Why do people argue against reselling games?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Ubiquitous Duck:
Well, in that sale, only the person who originally bought the game is making money.

The person who actually made or developed the game, receives nothing.

If you want a developer to continue making games that you want, they need to have money in order to do this. If people don't buy the game directly from them, then the developer are effectively having a lost sale, because this person has acquired their game without them seeing any money for that purchase.

It's like letting all your mates download a music CD you just bought. Sure, most of them wouldn't have bought it anyway, but one or two might have, but now they have no reason to, because they got it for free.

Why do you think all these hyper-aggressive DRMs exist?

Ahh yes...the lost sale argument.Can you provide evidence that a person buying a used game means the developer would've gotten any money for it anyway?Logically the developer/publisher already made their money when someone first bought the game so why should they be entitled to any money after the initial purchase?

I have no problem with reselling games in general, especially when it comes to keeping classics in circulation... but the way newer titles are bought back and priced for resale should be criminal. $60 new, $10-20 for the return and then $55 used? Criminal. Worse yet, people actually fall for it.

I think a lot of the "Anti-used game" debate comes from PC gamers. Console gamers often list "We can sell our used games" as a Pro of console gaming. By discrediting this benefit as wrong or immoral PC gamers feel less self conscious about there choice of gaming platform.

I'unno. I like collecting things I guess?

Keep in mind I'm not totally against reselling games, if someone else wants to then that's their choice. But I like to keep hold of mine, no matter how old they are how much I've played them.

the hidden eagle:

Ubiquitous Duck:
Well, in that sale, only the person who originally bought the game is making money.

The person who actually made or developed the game, receives nothing.

If you want a developer to continue making games that you want, they need to have money in order to do this. If people don't buy the game directly from them, then the developer are effectively having a lost sale, because this person has acquired their game without them seeing any money for that purchase.

It's like letting all your mates download a music CD you just bought. Sure, most of them wouldn't have bought it anyway, but one or two might have, but now they have no reason to, because they got it for free.

Why do you think all these hyper-aggressive DRMs exist?

Ahh yes...the lost sale argument.Can you provide evidence that a person buying a used game means the developer would've gotten any money for it anyway?Logically the developer/publisher already made their money when someone first bought the game so why should they be entitled to any money after the initial purchase?

Well, there is pretty much every time someone walks into a GameStop and buys the $55 used copy of game X instead of the $60 new copy of game X that's on the shelf right next to it. In all of those cases the only people making money are GameStop and it's pretty obvious that if someone is willing to spend $55 on a game they'd be just as likely to spend $60.

As for why they should be entitled to anything after first sale? Well, in the grand scheme of things, they're not. However, based on the core business plan of gaming at this point, that initial sale is the only time they do make money. When they try other ways like DLC, pre-order bonuses, microtransactions, pay to enter betas, etc. gamers all complain so it's pretty much a lose-lose for them regardless.

StriderShinryu:

the hidden eagle:

Ubiquitous Duck:
Well, in that sale, only the person who originally bought the game is making money.

The person who actually made or developed the game, receives nothing.

If you want a developer to continue making games that you want, they need to have money in order to do this. If people don't buy the game directly from them, then the developer are effectively having a lost sale, because this person has acquired their game without them seeing any money for that purchase.

It's like letting all your mates download a music CD you just bought. Sure, most of them wouldn't have bought it anyway, but one or two might have, but now they have no reason to, because they got it for free.

Why do you think all these hyper-aggressive DRMs exist?

Ahh yes...the lost sale argument.Can you provide evidence that a person buying a used game means the developer would've gotten any money for it anyway?Logically the developer/publisher already made their money when someone first bought the game so why should they be entitled to any money after the initial purchase?

Well, there is pretty much every time someone walks into a GameStop and buys the $55 used copy of game X instead of the $60 new copy of game X that's on the shelf right next to it. In all of those cases the only people making money are GameStop and it's pretty obvious that if someone is willing to spend $55 on a game they'd be just as likely to spend $60.

As for why they should be entitled to anything after first sale? Well, in the grand scheme of things, they're not. However, based on the core business plan of gaming at this point, that initial sale is the only time they do make money. When they try other ways like DLC, pre-order bonuses, microtransactions, pay to enter betas, etc. gamers all complain so it's pretty much a lose-lose for them regardless.

People naturally try to save money/go for the better deal so I don't see how developers are hurting because a small bit of potential money did'nt go to them.It's no different from selling things on eBay or a garage sale,the original creator never gets any money there so game devs/publishers should'nt get any special treatment.

the hidden eagle:
This is something that has always baffled me for several years but why are there people who are totally against someone selling their games to make some money back?

