26674
Post by: Slarg232
So, if you guys have boughten any games from EA lately, you know about Online Passes; You get one free with the game that gives you complete access to the games functions, but if you buy used you have to pay an additional $10 to be able to play online.
I like this. Since I have always had a problem with buying Used games (you never know what the hell the other guy did to it...), and I hate Gamestop, this allows Developers to combat the loss of sales that comes from Used games. Because, you know, if You buy a game for $60, sell it to Gamestop for $20, and then they sell it to someone else for $55, that's a whole game that the Developers didn't get payed for. And since more money made equals bigger budget sequels, Used games sales are (In My Humble Opinion) hurting the whole "Game Economy" as a whole.
What brings this on is the latest game to follow this trend; Mortal Kombat 9. Fans are in an uproar, because "You have to pay $60 for the game, and another $10 for the online capabilities, not to mention that they have already announced DLC Characters!". This is not true, however, because if you buy the game New, you get the $10 item for free.
Conjecture: I think it is entirely possible that people are getting too used to the Music Industry and that mindset of "I want it, and I want it for as cheap as I can get it (Free, preferably) and let all my friends have it, too." is seeping into Gaming as a whole.
What do you guys think?
34087
Post by: Requia
I cannot express my opinion on this and stay within the site rules.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Could you try? It's less fun debating with people who won't actually debate 
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Well I hate selling used games when they first come out. I only do it if I especially hate the game. I sold two last year (Final Fantasy XIII and Demon's Souls) and I bought them back just yesterday.
The thing is, I like used games because they give you a chance to play it and hate it if needed. You can take it back and actually get something worth the money the other one was valued at. Demos just don't show you enough of the game to like it or hate it.
I like the whole $10.00 thing, but it should be for extras. If I bought MK 9 new and got 4 characters that a used copy wouldn't get, then I would be happy. I think the lack of online capabilities unless you pay the $10.00 is pretty crappy. That means if you buy it new and want to play it online you pay $60.00. If you buy it used within the first few weeks you will have to pay $65.00.
Dragon Age did it right. You got the Blood Dragon Armour and Shale (unless somebody didn't use the codes).
33369
Post by: Wolfun
Technically good.
EA is doing it because they realized they're not getting money from it. Let's face it, companies like GAME, Gamestation (in the UK) and whatever US companies rip people off. They buy for half the price then sell it at double what they paid for it. That means they're getting that 50% profit whilst EA get nothing.
However, cutting out chunks of the game, not so good. I agree with Scythican, when it's like missing characters, or content you have to otherwise buy.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Lord Scythican wrote:I like the whole $10.00 thing, but it should be for extras. If I bought MK 9 new and got 4 characters that a used copy wouldn't get, then I would be happy. I think the lack of online capabilities unless you pay the $10.00 is pretty crappy. That means if you buy it new and want to play it online you pay $60.00. If you buy it used within the first few weeks you will have to pay $65.00.
Dragon Age did it right. You got the Blood Dragon Armour and Shale (unless somebody didn't use the codes).
The problem with four characters other people would have to pay for is that MK is being built from the ground up as a Tourney fighter, or at least, that's what I'm told.
Also, is a set of armor and $12 expansion really worth the $60 that the company itself would have lost?
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
I would rather have online fighting capabilities than other characters. Then I could buy the others at my leisure.
Well how about this then? A reward program. You buy the thing new, you get a stamp or something. A code perhaps. If you get like 10 codes you can get a free game. I would buy everything new if they did that.
14070
Post by: SagesStone
I guess this system helps mostly against piracy, not used games.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
n0t_u wrote:I guess this system helps mostly against piracy, not used games.
I am all for that.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Lord Scythican wrote:I would rather have online fighting capabilities than other characters. Then I could buy the others at my leisure.
Well how about this then? A reward program. You buy the thing new, you get a stamp or something. A code perhaps. If you get like 10 codes you can get a free game. I would buy everything new if they did that.
Whose going to do that? The company that spends 3 years making a game, or the Retail store losing out on lots of money from New Game sales?
n0t_u wrote:I guess this system helps mostly against piracy, not used games.
How so?
14070
Post by: SagesStone
Without this pass would the game be capable of online play? While they can work around detection a fair amount of time, the pass system might at least provide more of a speed bump in addition to it. Kind of like having multiple locks on a door, won't stop everyone but it will stop a fair bit.
33369
Post by: Wolfun
n0t_u wrote:I guess this system helps mostly against piracy, not used games.
Actually, EA has pretty much said it's only to combat people buying Pre-owned games.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/eas-project-ten-dollar-explained
14070
Post by: SagesStone
Interesting, first I heard of it was on this thread. 
19004
Post by: Soup and a roll
The pass combats piracy in the same way that serial numbers, online log ins and other DRM have in the past, except they are making money from it.
Asking players to pay extra to access parts of the game they are buying is a horrible idea imo, whether it is for online play, levels or characters. That a developer can chop 20% of a finished product out and charge extra for it a few weeks after release really annoys me. I applaud devs who support a game by continuing to work on it after release but asking for money to un-censor your game is akin to asking for money for patches.
Making used-game buyers pay to fully unlock the game is clever but also morally dubious. Used-car salesmen don't design or make the cars they sell but are surely entitled to the money they earn by filling a niche in the market. I see no difference at all with used-games.
The main problem I see is that games are steadily becoming shorter with less replay value. If you make an eight hour game with no incentive for replay people are going to use it and sell it on for whatever money they can get. I remember when you could take a game back within a certain time for a refund in case it didn't work/you didn't like it etc. They'd make no money at all if that was still an option.
Long story short, make good games and more people will keep them. Stop taking the piss with digital download taxes.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Slarg232 wrote:
Whose going to do that? The company that spends 3 years making a game, or the Retail store losing out on lots of money from New Game sales?
I would assume the game company. 10 EA Stickers gets you a EA game. Sort of like what they did with Darksiders. I remember getting a copy of the Red Faction game because I bought Darksiders. Retail stores should keep what they are doing. I like the classic skins you can get for MK by preordering.
38023
Post by: thedude
I am all for making sure the talent involved in making quality games are paid for what they do, be it designers, developers or distributers, but to me this is another example of EA stepping over the line in the name of profits and it is going to push more people over to the dark side of pirating (ala the Spore drm fiasco). I think EA has lost sight of the fact that in a retail service, the customer is your life line(this seems to be a growing trend across all industries...at least here in the states). I can see how preowned sales can cut into new sales, after all who wants to pay $60us for a terrible game only to get $10 when you trade it in used? But there are better ways to address the issues.
I fully agree with Lord Scythican's concept of give the customer more to entise them to purchase the game new (Dragon Age was spot on with this) be it new characters, special in game mounts, armors, character titles, ect...when its a good game people will buy. Most of this type of 'gift' should not extend the studios and costs them extra money for development.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Soup and a roll wrote:
Making used-game buyers pay to fully unlock the game is clever but also morally dubious. Used-car salesmen don't design or make the cars they sell but are surely entitled to the money they earn by filling a niche in the market. I see no difference at all with used-games.
Only problem i see with this analogy, is that often times, the car company still makes money on the used car, because MOST of them are "traded in", sold, at an authorized dealer for another car.
The code thing is a nice idea, but the one problem that I have with it... I recently reformatted my PS3, and thereby wiped my data. Along with that wipe was my Medal of Honor info, including online code.. which is now invalid, even though i am online on the same exact account.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
Requia wrote:I cannot express my opinion on this and stay within the site rules.
Bingo.
34087
Post by: Requia
n0t_u wrote:I guess this system helps mostly against piracy, not used games.
It is utterly useless against piracy. A pirate will be mildly annoyed because they have to download a second file for the DLC. It's *sole* purpose is to violate right of first sale, which is part of copyright law.
In other words, EA is the pirate in this case.
6646
Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin
My only issue with this would be if they put a time limit on what consists of a new title.
For example apart from the occasional tripe-A title I can't wait for. I am very happy to wait for 6months to a year, and pick up the games new from a shop but at less than half the price when it came out new. Or even after it goes Platnium (or whatever the format's re-release set up it.)
If they introduced a time period, and then after that no matter if the game was new or 2nd hand it cost extra to play online, I would be most displeased.
23534
Post by: Macok
I remember when games lasted several times longer and costed 1/3 less.. Didn't have any downloadable crap. I paid for a game and I got the full game. I really, really hate the idea of DLC with all my heart. It is a cheap trick. I have never downloaded any paid, additional content (if it wasn't some huge ass standalone campaign) and I hope I never will.
I totally agree with Soup and a roll.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Macok wrote:I remember when games lasted several times longer and costed 1/3 less.. Didn't have any downloadable crap. I paid for a game and I got the full game. I really, really hate the idea of DLC with all my heart. It is a cheap trick. I have never downloaded any paid, additional content (if it wasn't some huge ass standalone campaign) and I hope I never will.
I totally agree with Soup and a roll.
This has been my thing for years. You see games were $50.00 a pop since what NES days? They only moved to $60.00 with the PS3 and 360. Now these companies were sitting around and thinking to themselves, if these people will pay twice as much for the system, how are we going to get them to pay twice as much for the games?
Basically they take stuff out of the finished game and set it aside for DLC. By doing this, they have finally figured out how to raise the price of the games. Some of the best games cost $100.00+ now if you buy everything. So basically there you have it. The cost has been doubled, but we are made to believe we are paying for something extra that is beyond the finished product.
