Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:As biccat pointed out, it does not matter who paid for it.

And yet, that's still money that's not being paid to the producer.

You'll have to explain how transferring a license entitles the original licensor to any sort of benefit from the transfer, either morally or economically.

ETA:

Melissia wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:But someone already paid for the game!

One person paid, but seven people used the service, six of which did not pay. All of them cost money to run the service, but six of them are being given a free ride.

You're confusing piracy with secondhand markets.

If people really are buying a game, burning a copy, and then reselling it through GameStop, that is a much different problem, and I'd largely agree with you. But that isn't what we're talking about.

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:As biccat pointed out, it does not matter who paid for it.

And yet, that's still money that's not being paid to the producer.

This is a different argument and why LoH is talking to you about the difference between losing money and not making all the money one could potentially make.

Something to consider is that a Certain Place Where One Halts For Entertainment Material will actively try to sell you a used game before the new game; meaning they make the profit rather than the developer/publisher.

There was also a big to-do not long ago about Gamestop opening up EA's games and removing the promotional stuff for EA Origins held within because Gamestop is preparing its own digital distribution service.

Melissia wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:But someone already paid for the game!

One person paid, but seven people used the service, six of which did not pay. All of them cost money to run the service, but six of them are being given a free ride.

But there was space made for the six people already.

If six people buy the same used game, that's still only one user on the server. Not six.

LordofHats wrote:Indeed we do, the problem is that there is no entitlement to profit from their work a second time.

So you think that added patches, added content, added multiplayer, etc are just one monolithic product.

You are wrong.

LordofHats wrote:No the person who bought the game new paid for it.

I never denied that . I deny that used game buyers did. And therefor used game buyers are not the producer/developer's customer. They're gamestop's customer.

Melissia wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:But someone already paid for the game!

One person paid, but seven people used the service, six of which did not pay. All of them cost money to run the service, but six of them are being given a free ride.

No, only one person can ride at a time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Something to consider is that a [GameStop] will actively try to sell you a used game before the new game; meaning they make the profit rather than the developer/publisher.

Sure, but somebody had to buy as new everything that they're now selling as used.

Kanluwen wrote:Something to consider is that a Certain Place Where One Halts For Entertainment Material will actively try to sell you a used game before the new game; meaning they make the profit rather than the developer/publisher.

WHich is an argument that could be made though the solution is simple. Tell Game Stop to stop selling both in the same locations (not that it would matter, bargain hunting is bargain hunting). Besides look at Game Stops sales chart. New game sales are nearly 3x that of used game sales as a raw number (profit is just higher on used which produces a better margin for GS). Most people would rather have a fresh item than a used one.

There was also a big to-do not long ago about Gamestop opening up EA's games and removing the promotional stuff for EA Origins held within because Gamestop is preparing its own digital distribution service.

That was a situation with OnLive, and while I don't think Game Stop should have removed the coupons, I can agree that it wasn't fair Square should not have done it. OnLive (and Origin for that matter) are competitors to Game Stop. They can't force Game Stop to sell a product that gives the buyer incentive to purchase from a competitor.

So you think that added patches, added content, added multiplayer, etc are just one monolithic product.

No. The problem is the claim that somehow it costs them money to have to support used games.

For EA, there is no difference between me owning a new copy of a game and a used copy, other than that I didn't buy a new copy. The person I got my used copy from is no longer playing and thus no longer being supported. As Machu says, only one person can ride at a time. EA's costs do not change because the previous owner no longer needs support once I start needing it. The cost to the developer and the publisher is the same (assuming we ignore that development costs a lot more than distribution and they'd have to develop the patches anyway).

Manchu wrote:No, only one person can ride at a time.

Considering they're using the service that constantly costs the company money, that's not really much different to them compared to having multiple people who coincidently play the game at different times.

Manchu wrote:Sure, but somebody had to buy as new everything that they're now selling as used.

Gamestop will specifically understock new games to force people to buy used or go home empty handed. Essentially, they specifically work to sell the bare minimum number of new games sold to maintain a highly profitable (for them, and no-one else) secondary market.

I think biccat tried explaining this before and I think this is what Melissia is talking about, too: Publishers assume that post-launch sales will finance post-launch development and service. The used game market undermines that assumption by undermining post-launch sales. If the assumption is correct, then publishers will not pay developers to provide post-launch support/content.

Yes, that is what I'm trying to argue. Albeit not very well apparently.

Melissia wrote:Considering they're using the service that constantly costs the company money, that's not really much different to them compared to having multiple people who coincidently play the game at different times.

What? No, this is a licensing issue where the license can only be used by one person at a time. For every one license that was paid for, only one license is supported.

Melissia wrote:Gamestop will specifically understock new games to force people to buy used or go to BestBuy or Target or WalMart or Toys'R'Us, etc, etc.

Fixed that for you. Which also kind of explains why GameStop works so very hard to sell the huge number of new games that they do.

Manchu wrote:I think biccat tried explaining this before and I think this is what Melissia is talking about, too: Publishers assume that post-launch sales will finance post-launch development and service. The used game market undermines that assumption by undermining post-launch sales. If the assumption is correct, then publishers will not pay developers to provide post-launch support/content.