The question, really, is why I would sell a game. At best I will regain 1/3 the purchase price - a sum insufficient to purchase any but the most dated games on offer (which are, in turn, worthless at resale). The common axiom of people who often trade games amounts to "a bad deal is better than no deal" and I simply disagree on that point. Having no desperate need for the money means that rather than get an obviously bad deal, I'll settle for no deal.

Going beyond the realm of personal finance, there is also the fact that purchasing used directly contributes to a system of used resale that is utterly unfair to every single actor except the reseller. The seller gets a pittance, the new buyer gets the smallest of discounts and the developer gets nothing at all. Having a vested interest in the well being of all three parties getting the shaft means that I'm not going to be complicit in allowing it to continue. This extends to simply not buying used barring the occasional edge case where the only option is used (buying an old SNES game for example).

Eclectic Dreck:

the hidden eagle:
This is something that has always baffled me for several years but why are there people who are totally against someone selling their games to make some money back?

The question, really, is why I would sell a game. At best I will regain 1/3 the purchase price - a sum insufficient to purchase any but the most dated games on offer (which are, in turn, worthless at resale). The common axiom of people who often trade games amounts to "a bad deal is better than no deal" and I simply disagree on that point. Having no desperate need for the money means that rather than get an obviously bad deal, I'll settle for no deal.

Going beyond the realm of personal finance, there is also the fact that purchasing used directly contributes to a system of used resale that is utterly unfair to every single actor except the reseller. The seller gets a pittance, the new buyer gets the smallest of discounts and the developer gets nothing at all. Having a vested interest in the well being of all three parties getting the shaft means that I'm not going to be complicit in allowing it to continue. This extends to simply not buying used barring the occasional edge case where the only option is used (buying an old SNES game for example).

To give someone else a chance to play it?Besides unless you're a collector why hang onto something that's just going to gather dust when there are people who would probaly use it?

We could debate what is 'fair' about the used game market all day but the developer is not entitled to more money after the initial purchase.They already made their money when someone first bought the game.

the hidden eagle:
To give someone else a chance to play it?

The supposed magnanimity of this gesture is easily cancelled by the fact that the chance I'm giving them is savings of less than 10% on a product that generates 200% profit. If I was looking to be charitable I'd give them the game for free. Hell, by the logic that I'd do this as charity, I could simply knock five more bucks off the top and sell it at 50 bucks instead of 55 giving them almost 20% savings while making back more than 80% of my original investment.

the hidden eagle:

Besides unless you're a collector why hang onto something that's just going to gather dust when there are people who would probaly use it?

Because being able to afford video games that I want to play in the new market lets me make stands on an exchange where I'm being screwed so hard I might as well be grabbing my ankles and saying I'd rather have nothing.

the hidden eagle:

We could debate what is 'fair' about the used game market all day but the developer is not entitled to more money after the initial purchase.They already made their money when someone first bought the game.

We aren't debating about fairness in the slightest. The point I raised was that three of four people in any used game sale are getting the shaft. My own personal self interest lies with the side getting the shaft in the current market. Fairness isn't relevant because I wasn't weighing in on if that exchange was morally justified or not simply pointing out that there is an alignment of self-interest.

BakedSardine:
Snip

This is folly. Video games are no different than any other good for sale. Sure, the developer (more accurately, the publisher) doesn't get a cent when I sell a game to someone used, but neither does the original manufacturer of any product that is bought or sold. If I buy a chair, then re-sell it in a year, should the chair manufacturer get a cut of that? Of course not.

Snip

There's a big hole in your logic there. With other goods, pricing is a different model.

When you buy a chair for $50, then the pricing model for the chair is "It cost us $30 in materials and labor to make the chair. We'll price it at $50, and we'll make a $10 profit per chair."

So a chair company has already made it's profit for your chair.

Video games don't work that way. Game profits work off many sales making up for the whole. Let's say a game costs $25 million to make, and for each disk sold at $60 (as with chair example, we're ignoring the 3rd party seller costs etc). That means that a game has to sell 416,667 copies before it starts to make any profit, and that profit is what is paid forward to create the next title, let alone any fresh IP that is 100% borrowing against future returns. And it seems that for a quality AAA franchise, that $25m cost is on the low end budget-wise. If you look at how relatively few games actually sell that much (compared to total number of games), then you can see where it starts to become an issue for developers if they lose a large chunk to used sales.

Jaded Scribe:

There's a big hole in your logic there. With other goods, pricing is a different model.

When you buy a chair for $50, then the pricing model for the chair is "It cost us $30 in materials and labor to make the chair. We'll price it at $50, and we'll make a $10 profit per chair."

So a chair company has already made it's profit for your chair.