Now as much as I bitch about this sort of thing, I do realize that they had to increase the prices somehow. If everything else is going up why not games? Just check your milk and breads prices from 6 years ago. They went up along with everything else. Games should be at least $75.00 when compared to everything else out there.
This doesn't mean I have to like it though.
3906
Post by: Stella Cadente
I hate online passes, I think they are stupid, and games that usethem are usually just piles of tripe, just look at MOHCODMW2, probably the worst FPS game ever released by EA and you had to use a pass to play its awful multiplayer which was actually worse than bad companies multiplayer, and that thing is shockingly bad.
no thanks, there is a reason why games like COD are successful and hold on to there value secondhand while MOH goes for next to nothing yet game stores still can't shift them.
35046
Post by: Perkustin
Battlefield Bad Company 2 was good as you actually got the maps. Otherwise it is pointless and just cheating people out of content that is already on the disk.
23534
Post by: Macok
The huge beef with DLC is also that it's often available long after you've finished the game. So there are two possible ways to introduce them to the game.
a) Additional missions after the whole game has ended.
b) Additional content during the original campaign, which forces you to replay the whole game.
This all leads to often poorly and forced alteration of original story and world. It often shakes the consistency of the original game.
First one often makes no sense - at the end of the game the hero defeated the source of evil, he died, he lived happily ever after etc.. It just doesn't feel right that after "the end" there is suddenly something to do.
The second one, as mentioned, forces you to replay the while game for brief interactions with new heroes or some area. This artificially makes the game last "longer" twice.
DLC are often shorter. Price to quality / length is much worse than in the original game.
ME2 is currently cheaper than all the DLC available for it.
How Long to Beat
Sims 3 DLC is like 5 times pricier than the game. This may not be the best example, but this shows how things could go in the future...
6646
Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin
Extra content is another ballgame entirely.
I don't have issues with this charge for second handers as the number of studios dropping by the wayside or abandoned to die by their publishers such as EA have been harsh reading on occasion in the past few years. So the industry is not as healthy as some downloaders will insist it is.
How much of that is Publishers skimming off the top I'm not sure, but some of the talk that swings around about games is worrying. Such as deals where companies don't get paid if the game doesn't reach a certain score, or sale point.
You have to wonder why folks would sign up to that, but then you look at the power some publishers hold over their companies and forcing them to release regardless if the game is ready, it is a issue that hurts us all.
I'm not convinced this will fix it either, I agree that the length of games isn't helping, and willingness to introduce more interesting themes and not just roll out another franchise game they know folks will buy can be frustrating.
Sims 3 in particular sticks in my throat over its 'Sims 3 Store' opening on the day of release, with a good proportion of items that should have been in the actual game.
Of course not all DLC is like this, some has been good stuff added months after release, so they have been obviously working on it after the game shipped. However in general release day DLC is unforgivable imo, it stinks of greed and tbh they are taking the mick out of the gamers who follow their games by doing so.
It's certainly something that is not going to go away, I said to a friend just the other day. I am waiting for the first Publisher to go download only across all formats, I suspect it will be EA. It will also be the last day I buy a EA game. (With current download speeds anyways.) Sadly its like an oncoming storm, it seems there is little we can do to avoid the changes ahead.
As a gamer now of some Twenty three years, thats a little depressing.
19004
Post by: Soup and a roll
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Only problem i see with this analogy, is that often times, the car company still makes money on the used car, because MOST of them are "traded in", sold, at an authorized dealer for another car.
Then the games company can bloody well pay for their own dealership! If they gave a better trade in price then the stingy stores they could sell the same game over and over and make money each time. As it is they are trying to stop enterprise and muscle in on used games without any justification. All it does is hurt honest consumers.
Pay extra for a complete product, limited installs, un-transferable games. None of this would be acceptable in other products.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Guys, guys, GUYS!
If you buy the game NEW, for $60, you don't spend a single cent, NOT. ONE. PENNY. extra in order to play online with these passes. This is only if you buy a game USED for less, because the Game Companies do not get anything from those sales.
They work on a product, you buy it new, they don't get a single cent of it. I think these things are totally justified, because how many of you guys would work for two years without getting payed?
34087
Post by: Requia
The people who buy new get hurt most, because it drops resale value.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Requia wrote:The people who buy new without doing research get hurt most, because it drops resale value.
Not all of us sell our games, some of us do enough digging to know if the games will be worth our time.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
n0t_u wrote:I guess this system helps mostly against piracy, not used games.
This system does nothing to combat piracy. Pirates just set up private networks for MP. EDIT: Besides. Piracy of console games isn't that much. It's going on in China and pretty much no where else afaik.
34087
Post by: Requia
This one isn't even a multiplayer game, online access is only needed for paying customers, cause of the DRM. So pirates are actually getting a *better product* as a result of what EA is doing.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I'm all for it, it hurts Gamestop, which is a plague upon the gaming industry. Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:n0t_u wrote:I guess this system helps mostly against piracy, not used games.
This system does nothing to combat piracy. Pirates just set up private networks for MP. EDIT: Besides. Piracy of console games isn't that much. It's going on in China and pretty much no where else afaik.
Oddly enough, there were more pirated copies of Homefront on the Xbox than on the PC.
32867
Post by: johnscott10
The $10 for online access is a double edged sword imo.
Me and my bro both use the same Xbox 360, just different profiles.
Now take Fifa 11, if bought new then it is only supplied with 1 online pass which means the other would need to buy a pass just to get online and theres no pre-owned game in the mix.
Its just by sheer luck that I hate Fifa 11 online so i dont need to worry about the $10 charge, communities for games like Black Ops and the like would probly have a hissy fit if they needed to pay $10 to play online because a sibling used the online code. (Could hopefully filter out all the children on the servers).
Tbh i would probly pay the $10 if i could get say a weeks free online play to see if its actually any good.
19004
Post by: Soup and a roll
Slarg232 wrote:They work on a product, you buy it new, they don't get a single cent of it. I think these things are totally justified, because how many of you guys would work for two years without getting payed?
They do get paid. They sell their game and make money. They then want to be paid again for the same product when another consumer is not impressed enough by the game that they are prepared to wait a month or two and buy it second hand. The people in the thread are also annoyed by schemes in which content is obviously chopped out of the original game and then sold separately to surreptitiously bump up the price. @ Johnscott10: I agree that the system would be annoying for you, but I think there might be questions of the legality of sharing games anyway...
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Slarg232 wrote:Guys, guys, GUYS!
If you buy the game NEW, for $60, you don't spend a single cent, NOT. ONE. PENNY. extra in order to play online with these passes. This is only if you buy a game USED for less, because the Game Companies do not get anything from those sales.
They work on a product, you buy it new, they don't get a single cent of it. I think these things are totally justified, because how many of you guys would work for two years without getting payed?
Okay so if Gamestop today started selling only new games then what would you suggest that they do with their profit? They are choosing to invest the money made from selling the game new for the game manufacturer into the buying of used games.
When Wal-Mart sells a new game, they take their money and invest it is something else. Are you saying Gamestop should take their profit and invest it in something else as well? In other words, "we don't care what you do with the money you made from selling our product, just don't use it to re-buy the product and sell it again."
Gamestop is a company as well, and they have to make money in their own way or they cease to exist. The economics of the issue seem a little unfair. Gamestop is making their money their way and the game company is making their profit in their way. If the game company truly wants Gamestop to stop selling used games, perhaps they should sell their new games to gamestop cheaper so Gamestop can make a fair profit?
All I see is Poor EA games. What about Poor Gamestop? What about Poor Me? I am not making any money off of the issue. Where is my percentage as a consumer? If I don't think a game is worth $60.00 then I should be able to sell it and get a partial return of my investment. Gamestop and Ebay provide me with the means of making at least some money off of my purchased game.
When I buy a new car am I supposed to keep it for my entire life, even when it no longer functions? If I sell it used a few years later and make back some of my money isn't this fair? The car company makes less money this way because I took the potential sell from one of their customers who could have bought a new car.
I am probably full of crap, because I have never studied economics. I just know that if I invest money in something, I should be able to get a return investment. Perhaps EA games and the rest should sell their own games from now on? They have benefited from the likes of Best Buy, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Gamestop, and Software Etc. for far too long.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie. They just get bent out of shape when someone wants some of the pie as well.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Only a moron would sell their game to Gamestop at the prices Gamestop asks for... They'll buy a used game for ten bucks and then sell it for fourty or fifty. Or buy a used PS3 for 90 and resell it for 300. You'd be better off just selling it on ebay or something...
And of course they've benefited from best buy etc, but so have best buy benefited from selling the games. The retailers make profits off of selling new products too. It's just that they aren't quite as able to rip people off as they are if they resell used games bought from idiots who have no sense of value.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Melissia wrote:Only a moron would sell their game to Gamestop at the prices Gamestop asks for... They'll buy a used game for ten bucks and then sell it for fourty or fifty. Or buy a used PS3 for 90 and resell it for 300. You'd be better off just selling it on ebay or something...
And of course they've benefited from best buy etc, but so have best buy benefited from selling the games. The retailers make profits off of selling new products too. It's just that they aren't quite as able to rip people off as they are if they resell used games bought from idiots who have no sense of value.
Your right Ebay is the way to go. If I sell a newer game that is the only way I will sell it. What does Gamestop give anyways? $24.00 max?
