Online Passes, Good or bad?

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.

**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

).

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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!

**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.

**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.

**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 :(

**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.

**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!

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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?

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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...

**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.

**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.

**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!

**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.

**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.

**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.