If that's what's been going on then I can get behind that to an extent.

I'm less concerned with this as a problem because when you release a sequel every (2) year, post launch sales aren't going to amount to much anyway. Everyone who really wants the game will buy it at launch to begin with. Publishers had their own hand in eliminating the tail and they started doing it long before GS starting making a gak ton off used games.

Manchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Something to consider is that a [GameStop] will actively try to sell you a used game before the new game; meaning they make the profit rather than the developer/publisher.

Sure, but somebody had to buy as new everything that they're now selling as used.

Sure, but again:

If the game just came out, but because of the way it is set up(a single player game like Batman: Arkham City, for example) has no replay value to the "hardcore" players who are constantly moving from one heavily advertised new title to the next and playing a game to 50-75% completion this poses a problem.

Why?
Because what happens is this:
Person A plays game to 50-75%. Finishes main story, then goes to trade in/ sell back said game to Gamestop.
Gamestop buys game back for under 50% of sale price of new copy of game. They then proceed to constantly sell people said used copy; while the new copies just sit on the shelves unless there is some kind of reason that the developer/publisher has put in to buy new and the customer is aware of the difference between the two.

Melissia wrote:Yes, that is what I'm trying to argue. Albeit not very well apparently.

I guess the trouble is that publishers are relying on an assumption that isn't true. There are two possible responses: (1) change their behavior to fit the reality of the used games market or (2) force reality to correspond to their assumption by fighting the used game market.

Manchu wrote:Fixed that for you. Which also kind of explains why GameStop works so very hard to sell the huge number of new games that they do.

The really don't work hard at all to sell new games. They actually seem to loathe doing it.

Kanluwen wrote:If the game just came out, but because of the way it is set up(a single player game like Batman: Arkham City, for example) has no replay value to the "hardcore" players who are constantly moving from one heavily advertised new title to the next and playing a game to 50-75% completion this poses a problem.

That's not a problem with used games its a problem with a shotty product. I.E. The games industry blaming second hand market for their own failure to deliver worthwhile goods.

If a game has replay value (which I consider to be necessary for a game to qualify as good) there's no reason to turn it back in so fast.

The really don't work hard at all to sell new games. They actually seem to loathe doing it.

I can actually 100% agree with that. They sell them but I'll be damned if they don't try to get me to buy the used copy with the busted up case and scratched disk. There's a reason I don't shop at GS anymore.

Kanluwen wrote:They then proceed to constantly sell people said used copy; while the new copies just sit on the shelves ...

GameStop doesn't want games to sit on the shelf. That is the unstated part of your and Melissia's comments: GameStop very much wants you to buy new copies of every game -- specifically, they want you to pre-order or buy at launch. Their model is that games should only sell new copies when games are new to the market. It just happens to be the opposite of what would make the publishers the most money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:The really don't work hard at all to sell new games. They actually seem to loathe doing it.

No, see above.

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:Yes, that is what I'm trying to argue. Albeit not very well apparently.

I guess the trouble is that publishers are relying on an assumption that isn't true. There are two possible responses: (1) change their behavior to fit the reality of the used games market or (2) force reality to correspond to their assumption by fighting the used game market.

There's a third response: make post-launch content cost money and give it to new game buyers for free; rewarding the new game buyers because the money they spent actually went to support the game's post-launch development, but also giving access to the content to used game buyers if they want to spend money on supporting the developers themselves.

Of course, I would be deeply amused if EA decided whenever it made new contracts for selling its games to Gamestop that Gamestop was obligated to give it royalties on all used game sales for any subsequent EA releases, and refused to sell to gamestop otherwise. Just imagine how much drama that would cause, while also solving the problem for funding EA's post launch content.

But I don't think Gamestop would ever agree with that, even if it meant losing access to all EA titles.

make post-launch content cost money and give it to new game buyers for free

Somewhere an EA exec just got a really bad taste in his mouth and doesn't know why.

But I see your point and that is essentially what publisher like EA are doing through GameStop.

Also, that is not a third possibility but rather fits under my first possibility.

LordofHats wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:If the game just came out, but because of the way it is set up(a single player game like Batman: Arkham City, for example) has no replay value to the "hardcore" players who are constantly moving from one heavily advertised new title to the next and playing a game to 50-75% completion this poses a problem.

That's not a problem with used games its a problem with a shotty product. I.E. The games industry blaming second hand market for their own failure to deliver worthwhile goods.

If a game has replay value (which I consider to be necessary for a game to qualify as good) there's no reason to turn it back in so fast.

A game can have replay value(Specifically why I used the example of Arkham City, actually. It's a single-player game where the main takes a good chunk of time to do for full completion...and you still have the Challenge modes to do after that) , but people will "turn it back in so fast" because they want to make money back.

It's an issue when people treat games as "investments" rather than entertainment.

I don't think EA could afford that. One of those things that just ends up ugly and splits the consumer market into taking sides.