If I sell a game it is usually about 10-15 years after it has came out and moved into the Nostalgia phase. I usually get $100.00 - $150.00 out of each game that I sell like this. Of course the games I am selling are popular ones and all classics. Don't expect to get $150.00 out of Madden 96 this year.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Lord Scythican wrote:Slarg232 wrote:Guys, guys, GUYS!
If you buy the game NEW, for $60, you don't spend a single cent, NOT. ONE. PENNY. extra in order to play online with these passes. This is only if you buy a game USED for less, because the Game Companies do not get anything from those sales.
They work on a product, you buy it new, they don't get a single cent of it. I think these things are totally justified, because how many of you guys would work for two years without getting payed?
Okay so if Gamestop today started selling only new games then what would you suggest that they do with their profit? They are choosing to invest the money made from selling the game new for the game manufacturer into the buying of used games.
When Wal-Mart sells a new game, they take their money and invest it is something else. Are you saying Gamestop should take their profit and invest it in something else as well? In other words, "we don't care what you do with the money you made from selling our product, just don't use it to re-buy the product and sell it again."
Gamestop is a company as well, and they have to make money in their own way or they cease to exist. The economics of the issue seem a little unfair. Gamestop is making their money their way and the game company is making their profit in their way. If the game company truly wants Gamestop to stop selling used games, perhaps they should sell their new games to gamestop cheaper so Gamestop can make a fair profit?
All I see is Poor EA games. What about Poor Gamestop? What about Poor Me? I am not making any money off of the issue. Where is my percentage as a consumer? If I don't think a game is worth $60.00 then I should be able to sell it and get a partial return of my investment. Gamestop and Ebay provide me with the means of making at least some money off of my purchased game.
When I buy a new car am I supposed to keep it for my entire life, even when it no longer functions? If I sell it used a few years later and make back some of my money isn't this fair? The car company makes less money this way because I took the potential sell from one of their customers who could have bought a new car.
I am probably full of crap, because I have never studied economics. I just know that if I invest money in something, I should be able to get a return investment. Perhaps EA games and the rest should sell their own games from now on? They have benefited from the likes of Best Buy, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Gamestop, and Software Etc. for far too long.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie. They just get bent out of shape when someone wants some of the pie as well.
Firstly, a video game is a source of entertainment, or rather a luxury. A Car is pretty much needed, depending on where you live.
Also, this isn't about EA, not fully anyway. Mortal Kombat has those codes, and they are from Warner Brothers, nothing to do with EA.
As for "poor you!", it's called Buyer Beware for a reason. Do research on the game you want to buy, even if it means not buying it when the game first comes out. Wait for the bargain bin. Game consoles, and the games that you play on them, are luxuries; you don't need them to function.
Gamestop makes money off of new game sales, they just don't get as much as when they make Used game sales.
There is NOTHING stopping you from buying a Used game for $20. You can still do that. Just be prepared to buy a Pass for $10. Last I checked $30 is still cheaper than $60.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Lord Scythican wrote:If I sell a game it is usually about 10-15 years after it has came out and moved into the Nostalgia phase. I usually get $100.00 - $150.00 out of each game that I sell like this. Of course the games I am selling are popular ones and all classics. Don't expect to get $150.00 out of Madden 96 this year.
Or any madden game for that matter.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Lord Scythican wrote:Melissia wrote:If I sell a game it is usually about 10-15 years after it has came out and moved into the Nostalgia phase. I usually get $100.00 - $150.00 out of each game that I sell like this. Of course the games I am selling are popular ones and all classics. Don't expect to get $150.00 out of Madden 96 this year.
This is then an example of selling something only hardcore gamers/collecters would ever be interested in, and at that point the Online would be dead for the game anyway. Those kind of sales will be unaffected.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Slarg232 wrote:
As for "poor you!", it's called Buyer Beware for a reason. Do research on the game you want to buy, even if it means not buying it when the game first comes out. Wait for the bargain bin. Game consoles, and the games that you play on them, are luxuries; you don't need them to function.
Gamestop makes money off of new game sales, they just don't get as much as when they make Used game sales.
There is NOTHING stopping you from buying a Used game for $20. You can still do that. Just be prepared to buy a Pass for $10. Last I checked $30 is still cheaper than $60.
What about buying new games that are supposed to be good but end up being crap when they come out?
I wanted to pay $60.00 for Final Fantasy XIII. It turned out to be a horrible game. If it was used, I would have bought it for $55.00 the week it came out, took it back and traded it for something better. Instead I bought it new, and sold it for $45.00. Some other poor SOB bought it for $55.00 used.
Why do I have to wait until the used game is $20.00 to make the purchase more appropriate? I have to wait up to a year to buy it that cheap and not hurt the game manufacturer's pockets? Isn't this worse, since hardly anyone is making profit from the used game at that point?
29408
Post by: Melissia
If you buy a game new, without trying it out first, that's your choice.
Your responsibility.
I bought WoW and found out that it was a boring festival of mediocrity, I certainly regretted it, but it was my choice to buy it.
34087
Post by: Requia
Slarg232 wrote:
As for "poor you!", it's called Buyer Beware for a reason. Do research on the game you want to buy, even if it means not buying it when the game first comes out. Wait for the bargain bin. Game consoles, and the games that you play on them, are luxuries; you don't need them to function.
Gamestop makes money off of new game sales, they just don't get as much as when they make Used game sales.
There is NOTHING stopping you from buying a Used game for $20. You can still do that. Just be prepared to buy a Pass for $10. Last I checked $30 is still cheaper than $60.
The primary victim isn't the people who buy used, its the people who buy new and then sell when they finish the game, and won't be able to get as good of a price as a result of EAs actions.
29408
Post by: Melissia
They don't get a good price anyway if they sell to gamestop. Gamestop has been ripping off people selling games to it for years now.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Melissia wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:n0t_u wrote:I guess this system helps mostly against piracy, not used games.
This system does nothing to combat piracy. Pirates just set up private networks for MP. EDIT: Besides. Piracy of console games isn't that much. It's going on in China and pretty much no where else afaik.
Oddly enough, there were more pirated copies of Homefront on the Xbox than on the PC.
That's certainly new. Still. These cards won't stop piracy. Pirates will always find ways around any system you make to stop them, usually by disconnecting the game from any system you put in place and inserting it into their own. The question is how much will you make legal consumers suffer in your valiant yet futile crusade against the pirates?
EDIT: A little off topic.
I don't have a problem with the cards. I usually buy my games new anyway. I don't really have a problem with Game Stops buyback policies. If you don't really care how much money you get back from a game you don't play anymore, it's a convenient way to make a few bucks and clear off your game self of junk you don't use anymore. If you want to make a good bit back, use Ebay. If you don't care Game Stop works fine.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Oh no, it won't stop pirates, but that's not its purpose anyway.
32867
Post by: johnscott10
Soup and a roll wrote:
@ Johnscott10: I agree that the system would be annoying for you, but I think there might be questions of the legality of sharing games anyway...
There are legality issues, but how often are they goin to arise in court?? Almost none, because when you buy a game, DVD or CD you are buying a lisence only you have to use said media so sharing it with a household should impose legality issues, but i highly doubt that would happen.
29408
Post by: Melissia
But this also means that they don't really have any obligation to serve your sharing needs.
32867
Post by: johnscott10
Melissia wrote:But this also means that they don't really have any obligation to serve your sharing needs.
Im not saying they do, im just saying that some people will find it as an annoyance.
29408
Post by: Melissia
And the company finds it an annoyance to not get its deserved profits...
32867
Post by: johnscott10
Melissia wrote:And the company finds it an annoyance to not get its deserved profits...
I highly doubt that a company will notice missing £30 or so compared to the millions they already have.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
johnscott10 wrote:Melissia wrote:And the company finds it an annoyance to not get its deserved profits...
I highly doubt that a company will notice missing £30 or so compared to the millions they already have.
Actually, they will;
It costs millions, if not billions, to make a video game. The only way to make that money up is by sales. If they lose out on a consumer buying a copy, they lose out $60 to pay for the game they just made. Now say 1,000 people buy Used. That's $60,000 they just didn't make. And in all actuallity, they are NOT making all $60 back per sale; money has to be given to Microsoft/Sony for allowing them to put their game on their console, have to pay Gamestop/the seller, all that sort of jazz.
Also, most publishers use Sales Figures to decide on what gets a sequel and how much money they will put into that Sequel. So if those 1,000 people don't buy it, that's alot worse of a chart, alot less money going towards the sequel, and a less quality game.
34087
Post by: Requia
johnscott10 wrote:Soup and a roll wrote:
@ Johnscott10: I agree that the system would be annoying for you, but I think there might be questions of the legality of sharing games anyway...
There are legality issues, but how often are they goin to arise in court?? Almost none, because when you buy a game, DVD or CD you are buying a lisence only you have to use said media so sharing it with a household should impose legality issues, but i highly doubt that would happen.
Right of first sale. You have a legal right to lend your copyrighted material to somebody else.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Slarg232 wrote:johnscott10 wrote:Melissia wrote:And the company finds it an annoyance to not get its deserved profits...
I highly doubt that a company will notice missing £30 or so compared to the millions they already have.
Actually, they will;
It costs millions, if not billions, to make a video game. The only way to make that money up is by sales. If they lose out on a consumer buying a copy, they lose out $60 to pay for the game they just made. Now say 1,000 people buy Used. That's $60,000 they just didn't make. And in all actuallity, they are NOT making all $60 back per sale; money has to be given to Microsoft/Sony for allowing them to put their game on their console, have to pay Gamestop/the seller, all that sort of jazz.
