developer when buying that game.

As I see it, not buying a game OR pirating it should be the same for developers. They both mean the consumer's buying power or interest didn't meet the price. Piracy is a symptom of excessive prices, because it shows the interest is there nonetheless. This is backed up by the success of "reasonably" priced games (Indies, GOG, Steam) and sales on games (Steam Christmas and New Year's sales for example). I've bought various games in the 5-15€ bracket over the previous year, but it's a REALLY rare game I would pay 50-60€ for. Actually I can't remember what is the last full-priced game I've bought (might have been Oblivion and I regret that).

I think developers, or more precisely the publishers, expect too much, because the average joe is going to buy maybe one or two full-priced games a year.

This has nothing to do with selling used games though, so carry on.

Nameless Voice on 20/5/2011 at 13:14

But if you just want the game, you can just pirate it? Half the time that's easier than actually buying it.

I also don't quite agree that piracy is necessarily the result of excessive price; some people do it just because it's more convenient, or because it's free and they wouldn't even think of buying something even if it only cost a penny. Others because they can't afford it, but I still argue that games are a cheap hobby compare to many even if you do buy higher priced games. Or maybe I'm biased living in my rich country with its high wages and prices.

Koki on 20/5/2011 at 13:14

Quote Posted by Kuuso

The reason for buying a game is always, above everything else, because you want what it gives to you. If you just want to support the developer, you would just give them money.

And here's the average joe.

Nameless Voice on 20/5/2011 at 13:16

I'm actually curious how you'd go about giving the developers money?
Apart from with something like the Humble Bundle which I mentioned earlier, it's usually not exactly convenient to try.
It might be interesting if such a thing were more generally possible; make games cheaper, but allow people to "top up" developers whose games they particularly enjoyed. I doubt it'd work the aforementioned Joe Averages, though.

theBlackman on 20/5/2011 at 13:42

Nameless Voice I Buy a game because "the laborer is worth his hire". The navvie digging praties is worth his labor.

That said, once I pay for it, the physical item is mine to dispose of as I wish. I am trading (whatever) a physical item I purchased. The story in the book, the music on the disc, the game on the DVD are part of the physical item I purchased.

Movies on DVD and Tape are copyright protected. You/me/us cannot make copies. We can loan, trade, sell our original copy ad infinitum. As it stands realistically there is no difference between these items and a game or application for a computer.

Example: I have a 5 year old AMD computer system. It is running (when it runs) WinXP. I want a new one. I sell my AMD at a garage sale or to a private party. Should I pay Microshaft for the operating system? Should I pay all the third party providers for all applications still in the machine?

Is that piracy? Perhaps, with a broad interpretation, but in essence, again no different that me selling or trading a Video game.

As for the cost of living increase you mentioned. That is a fishy argument. A relative of a friend of mine bought 500 Acres of downtown Phoenix Arizona in the 1800's for $0.25 per square foot. The fact that that same square foot is worth in the area of $20,000.00 now is a specious comparison.

I'm willing to pay for a game. I'm not willing to pay for a dinner, pay the restaurant for the feces it produces, pay the restaurant for the indigestion I got from the lobster. I pay ONCE then enjoy or dispose of it as I choose.

Actually the metaphor above is a faulty as your cost comparison. But the point is the same. I buy a physical item. That item and all it contains is mine to dispose of as I wish.

Nameless Voice on 20/5/2011 at 15:22

I can't really understand what you're even saying in your argument.

Firstly, you're talking about selling second-hand games, and I'm talking about buying second-hand games. That might seem like an odd distinction, but it's an important one.
You're saying that you see games as physical items and you should be able to sell them - a reasonable point of view.
However, the person who's buying said second-hand games is the one being pointless, as per my above definition. They're fooling themselves that buying the games from you, second-hand, is any better than pirating them in terms of helping to support the developer, which, as I've stated, should be the primary reason to buy the games -- because you value the guy digging that canal and want him to dig more canals for you in the future.

Why on earth would you be supposed to pay Microsoft to sell a PC? In theory, you would have had to pay them to buy the software to install in the first place. You pay to acquire, not to sell?

My argument about having more money is dodgy because I think that someone who lives in a country where more money is available has no right to say that because they have more money, they're willing to pay more for games? That's a completely obvious argument which doesn't even need stating, how is it dodgy? The minimum wage in this country is... uh, almost $11 an hour (after a drop at the start of this year from its previous level of over $12/h) - surely that makes it obvious that people here are going to be more willing to spend $70 on a game than someone who earns $8 an hour?
Though, admittedly, I've partially answered the point there - a new game here costs the equivalent of $50-70 (€38-50), depending on where you buy it, which does account for some of the discrepancy, but not all.

Your talk about willing to pay for a dinner at a restaurant but not for everything else associated with the dinner (if I'm interpreting it right) is, of course, ridiculous. The price of running the restaurant is factored into the price of the food. Are you trying to claim that games cost "nothing" to produce, because discs are so cheap to make, and therefore the games should cost next-to-nothing, despite the cost of production? Basically, that you should only pay the cost of the ingredients and the power used to cook them for your food, as opposed to also paying for all the other overheads of the restaurant, staff wages and premises rent and so on?

hooded_paladin on 20/5/2011 at 17:07

Hang on, sir Nameless.
Lots of people buy games with the idea in mind that they'll be able to sell it when they're finished or if they don't like it. The secondary market isn't "pointless" as it results in more sales.

negativeliberty on 20/5/2011 at 17:11

Quote Posted by Jason Moyer

Fable III is $40 new at Gamestop, $33 used, and if you sell/trade the game to them they'll give you about $10.

To go with a newer game, Portal 2 is $60 new, $50 used, and they'll give you $20 for it if it's mint (the condition won't affect the price they sell it for).

Obviously there are places to sell your games that aren't Gamestop, but when publishers/developers are talking about "the used game market hurting our industry" that's the specific company they're referring to.

Not to sound like an asshole, but from what I gather you have to be pretty bad at the internets if you buy something at that place. So let me get this straight - basically some publishers are advocating a stop to second-hand games all because of what this one US reseller is doing? And that's not a knee-jerk draconian measure how? Also, why do people keep buying scratched games from them at such awful prices?

I'd love to know how many gazillions this Gamestop is "stealing" from the industry then, even if it sounds almost exactly like something a lot of local (physical) game-shops has been doing for the past twenty years (not even with used games, just overcharging the shit out of regular new retail games - which could equally be seen as "lost earnings" going by this thinking).

Again, the reason I'm sceptical of these claims is because to me they don't seem to be grounded in reality, but rather reflect wishful thinking on the part of publishers (of course ideally for them, 100% of everything flows directly to the publishers, and I guess that's the asymptote they'll always keep chasing).

Oh well, I guess I still prefer publishers to rile up against Gamestop than continuing their stupid harmful crusade against piracy, but nothing in this thread has so far convinced me what's so bad about offering used games (at used prices) so that it won't become all but impossible to get older games and so that people have a chance of getting something at reduced prices. Although preferably that protest would be in the form of an informative PR campaign rather than things like EA's online passes. And that PR campaign would be in the form of "Consider supporting the developers more" as opposed to "Remember buying that old game on eBay? That killed gaming, you heartless bastard.". I guess if they're chasing after higher margins for the actual developers themselves, the publishers are duty-bound to look in the mirror too, then.