Video games don't work that way. Game profits work off many sales making up for the whole. Let's say a game costs $25 million to make, and for each disk sold at $60 (as with chair example, we're ignoring the 3rd party seller costs etc). That means that a game has to sell 416,667 copies before it starts to make any profit, and that profit is what is paid forward to create the next title, let alone any fresh IP that is 100% borrowing against future returns. And it seems that for a quality AAA franchise, that $25m cost is on the low end budget-wise. If you look at how relatively few games actually sell that much (compared to total number of games), then you can see where it starts to become an issue for developers if they lose a large chunk to used sales.

I would simply refer you to Jim Sterling's "Time to Get Paid" Jimquisition: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7985-Time-To-Get-Paid

We should not accept that games need to cost that much and sell that many copies to recoup the initial investment. Sure, there are games that will always be produced that fit that model (Grand Theft game, Bethesda games, etc.) but most games do not need multi-million (and typically tens of millions) dollar marketing campaigns.

BakedSardine:

Jaded Scribe:

There's a big hole in your logic there. With other goods, pricing is a different model.

When you buy a chair for $50, then the pricing model for the chair is "It cost us $30 in materials and labor to make the chair. We'll price it at $50, and we'll make a $10 profit per chair."

So a chair company has already made it's profit for your chair.

Video games don't work that way. Game profits work off many sales making up for the whole. Let's say a game costs $25 million to make, and for each disk sold at $60 (as with chair example, we're ignoring the 3rd party seller costs etc). That means that a game has to sell 416,667 copies before it starts to make any profit, and that profit is what is paid forward to create the next title, let alone any fresh IP that is 100% borrowing against future returns. And it seems that for a quality AAA franchise, that $25m cost is on the low end budget-wise. If you look at how relatively few games actually sell that much (compared to total number of games), then you can see where it starts to become an issue for developers if they lose a large chunk to used sales.

I would simply refer you to Jim Sterling's "Time to Get Paid" Jimquisition: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7985-Time-To-Get-Paid

We should not accept that games need to cost that much and sell that many copies to recoup the initial investment. Sure, there are games that will always be produced that fit that model (Grand Theft game, Bethesda games, etc.) but most games do not need multi-million (and typically tens of millions) dollar marketing campaigns.

Perhaps not marketing campaigns (and a lot of games don't go that high for marketing) but production costs aren't going to get skimped without a community backlash. According to the Game Developer magazine's 12th annual Salary Survey, the average United States industry salary in 2012 was $84,337, up from $81,182 in 2011. (Google "average game developer salary" and it pops right up with that). As an example, Skyrim had 90 devs, and took 3.5 years to develop.

Let's even cut that down to a smaller scale game. 50 devs, 2 years. That's $8,500,000 just to pay the devs to show up to work. That doesn't count software licensing for all the programs they use (MS Office, IDEs, etc), voice actors, cost of upgrading equipment as it becomes obsolete, building and utility costs, non-dev employees (HR, legal, marketing).

Unlike movies, who can fuel their summer blockbusters (which usually make very little profit, especially if you look at the percent return on investment) with low-budget crowd pleasers (typically romantic comedies. They're cheap to make and usually do decently at the box office). Gamers tend to want "OMG mega-game!!"

Think about it, how many games do you purchase full price in a year? Probably 10 or less. Even if full price was lower, I doubt it would go up that much for most people. Because games take longer to consume (usually) than things like movies, we need less of them to fuel our free time. Where some people may go see a movie every weekend, I don't think many people would translate that to buying 52 games in a year, even if the price was roughly equivalent.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to sell your used games (at least physical copies). It is a bit of a gray area. I'm just pointing out that saying "They already made their profit just like with any other physical good" isn't the right way to look at it, and we can't just fall back on the "game publishers are just being greedy" argument. The game companies do have a definite stake in this outside of just "Give us more money!!"

One very obvious argument is that the used games market props up the cost of new games by about $10, hence the price discrepancy between PC games and console games.

Reselling is not a legal right people own. I would argue against reselling of games (if I did) purely to check the sense of entitlement a lot of people have, like being a consumer somehow makes you the overlord of the product offered (hint: it doesn't).

Personally feel it's not an issue because it's one of the few things companies have done a very good job offering incentives and functionality for the loss of that privilege. As things become more and more online, the offering of social cross-game channels, account management and easy buy stores makes up for the ability to resell for most games.

Just remember for a long time you've not legally been allowed to resell games (according to the TOS and the consumer laws) but they obviously couldn't police it so it was done anyway. Now they can control it, they do control it but they offer things in turn (which I think is nice). I suppose this doesn't apply as much if you play games from companies like EA or Ubisoft who aren't likely to offer anything in return, but it's the consumers onus to choose products wisely and make better purchases.

Lets reword that and use Piracy as the topic.

Why do people argue against piracy?

In particular, this line, though the same thing can apply to basically your whole post.