Also, most publishers use Sales Figures to decide on what gets a sequel and how much money they will put into that Sequel. So if those 1,000 people don't buy it, that's alot worse of a chart, alot less money going towards the sequel, and a less quality game.
Indeed. So in the end, as far as I'm concerned-- me being a customer who almost always buys games new (most of my games are PC games anyway), the online pass thing is beneficial to me because it means that the company will get a little bit of money from people who otherwise would give them nothing (renters and used game buyers).
I'm thinking of THQ's online pass primarily, not EA's thing. Not really liking the design of EA's passes.
31506
Post by: happydude
Requia wrote:I cannot express my opinion on this and stay within the site rules.
This ^
Used game sales account for a nice chunk of retailers profits, ESPECIALLY the mom and pop game stores who make a chunk of revenue from used titles. EA belongs to vivendi. Look them up, they are not going to go broke anytime soon, this is a greedy ploy. Automatically Appended Next Post: Lord Scythican wrote:Slarg232 wrote:Guys, guys, GUYS!
If you buy the game NEW, for $60, you don't spend a single cent, NOT. ONE. PENNY. extra in order to play online with these passes. This is only if you buy a game USED for less, because the Game Companies do not get anything from those sales.
They work on a product, you buy it new, they don't get a single cent of it. I think these things are totally justified, because how many of you guys would work for two years without getting payed?
Okay so if Gamestop today started selling only new games then what would you suggest that they do with their profit? They are choosing to invest the money made from selling the game new for the game manufacturer into the buying of used games.
When Wal-Mart sells a new game, they take their money and invest it is something else. Are you saying Gamestop should take their profit and invest it in something else as well? In other words, "we don't care what you do with the money you made from selling our product, just don't use it to re-buy the product and sell it again."
Gamestop is a company as well, and they have to make money in their own way or they cease to exist. The economics of the issue seem a little unfair. Gamestop is making their money their way and the game company is making their profit in their way. If the game company truly wants Gamestop to stop selling used games, perhaps they should sell their new games to gamestop cheaper so Gamestop can make a fair profit?
All I see is Poor EA games. What about Poor Gamestop? What about Poor Me? I am not making any money off of the issue. Where is my percentage as a consumer? If I don't think a game is worth $60.00 then I should be able to sell it and get a partial return of my investment. Gamestop and Ebay provide me with the means of making at least some money off of my purchased game.
When I buy a new car am I supposed to keep it for my entire life, even when it no longer functions? If I sell it used a few years later and make back some of my money isn't this fair? The car company makes less money this way because I took the potential sell from one of their customers who could have bought a new car.
I am probably full of crap, because I have never studied economics. I just know that if I invest money in something, I should be able to get a return investment. Perhaps EA games and the rest should sell their own games from now on? They have benefited from the likes of Best Buy, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Gamestop, and Software Etc. for far too long.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie. They just get bent out of shape when someone wants some of the pie as well.
You are correct, believe me. With most game titles unfinished and DLC being released day one with sub par dlc down the road that people buy anyway that title becomes a 70-90 dollar game instead of 60. These companies fail to see that if someone new buys their used title, after someone has already bought their dlc and traded it in, this new consumer will probably ALSO purchase said dlc for whatever the cost. however this is not enough and they require an additional 10 dollars from your pocket...
29408
Post by: Melissia
And once again, I see no problem with THQ's online pass.
For Homefront, you aren't allowed to progress past level five unless you purchased new (and thus have an unused code with the game) or an online pass purchased if you have a used or rental copy. You have full access to single player, and full access to multiplayer, you just can't unlock anything past level five.
The multiplayer service is not cheap to provide and ensure there are dedicated servers for, and certainly given the various balance patches and patches to the matchmaking and so on that are going through they're putting enough effort to deserve that ten bucks from you if you bought the game used-- otherwise, you aren't their customer anyway so they have no obligation to support you.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
happydude wrote:
This ^
Used game sales account for a nice chunk of retailers profits, ESPECIALLY the mom and pop game stores who make a chunk of revenue from used titles. EA belongs to vivendi. Look them up, they are not going to go broke anytime soon, this is a greedy ploy.
It's not the point of going broke. It's a point of getting payed for what you work for for a couple of years.
You are correct, believe me. With most game titles unfinished and DLC being released day one with sub par dlc down the road that people buy anyway that title becomes a 70-90 dollar game instead of 60. These companies fail to see that if someone new buys their used title, after someone has already bought their dlc and traded it in, this new consumer will probably ALSO purchase said dlc for whatever the cost. however this is not enough and they require an additional 10 dollars from your pocket...
What does it matter? If you pay $20 for a used game, you pay $10 for a online pass, that's $30, still half the price of the New Game.
Also, name me one DLC that you have to purchase in order to "finish" the game......
Any of you guys who are arguing against this download music from Grokster or Limewire or anywhere like that?
19004
Post by: Soup and a roll
Slarg232 wrote: (1) It's a point of getting payed for what you work for for a couple of years. What does it matter? If you pay $20 for a used game, you pay $10 for a online pass, that's $30, still half the price of the New Game.
(2) Also, name me one DLC that you have to purchase in order to "finish" the game......
(3) Any of you guys who are arguing against this download music from Grokster or Limewire or anywhere like that?
1. It's about getting paid twice, undeservedly. They are taking an extra cut from second-hand buyers without doing any extra work or content. Plenty of companies artificially bump up their prices (charging for eating in, extra money for condiments) but in this case it is entirely unjustified. You are still paying less than for a full game, true, but you are paying more than you should because of a company's greed. Unacceptable.
2. There are plenty of examples where DLC has obviously been cut from the game to sell separately. Assassins creed II and The Sims spring to mind but I'm sure i could find more with little research. They basically decide to sell the entire game for, say, $80 instead of $60. You don't have to buy it but are punished by missing content if the DLC wasn't removed in the first place.
3. Hypocrisy or not, that isn't relevant.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Undeservedly?
They're providing an online service for the game which the used game buyer can use despite not having paid the company for their product.
The person might as well have just downloaded the game and burned it onto a disk as far as the company's profits go. They aren't a customer to the company, the company has no obligation to serve them.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Melissia wrote:Undeservedly?
They're providing an online service for the game which the used game buyer can use despite not having paid the company for their product.
The person might as well have just downloaded the game and burned it onto a disk as far as the company's profits go. They aren't a customer to the company, the company has no obligation to serve them.
That's overstating it. The copy of the game being used has already been bought new once. The company was paid for that copy already. That it has changed hands is irrelevant as far as the company making money goes. It's not the same thing as burning it onto a disk which is the creation of an entirely new copy of the game. EDIT: Basically I'm saying that used games do nothing to hurt the publisher/developer. The game copy has changed hands. It's not like they've been paid once and now have to support five or six people for that copy. They only have to support one because only one person legally has it at a time.
The online pass is just publishers trying to get a cut of the used game pie, which I don't really have a problem with. I do wonder why they can't just negotiate a contract with Game Stop that gives them a cut of used game sales though. Online passes will probably hurt publishers in the long run I would think, but then again, most consumers aren't that bright and don't think of of having $10 ripped from their pockets (that's me exaggerating a bit, I buy new so I don't really care all that much  ).
19004
Post by: Soup and a roll
+1 to Hats. Same number of consumers, it's just they have seen a way of making more money with relatively little extra work. I don't see Gamestop being happy about giving them money for nothing either, to be fair. On an slight tangent, I just listened to Neil Gaiman talking about piracy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI I know it isn't the same for a relatively unknown author compared to a wide-reaching games publisher with billions behind publicity but it still makes me think that if you have a really good product, people will spend money on it. I still have a copy of Shadow of the Colossus, even though I don't have anything to play it on any more.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
+1 to Hats as well. People are acting like the used game is a totally new game. Someone who sold it, is investing the money in another game if they are smart, (cash is way less than trade in). If I buy a used car, my money will go to the purchase of something else which helps the system. If I buy a used Space Marine army, then the product is changing hands. Hopefully my money will go to the purchase of a new army.
People act like if I trade in a game and sell it, the money evaporates into thin air or something. The product has changed hands. I have a partial return of my investment in the new game. I can use that money to purchase another game. Gamestop makes a better profit and is able to stay in business. If you think this is a bad idea, then make sure you never buy a used car, buy from a thrift store, only buy new on ebay, and never ever sell a single mini to someone after you have purchased it. Under no circumstances are you allowed to buy a used warhammer army.
Acting like the game company makes no money from used purchases is absurd. You are leaving out quite a bit of details when it comes to the buying and selling of new/used games. Car companies make very little profit on new cars. If they only sold new cars, they would probably be out of business. They used aspect of the auto industry brings in the capital that they need to stay in business.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Lord Scythican wrote:+1 to Hats as well. People are acting like the used game is a totally new game. Someone who sold it, is investing the money in another game if they are smart, (cash is way less than trade in). If I buy a used car, my money will go to the purchase of something else which helps the system. If I buy a used Space Marine army, then the product is changing hands. Hopefully my money will go to the purchase of a new army.