At the end of the day, Game Stop is the largest retailer of soft ware for the market. More likely I think that the industry will continue its current path where it tries to get money directly out of used buyers through online passes.

while also solving the problem for funding EA's post launch content.

There is no problem... This is just EA (insert other publishers) whining about a piece of pie getting around and they aren't getting any. It has nothing to do with them losing money and everything to do with not making any. Post launch is funded by launch (and charging for said post launch, which I'll point out used game buyers end up paying for as well if they want it).

Melissia wrote:But I don't think Gamestop would ever agree with that, even if it meant losing access to all EA titles.

That's a fun little game to play in your head: who would lose more? EA seems to think they would, for now.

LordofHats wrote:At the end of the day, Game Stop is the largest retailer of soft ware for the market. More likely I think that the industry will continue its current path where it tries to get money directly out of used buyers through online passes.

I think so as well. But it's a nice fantasy.

I also support their online passes and similar deals, myself. Then again, I always buy new instead of used so it's not like I ever have to deal with them

edit: herpderp, typo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:There is no problem

There is if you like developers continuing to produce games.

IE, if you are a gamer.

Melissia wrote:There's a third response: make post-launch content cost money and give it to new game buyers for free; rewarding the new game buyers because the money they spent actually went to support the game's post-launch development, but also giving access to the content to used game buyers if they want to spend money on supporting the developers themselves.

Are you talking about the "gold editions" or whatever, that bundle the original game with any expansions? (like this?) That's no different than selling a separate expansion, or charging for new content.

There is no way for game producers to distinguish between new users and secondhand users, unless you use some sort of tracking software. And if you're doing that, you could just as easily cut off the secondhand market.

Melissia wrote:

LordofHats wrote:There is no problem

There is if you like developers continuing to produce games.

IE, if you are a gamer.

That's the hostage-taking line I mentioned at the outset of posting in this thread. That's also GW's line.

Melissia wrote:Then again, I always buy new instead of used so it's not like I ever have to deal with them

Same, of course I'm mostly on PC so used games wouldn't be an option even if I wanted them.

There is if you like developers continuing to produce games.

IE, if you are a gamer.

The developers happen to also be the publishers. We don't need to worry about most of them anymore. At the end of the day all that matters is "did we make a profit." If the game sold well enough they most certainly did and the chances of seeing the sequel are pretty much assured. There's nothing used games can do to hurt a developer other than eliminate the tail, but the publishers eliminated it themselves years ago (I can on a hand see how SK would have missed the memo. I'm sure they missed a lot things that changed in the world locked in the cubicles for 9 years). Post launch and DLC content fund themselves. EDIT: Unless all those things became free while I wasn't looking.

biccat wrote:Are you talking about the "gold editions" or whatever, that bundle the original game with any expansions?

I thought she meant having content that anyone who doesn't purchase a new copy of the game will have to purchase that would be free to everyone who did purchase a new copy.

So you buy a new copy of Super Soldier CLXVII and get the Lastar 5300 Sniper Pistol for free, which you download online with a code that only works once. And if someone later buys your copy of the game after you traded it in, they'll have to buy that download if they want the weapon.

So again -- what publishers already do, in partnership with companies like GameStop, who in turn push sales of new games at launch as hard as they possibly can.

This is because the interests of GameStop and the publishers are aligned at launch. It is only afterward that they drift apart.

Manchu wrote:That's the hostage-taking line I mentioned at the outset of posting in this thread. That's also GW's line.

And GW has a point, honestly. But because GW does not provide any post-sale services (barring tournaments, which IIRC they charge money for entrants anyway unless I'm mistaken), it has less control over the secondary market than the gaming industry does.

biccat wrote:There is no way for game producers to distinguish between new users and secondhand users

Tying post-launch content and multiplayer to a specific account works, especially for console games where said account can be tied to a specific console game, or on such systems as Steam where games are owned by the account specifically.

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:

LordofHats wrote:There is no problem

There is if you like developers continuing to produce games.

IE, if you are a gamer.

That's the hostage-taking line I mentioned at the outset of posting in this thread. That's also GW's line.

As opposed to the "Gamestop is a friend and hero to the people; letting people buy the game for a whole $5 less used and also giving us obscenely powerful preorder bonuses letting us wreck the fun of the game for everyone else" line you were posting?


I'm not sure where you're equating that with GW's line, by the way. Or are you trying to spin this off into comparing Gamestop to CHS? Because that deserves a special mention of the Chewbacca defense.

LordofHats wrote:Post launch and DLC content fund themselves. EDIT: Unless all those things became free while I wasn't looking.

Not patches.

Manchu wrote:This is because the interests of GameStop and the publishers are aligned at launch. It is only afterward that they drift apart.

Actually I was gonna say that ALL new game buyers, not just preorders from a specific store.

I mean I understand why they do preorders being different across stores, but it's still kinda annoying, especially when it's exclusive even post-launch. They at least need a DLC package that has all the preorder bonuses, much like DoW2 Retribution released on Steam. Aside from contract non-sense, I don't understand why preorder bonuses aren't released as DLC on day one anyway.