People act like if I trade in a game and sell it, the money evaporates into thin air or something. The product has changed hands. I have a partial return of my investment in the new game. I can use that money to purchase another game. Gamestop makes a better profit and is able to stay in business. If you think this is a bad idea, then make sure you never buy a used car, buy from a thrift store, only buy new on ebay, and never ever sell a single mini to someone after you have purchased it. Under no circumstances are you allowed to buy a used warhammer army.
Acting like the game company makes no money from used purchases is absurd. You are leaving out quite a bit of details when it comes to the buying and selling of new/used games. Car companies make very little profit on new cars. If they only sold new cars, they would probably be out of business. They used aspect of the auto industry brings in the capital that they need to stay in business.
Two reasons that doesn't hold water:
1) games are a luxury. Cars are not. Unless you work a block away from, or above your workplace, you NEED a car to get around. You don't need a game to survive; the Entertainment Industry is totally different from the Transportation industry.
2) A $60.00 game that you buy and then return the day after, to help pay for a completely different game by a completely different developer, is not the same as buying a Car, using it for one day, and then selling it back the next day. When you buy parts for a Used Car, more than likely you need parts from the same companies cars. Your still paying the company for parts to restore their car. Not so with a game; you buy Company A's Game, sell it, someone else buys it, and then buy another game from a different company (Because honestly, how many times has a company released two games around the same time?), you aren't giving any more money to the Company A.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Slarg232 wrote:Lord Scythican wrote:+1 to Hats as well. People are acting like the used game is a totally new game. Someone who sold it, is investing the money in another game if they are smart, (cash is way less than trade in). If I buy a used car, my money will go to the purchase of something else which helps the system. If I buy a used Space Marine army, then the product is changing hands. Hopefully my money will go to the purchase of a new army.
People act like if I trade in a game and sell it, the money evaporates into thin air or something. The product has changed hands. I have a partial return of my investment in the new game. I can use that money to purchase another game. Gamestop makes a better profit and is able to stay in business. If you think this is a bad idea, then make sure you never buy a used car, buy from a thrift store, only buy new on ebay, and never ever sell a single mini to someone after you have purchased it. Under no circumstances are you allowed to buy a used warhammer army.
Acting like the game company makes no money from used purchases is absurd. You are leaving out quite a bit of details when it comes to the buying and selling of new/used games. Car companies make very little profit on new cars. If they only sold new cars, they would probably be out of business. They used aspect of the auto industry brings in the capital that they need to stay in business.
Two reasons that doesn't hold water:
1) games are a luxury. Cars are not. Unless you work a block away from, or above your workplace, you NEED a car to get around. You don't need a game to survive; the Entertainment Industry is totally different from the Transportation industry.
2) A $60.00 game that you buy and then return the day after, to help pay for a completely different game by a completely different developer, is not the same as buying a Car, using it for one day, and then selling it back the next day. When you buy parts for a Used Car, more than likely you need parts from the same companies cars. Your still paying the company for parts to restore their car. Not so with a game; you buy Company A's Game, sell it, someone else buys it, and then buy another game from a different company (Because honestly, how many times has a company released two games around the same time?), you aren't giving any more money to the Company A.
The only difference I see is that the game is on a smaller scale. I don't think your argument holds water either, so we might as well agree to disagree. How does a car being a necessity and a game not relevant to the profit of one or the other? Parts for a used car are similar to buying peripherals for a console. It is part of the business as a whole. Parts are made cheap and break easily, so you will buy replacement parts in the future. Games are developed to make use of peripherals so you will buy them later on.
All that is happening with a Used game being sold, is that the product is exchanging hands. If they don't want the game sold like this for some odd reason, then the game needs to be worth keeping for a longer period of time.
It is no different than selling a used Warhammer Army on ebay and then using the money gained from the purchase to buy something else. Even if I do not buy another warhammer army, it is ok because if I spend the money on anything it is money being returned to the economy. Somewhere someone else is selling their Nintendo Wii to buy my used warhammer army. Whoever bought that Wii may have just sold a Mt. Bike to pay for the Wii. Whoever bought the Mt. Bike may have sold their Plasma TV. And whoever sold the TV may have sold it so they would have money to buy a Warhammer army new.
That is how economics works. Product is bought, sold, and exchanged through a variety of factors. You are leaving out quite a few of them in your arguments.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't beleive games are the same, "just on a smaller scale", but I respect your opinion.
Wait! I know how to solve this issue, once and for all.
Face me, in Mortal Kombat!
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Slarg232 wrote:I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't beleive games are the same, "just on a smaller scale", but I respect your opinion.
Wait! I know how to solve this issue, once and for all.
Face me, in Mortal Kombat!
Just a second. I will be in that thread after this one. Then once the game** comes out, "I will destroy you!"*
* Mass Effect quote
** You are getting the PS3 version aren't you? If not I will rent the 360 version and face you.
Wow, I am kind of happy to agree to disagree with you. That was...bloodless. I would almost agree with you since you were so sensible.
29408
Post by: Melissia
LordofHats wrote:Basically I'm saying that used games do nothing to hurt the publisher/developer.
The companies disagree with your conclusion.
As do I. The game changes hands, and people play the game without paying the company for the privilege to do so, therefor that is money the company isn't making. Try to give half-assed justifications for it all you want, in the end, that's still money the company isn't making for services they provided.
Therefor they aren't the company's customers, the company has no obligation to serve them in any way what so ever. So you buy the game used, and find out that you can't play it without paying for an online pass. Well, that's your fault for buying the game used, the company has no obligation to have the game work if you do not buy it new.
This might seem cold-hearted, but it's true. To go with the used car market analogy you types love so much, it isn't the car maker that is obligated to make sure used cars work, it's the used car dealer. And according to them, buyer beware.
26674
Post by: Slarg232
Lord Scythican wrote:Slarg232 wrote:I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't beleive games are the same, "just on a smaller scale", but I respect your opinion.
Wait! I know how to solve this issue, once and for all.
Face me, in Mortal Kombat!
Just a second. I will be in that thread after this one. Then once the game** comes out, "I will destroy you!"*
* Mass Effect quote
** You are getting the PS3 version aren't you? If not I will rent the 360 version and face you.
Wow, I am kind of happy to agree to disagree with you. That was...bloodless. I would almost agree with you since you were so sensible.
Oh, there will be blood.
Nah man, you don't have to rent it, I just was quoting Lui Kang in one of his leaked scenes. I still need to buy a new Xbox since my Warrenty died a few months ago :(
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Slarg232 wrote:Lord Scythican wrote:Slarg232 wrote:I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't beleive games are the same, "just on a smaller scale", but I respect your opinion.
Wait! I know how to solve this issue, once and for all.
Face me, in Mortal Kombat!
Just a second. I will be in that thread after this one. Then once the game** comes out, "I will destroy you!"*
* Mass Effect quote
** You are getting the PS3 version aren't you? If not I will rent the 360 version and face you.
Wow, I am kind of happy to agree to disagree with you. That was...bloodless. I would almost agree with you since you were so sensible.
Oh, there will be blood.
Nah man, you don't have to rent it, I just was quoting Lui Kang in one of his leaked scenes. I still need to buy a new Xbox since my Warrenty died a few months ago :(
You want blood? Well how about this then?! Gamestop is having a Buy 2 Used Games get one Free sale on April 18th!! I know that hurt!!!
Okay that was a low blow...sorry.
Anyways, I have a 360 and a PS3. I usually get a game pass in the summer, so I will have the opportunity to play the 360 and the PS3 version. I am buying the PS3 because my brother only has a PS3 and we want to be able to settle are brotherly feuds.
19004
Post by: Soup and a roll
It's simple transfer of ownership.
Customer X buys the game and transfers ownership to customer Y. X no longer has any contract with the company but they don't have to support the game for customer Y because he only indirectly paid them? That sounds more 'half-assed' than any of our justifications.
The company will make more money if both players buy a copy, yes, but it is the company that need to provide an exciting enough product that more players will be inclined to buy. That's simple supply and demand.
The companies are trying to increase their profits, which is fine. They are, however, doing it at the cost of consumers, which will cost them the good will of their consumer base.
I understand your view point Melissia that companies provide continuing support for players who have not paid them directly. I disagree, however, that it is a privilege to do so. The companies would certainly make more money if used games were not available, but, unfortunately for them, they are. They are also legal and 'steal profits' from most luxury goods sellers. Games companies have the unusual position of being able to claw some money out of the process but that doesn't make it right and certainly doesn't mean I have to like it.
Also, Get a room Slarg and Scyth!
29408
Post by: Melissia
Soup and a roll wrote:Customer X buys the game and transfers ownership to customer Y. X no longer has any contract with the company but they don't have to support the game for customer Y because he only indirectly paid them?
No, because s/he didn't pay them, directly OR indirectly.
"Customer Y" is a misnomer-- they aren't a customer at all to the company. Not one dollar from Person Y's purchase from Customer X ended up in the hands of the producers and developers of the game. If Person Y is angry at having to buy an online pass, they should blame Customer X for it, because it's Customer X who sold them the used game to begin with.
Similar to how, if a person buy's a used car from a used car dealership that has no affiliations to the actual manufacturer, they can't yell at the manufacturer if the car doesn't work or needs repair. They have to take it up with the used car dealership. Of course, the used car dealership will simply say "hey, you bought it as is, it was in the contract".
Buyer beware.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Melissia wrote:Soup and a roll wrote:Customer X buys the game and transfers ownership to customer Y. X no longer has any contract with the company but they don't have to support the game for customer Y because he only indirectly paid them?
No, because s/he didn't pay them, directly OR indirectly.
"Customer Y" is a misnomer-- they aren't a customer at all to the company. Not one dollar from Person Y's purchase from Customer X ended up in the hands of the producers and developers of the game. If Person Y is angry at having to buy an online pass, they should blame Customer X for it, because it's Customer X who sold them the used game to begin with.
Similar to how, if a person buy's a used car from a used car dealership that has no affiliations to the actual manufacturer, they can't yell at the manufacturer if the car doesn't work or needs repair. They have to take it up with the used car dealership. Of course, the used car dealership will simply say "hey, you bought it as is, it was in the contract".
Buyer beware.
However if the car is still under warrantly, it doesn't matter if it was used or not, the manufacturer still has to work on and repair the car. Its not like whoever sold the car, gets to keep the warrantly and use it on their next car. The warranty is part of the investment and is sold with the car.
I still don't see your logic. I like the idea of a online pass coming with the game being new. I am fine with that. But this whole money thing doesn't make any sense. Customer X bought the game. The company got his money, he got the game. The game has value and he can sell it. If he sells it, he is selling his investment in the game to someone else (customer Y). It is like buying and selling the shares of a company but on a much smaller scale. You are acting as if customer X bought the game, copied it and sold the copy to customer Y. The original game (investment) has changed hands. Customer Y deserves support for the game because he purchased the investment from customer X.
Dave Parrack regarding the issue:
There’s a debate raging at the moment about whether used game sales are harming the industry or not. Many game developers and publishers, such as EA, think they are, but many others do not. Michael Pachter may not be most gamers’ favorite person, but on this score he’s come out on our side. I knew he was a good guy really.
Video games, like every other form of entertainment media, are ripe for the second-hand market. Once you’ve played a game through and got everything you want out of it, the obvious thing to do with it is sell or trade it in. And if you’re buying an older title, buying used can often save you a tidy sum of money.
The games industry itself isn’t a fan though, and you can, on the face of it, understand why. It considers used game sales as lost opportunities, that each person buying a game second-hand is a person who isn’t going to buy new, and consequently isn’t putting any money into the industry.
Pachter has a different opinion on the subject, and in a report published by Wedbush Morgan, where he is an analyst, Pachter explains why he actually think used game sales are an important element of the industry and pusher of new game sales. According to GI.biz, he said:
The vast majority of used games are not traded in until the original new game purchaser has finished playing – more than two months after a new game is released – typically well beyond the window for a full retail priced new game sale.
If trade-ins occur at GameStop, they should position the trade-in customer to buy more new games than he/she would otherwise normally purchase. Because the average used game value is around 20 per cent of the new game price, we think that used game trade-ins fuel incremental sales of over six per cent of total new game sales, suggesting that the cannibalization from the used game ‘push’ is more than offset by the benefit from used game currency.
Pachter also revealed that the used game sales sector of the market now accounts for around 100 million units per year in the U.S. alone. That equates to around one-third of all games sold and provides a revenue stream of around $2 billion annually.
If Pachter is correct in what he says then the games industry should be very thankful for the second-hand market because it gives gamers more cash in their hand to buy new games. On top of that, there is the fact that most people buy used titles that they just weren’t keen enough to buy at full-price. So, rather than taking away from sales figures, it’s an important element of keeping the industry healthy.
I love the fact that Pachter has effectively pulled the rug out from under the publishers argument that the used games market is harming the industry. It clearly isn’t. But even without this reasoning, isn’t it a consumer’s right to trade or sell a product that, at one time, was bought new? I’m just grateful I don’t live in Belgium.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have also seen people compare the used game market to the reselling of used movie tickets:
...imagine Regal Cinemas decided to start buying back ticket stubs from movie viewers, and selling them to the next person in line (keeping all the revenue for themselves). Over and over and over. Just how long would Hollywood stand for that?
This doesn't even sound the same. It would be the equivalent of buying back the receipt for the game purchase. The product, "the movie experience" is not being bought back. Unless you are able to strip the memory of the movie from the first person and then implant it into the next person, then the comparison isn't even in the same ballpark.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Lord Scythican wrote:However if the car is still under warrantly, it doesn't matter if it was used or not, the manufacturer still has to work on and repair the car.
Games aren't under warranty from the producer. At most, the retailer gives warranty, so once again, the retailer is the one you go to, not the producer/developer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Scythican wrote:Customer Y deserves support for the game because he purchased the investment from customer X.
So person Y, who is not a customer of the original game producer, can ask for support for the game from customer X, whom sold the game to them. That's who they paid money to, that's the only one that owes them anything in return.
Or, you know, they can buy the online pass, and now they ARE customer Y, because they actually paid money for the service to the company that provides it.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Melissia wrote:Lord Scythican wrote:However if the car is still under warrantly, it doesn't matter if it was used or not, the manufacturer still has to work on and repair the car.
Games aren't under warranty from the producer. At most, the retailer gives warranty, so once again, the retailer is the one you go to, not the producer/developer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Scythican wrote:Customer Y deserves support for the game because he purchased the investment from customer X.
So PERSON Y can ask support for the game from customer X.
No he purchased the game form X. X has sold his investment. If Y holds the investment then they have purchased whatever warranty/benefit comes with owning the game has come with it, just like a car. So if the game manufacturer provides something for owning the game, then Y has gained that through purchasing the game from X.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Lord Scythican wrote:No he purchased the game form X
Yes... sort of. See below \/
Lord Scythican wrote:X has sold his investment
No, he sold whatever legally transferable rights that he/she may have had to play the game.
Lord Scythican wrote:If Y holds the investment
He/she doesn't, as noted above.
Lord Scythican wrote:then they have purchased whatever warranty/benefit comes with owning the game has come with it
Many warranties are non-transferable, therefor this would be false in their cases.
Lord Scythican wrote:So if the game manufacturer provides something for owning the game, then Y has gained that through purchasing the game from X.
You haven't read a video game EULA recently have you?
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Well we have to agree to disagree then. There is nothing you can say that will turn me from believing that the game is an investment.
It is exactly the same as buying a used car. Luxury and necessity have nothing to do with the exchange of ownership over an investment.
As for warranty being non transferable, yes I agree, but I said benefit as well. Online play is a benefit. If the game comes with it, then the person who purchased it has the right to use the online capabilities whether it is new or used.
With that said, I do not mind the online play being for new games and purchasable for a used game. To me that is the same as buying a used car with a crappy warranty. If I want a better warranty, then I buy an extended warranty for that car. If I want online play for my used game, then I buy the online play.
I have no problems with what the game developers are doing. Charging for the benefit of online play is perfectly acceptable. What I have a problem with, is you saying that buying a used game is not an investment that is a change of ownership.
If I buy a copy of Final Fantasy from someone who bought the game years ago, then I am purchasing their investment. I bought Final Fantasy VII at a yard sale last year. I payed $10.00 for it. I can sell it for way more than that. I would be selling my right to play the game.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Lord Scythican wrote:As for warranty being non transferable, yes I agree, but I said benefit as well. Online play is a benefit. If the game comes with it, then the person who purchased it has the right to use the online capabilities whether it is new or used.
... if the EULA says that right transfers, yes.
I don't agree with it being an investment, except in the most general and crudest definition of investment which is such a worthless definition that you might as well not use it-- IE, a commitment with an expectation of results, in which case everything we do is an investment of some sort, making the distinction between a purchase and an investment pointless.
No, they just bought the right to play that particular copy of the game, as defined by the game's EULA. One can argue that the concepts of EULA as they are used today is unethical and potentially even illegal in some cases, but for now, they have (mostly) held up in court.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Melissia wrote:
I don't agree with it being an investment, except in the most general and crudest definition of investment which is such a worthless definition that you might as well not use it-- IE, a commitment with an expectation of results, in which case everything we do is an investment of some sort, making the distinction between a purchase and an investment pointless.
.
That definition is perfect.
I committed my money to purchase a game with the expectation of being able to play the game.
I purchased a drive-able used car with the expectation of being able to drive it.
I purchased a nondrive-able used car with the expectation of being able to repair it or sell it for parts.
I purchased a new game with the expectation of being able to play it online without having to pay an additional $10.00 for an online pass.
With any of those, money is given to the seller who can then turn and invest that money into something else. If I sell my Ork army used for $1000.00 and then use that money to buy a new Xbox 360 and a pile of games, should GW be upset? Of course not, because someone else probably just sold a PS3 and the game library to buy a warhammer army.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Lord Scythican wrote:With any of those, money is given to the seller who can then turn and invest that money into something else. If I sell my Ork army used for $1000.00 and then use that money to buy a new Xbox 360 and a pile of games, should GW be upset? Of course not, because someone else probably just sold a PS3 and the game library to buy a warhammer army.
That makes so little sense that I am honestly at a loss for how to respond without producing some kind of image macro involving a kitten.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
I blew your mind didn't I?
That was an over simplified example of economics. All it is, is a transfer of money and rights with a product. The money that I gain from selling a used game does not disappear. The game does not duplicate. The investment has changed ownership. I don't own the game, but I sold the right to play the game to someone else.
My money gained from selling the right to play the game can then be invested into something else. If you have a problem with this, then anything you buy new can never be sold. That includes whatever house you are living in, the car you drive, and everything else.
I simply do not see any difference in selling the right to play a game and selling something like a house. It is just a smaller scale. With your logic, houses should only be bought new, because if someone buys a used house they are taking money away from whoever built and sold the house.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Lord Scythican wrote:All it is, is a transfer of money and rights with a product. The money that I gain from selling a used game does not disappear. The game does not duplicate. The investment has changed ownership. I don't own the game, but I sold the right to play the game to someone else.
So you agree with me and disagree with yourself? Because this is what I have been saying.
Meanwhile you've been saying that a company gains money from people buying used versions of their product, which is in most cases false.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Melissia wrote:Lord Scythican wrote:All it is, is a transfer of money and rights with a product. The money that I gain from selling a used game does not disappear. The game does not duplicate. The investment has changed ownership. I don't own the game, but I sold the right to play the game to someone else.
So you agree with me and disagree with yourself? Because this is what I have been saying.
Meanwhile you've been saying that a company gains money from people buying used versions of their product, which is in most cases false.
No that's not what I am saying. I am saying that the company inadvertently gains money from something else being sold and then that money being used to buy a game.
We very well may be arguing different points. 
Used merchandise is sold and that money gained is used for something else. It is all fuel for the economy. If I sell my Ork army to buy new games, this is fine because it is all part of the plan.
Gamestop wants their part of the plan. Game companies no longer need Gamestop to sell their games. (Steam Anyone?) They are choosing to drum up this argument to cut out their loyal friend Gamestop who has bought their product and sold it for years. When I was buying SNES games, I knew nothing about the game unless Software Etc. told me something. Game companies were perfectly happy with this for years, till they realized they no longer need gamestop. If they have a problem with them, then they should stop selling their games to Gamestop.
BTW stop by the Mortal Kombat thread, and comment on Jack Burton. I need some positive comments, so we can keep this discussion healthy.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Lord Scythican wrote:We very well may be arguing different points.
I think that may very well be! So let's move on.
Lord Scythican wrote:to cut out their loyal friend Gamestop
STOP!
Let me read this a few more times.
...
...
...
Okay... uhm... I can't read that with a straight face.
Gamestop is no friend of PC developers to be sure-- most gamestop stores don' ot even HAVE a PC section. Why, might you ask? It's certainly not because (as they might claim) the PC gaming industry is dead, far from it.
It's because they can't sell PC games used, therefor they cannot rip the customers off as much. In fact, they seem to despise selling new games, pushing their used games and trade-ins in the face of their customers at every chance they can.
Gamestop is the LAST company in the overall gaming industry that you can expect me to have sympathy for...
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Melissia wrote:Lord Scythican wrote:We very well may be arguing different points.
I think that may very well be! So let's move on.
Lord Scythican wrote:to cut out their loyal friend Gamestop
STOP!
Let me read this a few more times.
...
...
...
Okay... uhm... I can't read that with a straight face.
Gamestop is no friend of PC developers to be sure-- most gamestop stores don' ot even HAVE a PC section. Why, might you ask? It's certainly not because (as they might claim) the PC gaming industry is dead, far from it.
It's because they can't sell PC games used, therefor they cannot rip the customers off as much. In fact, they seem to despise selling new games, pushing their used games and trade-ins in the face of their customers at every chance they can.
Gamestop is the LAST company in the overall gaming industry that you can expect me to have sympathy for...
Go back just a sec. The friend stuff dealt with game companies relying on Gamestop/Software Etc. to promote their games. It was a health partnership before the internet and Steam. We are talking SNES, Sega days.
It may have not been a friend thing, but both companies benefited greatly from each other. I am not referring to them now or even Gamestop in the last few years.
The tension between the two is a result from one or the other no longer needing each other. If me and you are partners in a business and one day I find out that I no longer need you, then I will try everything I can to get rid of you so I can receive more profit. That is all this is. Follow the money.
29408
Post by: Melissia
So you're saying that gamestop no longer needs game producers including console games and the actual consoles themselves? Because it certainly seems like they're doing their best to get rid of them, what with their shift in focus on used games to the near-exclusion of new ones.
Used games are far, FAR more profitable to gamestop (often they sell games or game consoles for 300-500% of what they bought them for, which is an insane profit margin). And they provide zero profit to game producers as the market is right now. There's no reason that game producers SHOULD like the situation, and certainly their obligation to their shareholders means that they should try to do something to profit off of the situation.
Most gamestops don't sell PC games, because they can't sell them used, and gamestop's policy is to sell used games first and foremost, with new games only being there as an afterthought. It has nothing to do with Steam.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Melissia wrote:So you're saying that gamestop no longer needs game producers including console games and the actual consoles themselves? Because it certainly seems like they're doing their best to get rid of them, what with their shift in focus on used games to the near-exclusion of new ones.
Sort of. I am saying that neither one needs each other. Gamestop can get their games from a distributer who buys and sells to everyone like Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Best Buy, and Gamestop. They can then take the product and do whatever they want with it.
The Game developers no longer need Gamestop to promote their games like they did before Steam and the Internet. You know how we have all those threads regarding games in this forum? We would not be doing that if it was November 21, 1990. Super Mario World would be promoted by Software Etc and gaming magazines. Game developers may have disliked the sell of used games in 1990, but they dismissed it as part of the business. Software Etc. needed to sell used games to make a better profit. Game Developers needed a game store to promote and sell their games.
It has all changed, hence the reason why you found the prospect of Gamestop being a loyal friend to the Game Developers. It is funny and laughable today, but this wasn't always the case.
I know you like Steam. I know you like discussing video games on DakkaDakka. Game developers know this and are now warring with Gamestop because they are no longer needed. Gamestop is still competing with them, because they are buying their games indirectly through distributers.
This is clearly about the money.
Now I am cool with whatever tactics each want to use. This is their market that they created together. They hate each other now, but they are both entitled to their fare market share of our business. If EA gives me a bonus for buying the game new, then I am very happy. Make sure your games are good. Make sure they are worth $60.00+. I only buy used for fear of the game being horrible, because you really have to play the game to know if it is good. If it is bad I can exchange it and buy something else.
EDIT: So in other words, I totally agree with you. The Game Developers have every right to want their share and less for gamestop. Gamestop had it times before the internet and steam. If they want to compete in this market, they have to up their game and provide something for their buyers, just like EA is doing with the online pass.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now come on, you have to at least say I am off my rocker!
29408
Post by: Melissia
No, I was busy making lunch. Mmn, pasta.
At any rate, when I speak of online passes, I'm speaking of THQ's rather than EA's.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Melissia wrote:No, I was busy making lunch. Mmn, pasta.
At any rate, when I speak of online passes, I'm speaking of THQ's rather than EA's.
I haven't really looked into either of them. I know Mortal Kombat is supposed to have some sort of online pass as well. I am all for it. Give me a code for some characters or something and I will buy it new. If they want to control the market, they need to fight for it.
Pasta...I haven't ate since breakfast at 6:00 AM. It is now 1:20 PM...sounds delicious...I think I will chew on my hand for a bit till I get home. Itchy Tasty.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Melissia wrote:The companies disagree with your conclusion.
Doubt it. They see a large market in used game. Their first thought isn't that they're being gimped out of money (which they aren't). Their first thought is that how can they get a piece of pie? Now maybe they lose potential profit when someone buys a used game rather than a new game, but they aren't losing money they already have. There's no loss to company, just missing opportunity.
As do I. The game changes hands, and people play the game without paying the company for the privilege to do so, therefor that is money the company isn't making. Try to give half-assed justifications for it all you want, in the end, that's still money the company isn't making for services they provided.
All used games are is a continual use of the right of first sale. Yes the company isn't making money. But they aren't losing any when I sell my copy of Hat Band 2011 to my buddy because there's still only one owner of the copy. Their situation isn't any different before I sold the game than it was after. There is one copy of the game and one person owns it. No money has been lost.
This might seem cold-hearted, but it's true.
If you prefer some wacky mythical business world to reality sure. I am not arguing about the rights of the company to the consumer. I just think you're wrong when you said that the companies were losing money to used game sales and that it was the same basic thing as pirating. It isn't. They lose no money.
The passes are just publishers trying to cut into used game sales. One can argue that this violates the right of first sale (I don't think it does but I'm also not a lawyer) but that's kind of pointless. The company see a mass market where their product is being bought and resold over and over by legal means so they try to find a legal way to get a cut of it. Good business sense I suppose. I started buying new ages ago.
PS: Most warranties are negated by first sale, at least in video games, for those unsure. This is more a complication for console though than for game discs. That's why Gamestop/Walmart often asks if you want to pay an extra $3 or whatever for their X years warranties.
To go with the used car market analogy you types love so much, it isn't the car maker that is obligated to make sure used cars work, it's the used car dealer. And according to them, buyer beware.
I didn't use the analogy. Though I think your used car one is fair. It is on Gamestop (or whoever is selling the used product) to ensure that it works not the company who originally sold it. Though, I might add that a video game company is stabbing itself in the foot to a certain extent when it starts demanding extra fees for a service that supposedly comes with the game's price tag. EDIT: Like I said though. Most people aren't that bright (I should probably say they just aren't that caring about the issue). They'll get pissy and keep paying or just start buying new.
19004
Post by: Soup and a roll
I don't like the car analogy. We're not talking about the game being faulty, we are talking about the game company withholding an aspect of the car. It's like the car company removing the windscreen wash when the car changes hands. You can still drive it, but you'll need to pay them extra to get full use.
The game EULA (which, incidentally, are often completely invalidated by trading standards) certainly gives the companies the right to withdraw support. That said, we are not arguing about the legality of the system. It's whether the company is right to do so.
I honestly think the 6 hour game with profits scraped from DLC, microtransactions for benefit ingame, online pass model is either going to destroy game creativity or embitter the consumer in the long term.
29408
Post by: Melissia
If it continued to cost the car company money, then it would be providing a service beyond the product.
Imagine if a company had All-Star installed in its cars for free, and had a non-transferable contract with the original buyer to pay for the service for X years... but only to new car buyers. And to used car buyers,, it didn't pay for that service. It was there, but you couldn't use it unless you paid for it.
That's basically what the multiplayer and patching services would be equivalent to in the car market. The old saying being "you get what you pay for", and a used game purchaser is paying less. than a new game purchaser.
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Melissia wrote:If it continued to cost the car company money, then it would be providing a service beyond the product.
Imagine if a company had All-Star installed in its cars for free, and had a non-transferable contract with the original buyer to pay for the service for X years... but only to new car buyers. And to used car buyers,, it didn't pay for that service. It was there, but you couldn't use it unless you paid for it.
That's basically what the multiplayer and patching services would be equivalent to in the car market. The old saying being "you get what you pay for", and a used game purchaser is paying less. than a new game purchaser.
Couldn't the service for X years be factored in to the asking price for the seller? I bought this car and it still has 7 years left on its On-Star service. Because of that, I am tacking on XXXX amount of dollars?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Kinda like console games are overpriced (usually ten bucks more) for the "privilege" of playing on said console?
14732
Post by: Lord Scythican
Melissia wrote:Kinda like console games are overpriced (usually ten bucks more) for the "privilege" of playing on said console?
Sounds about right.
19004
Post by: Soup and a roll
Melissia wrote:If it continued to cost the car company money, then it would be providing a service beyond the product.
But if the original consumer kept the game it would continue to cost them money as well. I expect a company to support it's games. I think it fair to expect patches if they are forced to release a buggy product and to be able to play all the features they advertise with the game (online play etc). I consider this part of the sales agreement and won't hand over money otherwise. I'm not familiar with all star and Google isn't helping. I assume it's some kind of breakdown service? That's a nice extra to have with any car and I would expect a company to offload something so potentially expensive if they get the chance, i.e if the end user changes. I don't consider online gaming to be a luxury. If they are advertising it with the game they should provide it. You say I should feel privileged that they are allowing me to use their service and I agree that they can charge what they like for the game. However, if someone has already paid for the service and I buy their game, I consider the debt paid. To simplify a) If X and Y buys the game new both lose money, the company gains money and everyone is happy. b) If X sells Y his game, X and Y have more money and are happier than in a) and the company loses money. This is unfortunate for them but is a reality where used game sales exist. c) If X sells his game and the company charges Y to play it, The company gains money without and extra work and Y loses money with no benefit whatsoever compared to b). Like I've said before, companies are entitled to do it to increase profits but without giving something back it's cynical money-grabbing. I agree that they deserve to be paid and don't deserve to lose money to piracy and to Gamestop but they shouldn't make the customers shoulder that debt without providing something in return.
12061
Post by: halonachos
Melissia wrote:Kinda like console games are overpriced (usually ten bucks more) for the "privilege" of playing on said console?
Yes, its for the privilege because for the most part the game developers have to make a game to match the system instead of having the system owners upgrading a computer for the game. That and the PS3 comes with Blu-ray and a nice anti-scratch layer. Back to EA though. I fully support the need to have an online pass for the game in order to access multiplayer. Besides the fact that I absolutely hate Gamestop it even annoys younger kids who buy the game used and can't play online because they don't have the online pass. It does hurt Gamestop more than others though because if you look at Gamestop's prices they often sell the used copy for five dollars less than retail, if the pass costs 10 then the person who bought the used game lost five dollars. Then there's the fact that has been stated before, the company constantly maintains the servers and releases patches for the games. Gamestop doesn't contribute to the cost of maintaining these servers and releasing these patches. By creating the online passes they ensure partial payment for the services they offer. It also prevents people who stole the game from using all of the features out of pocket(assuming they stole it from somebody else). Otherwise, its their product so they can do what they want with its content and its offerings. If you don't like it then don't buy their products, if you want the game then shell out the money for a new copy or pay more for a used copy. 1) X and Y both buy the game from the store and get the online pass which allows them to both play online. Company makes $120.00 2) X sells Y the game for 20 dollars less than retail. Y has to buy the online pass for 10 dollars more. The company makes an additional $70.00, and Y saves $10.00 and can play online. 3) X sells the game to Gamestop. Y buys it for five dollars less than retail and then has to buy the online pass, Y loses $5.00 Gamestop makes $30.00+ and the company makes $70.00. 4) X and Y wait for the game to get marked down. Company makes $80.00 and both people can play online. Overall you're looking at a $50.00 difference in income if a person buys the game used if the person buying the used game also gets the online pass. If the person doesn't get the online pass the company loses a potential $60.00. Multiply that by a few thousand and you get a lot of lost potential income.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Console games went up by $10 a few years ago because of rising development costs. It's cheaper to make the same game for PC than for console because console games have higher licensing fees associated with them (and probably because publishers realized they could get away with it).
Microsoft can't regulate software for Windows as easily as they can for the XBox 360. EDIT: HD-DVD is also party to blame as were the costs of modern console development. The crime isn't that console games cost $10 more it's that PC games are going up to match just because.
31506
Post by: happydude
This thread still going on? End of story, do a little research and view the company in question. A small up and comer or a company that listens to their customers well? Sure I would be glad to drop 10 dollars more than the price to support them. Companies like EA? Well no. Not for the Xbox's case anyway (Although I'm a ps3 players myself). Companies are greedy way past the profit point and will continue to do so until people speak up, although pirating is not the way to do so. Simply show them the way my friends and I have and refuse to purchase any and all titles that contain an online pass and this silliness will be done and over with. For many people I know trading that game in gave them the opportunity to try out a new title that they may have overlooked and perhaps made them a customer for life for that particular company. Kill the used games, you kill the trade-in's and if you kill the trade ins expect a larger difference in revenue for all concerned.
12061
Post by: halonachos
happydude wrote:This thread still going on? End of story, do a little research and view the company in question. A small up and comer or a company that listens to their customers well? Sure I would be glad to drop 10 dollars more than the price to support them. Companies like EA? Well no. Not for the Xbox's case anyway (Although I'm a ps3 players myself). Companies are greedy way past the profit point and will continue to do so until people speak up, although pirating is not the way to do so. Simply show them the way my friends and I have and refuse to purchase any and all titles that contain an online pass and this silliness will be done and over with. For many people I know trading that game in gave them the opportunity to try out a new title that they may have overlooked and perhaps made them a customer for life for that particular company. Kill the used games, you kill the trade-in's and if you kill the trade ins expect a larger difference in revenue for all concerned.
But, gamestop sucks.
Yes games do get a large amount of mark up. They can cost about $15 per game for the company and are sold at $60, which is why you will see games on sale with price changes. No store makes a profit off of the consoles, just games and accessories.
31506
Post by: happydude
halonachos wrote:happydude wrote:This thread still going on? End of story, do a little research and view the company in question. A small up and comer or a company that listens to their customers well? Sure I would be glad to drop 10 dollars more than the price to support them. Companies like EA? Well no. Not for the Xbox's case anyway (Although I'm a ps3 players myself). Companies are greedy way past the profit point and will continue to do so until people speak up, although pirating is not the way to do so. Simply show them the way my friends and I have and refuse to purchase any and all titles that contain an online pass and this silliness will be done and over with. For many people I know trading that game in gave them the opportunity to try out a new title that they may have overlooked and perhaps made them a customer for life for that particular company. Kill the used games, you kill the trade-in's and if you kill the trade ins expect a larger difference in revenue for all concerned.
But, gamestop sucks.
Yes games do get a large amount of mark up. They can cost about $15 per game for the company and are sold at $60, which is why you will see games on sale with price changes. No store makes a profit off of the consoles, just games and accessories.
My worry is the mom and pop game shops
34087
Post by: Requia
If gamestop was really paying 15$ a game they wouldn't sell used games (that they bought for 20$) in the first place.
12061
Post by: halonachos
That's because they don't buy just used games. They also get the games from the developers for the cost that every other store does as well. The money they offer for trade ins is a gimmick that lets them get more money. You trade in a game and get 15 dollars, but chances are you may want a newer game that costs maybe 20 or so dollars so you end up paying more anyways.
I know what my store pays per game they receive from the developer and I know the mark up. Most stores have a large amount of mark up, gamestop does too but they don't often offer more than 15 dollars for a game.
19004
Post by: Soup and a roll
halonachos wrote:Overall you're looking at a $50.00 difference in income if a person buys the game used if the person buying the used game also gets the online pass. If the person doesn't get the online pass the company loses a potential $60.00. Multiply that by a few thousand and you get a lot of lost potential income.
The potential loss of $60 is an argument against used games in general and are an unfortunate reality for games manufacturers that don't use a system like Steam.
Your scenario 2 seems to be the best for all concerned. However, the final exchange of money is the company asking for an extra tithe to play their game. The second hand customer must give them $10 of his money (which he saved by not buying their game new) to enjoy the same product that the original customer had. Used games certainly cut into profits for these people but gamestop aren't the bad guys as they can't force people to buy or sell games.
|
|