"I've heard the arguments that pirating a game counts as a lost sale but there are no numbers or proof that's the case."

Pretty bullshit argument right there. It doesn't work for piracy, it doesn't work for used game sales.
Basically your whole post revolves around the fact that "Its good for me, therefore it can't be bad". Being allowed to go into a store and take everything I want for free is ALSO good for me, doesn't mean its something that isn't bad for some entity. That store would lose a fortune, and game companies do lose a fortune to used game sales no doubt.
HOWEVER.
Game companies can afford to lose a fortune far more than they let on. They're just greedy and want more money.

But, for smaller game developers who don't earn in massive profits, I can understand the viewpoint of being against used games. Whilst it would have been incredibly easy to pirate, especially thanks to no DRM, or buy used a bit later on a console, I know many people who opted to buy The Witcher 2 new simply to support CD Projekt and their ethics in the game industry, and their amazing game. Its a matter of wanting to support a developer, and had everyone pirated or bought used TW2, CD Projekt still would have probably made their money back as from memory it didn't cost them too much money to make, but would they have made the sequel, or had the money to make it as awesome as it sounds? Possibly not, and that would disappoint me.

Really, I view it on a case by case basis. If there's a company you want to support, buy new. If you really don't give a rats about the company *cough* EA/Activision/Ubisoft/Most AAA companies *cough*, but still want the game, buy used. But there are reasons to buy new instead, and simply saying "There's no proof" and standing with your fingers in your ears isn't going to help you understand them.

BakedSardine:

Ubiquitous Duck:
Well, in that sale, only the person who originally bought the game is making money.

The person who actually made or developed the game, receives nothing.

If you want a developer to continue making games that you want, they need to have money in order to do this. If people don't buy the game directly from them, then the developer are effectively having a lost sale, because this person has acquired their game without them seeing any money for that purchase.

It's like letting all your mates download a music CD you just bought. Sure, most of them wouldn't have bought it anyway, but one or two might have, but now they have no reason to, because they got it for free.

Why do you think all these hyper-aggressive DRMs exist?

This is folly. Video games are no different than any other good for sale. Sure, the developer (more accurately, the publisher) doesn't get a cent when I sell a game to someone used, but neither does the original manufacturer of any product that is bought or sold. If I buy a chair, then re-sell it in a year, should the chair manufacturer get a cut of that? Of course not.

The problem is with the publishers and not getting aggressive/creative with their download pricing. Sure, they have issues to deal with like brick and mortar partners, but that's not my problem. If games followed regular price drop schedules, they could reap those profits instead of a reseller. Case in point - NHL 14 is up for sale at full price of $59.99 in the PSN store. NHL 13 is available for $29.99 and NHL 12 is available for $59.99. Why would a game, especially a sports game, that is over 2 years old still be full priced? This game is available new from Amazon for $13.99 and used for $2 - and it's still priced $59.99 in the download store. I'll take the $2 copy, thanks.

I can't believe I have to say this sentence: Games are not chairs.

All I'm doing is merely proposing why someone would argue against reselling games, as the original post asked why someone would have that viewpoint. I'm not saying it is my viewpoint.

Sure, you can resell your chair and then someone else gets it. You can sell your house after you buy it. You could sell used clothes, cars, sports equipment, television, dog, fridge, etc.. But you can't say 'all' goods have the same ability to resell. I can't resell this doughnut I bought last week because it would've gone off, also because I ate it. It doesn't have a resale value. I can't sell this movie ticket I bought last week, because I used it and now it has no value.

I'm not saying that its fair or makes sense or should be the way it is. I'm just saying that you can see why a business would not like people to sell their games onto other people, as they see that as someone acquiring their game without them seeing any value in that. Whether or not you agree that that person would otherwise have spent money on it were it not at a reduced price, is a different argument.

If IKEA had a way to implement DRM on their furniture and forced a market of people to never being able to buy second hand again and instead had to come to them and buy new, of course they would do it.

And if their download pricings are crap, be a good capitalist consumer and don't give them any money. Put your money where your mouth is and don't spend shedloads on them and order it from amazon instead. If they never make money off extortionate download prices, then they will be forced to drop them. If people continue buying them, why would they stop?

the hidden eagle:

Ubiquitous Duck:
Well, in that sale, only the person who originally bought the game is making money.

The person who actually made or developed the game, receives nothing.

If you want a developer to continue making games that you want, they need to have money in order to do this. If people don't buy the game directly from them, then the developer are effectively having a lost sale, because this person has acquired their game without them seeing any money for that purchase.

It's like letting all your mates download a music CD you just bought. Sure, most of them wouldn't have bought it anyway, but one or two might have, but now they have no reason to, because they got it for free.

Why do you think all these hyper-aggressive DRMs exist?

Ahh yes...the lost sale argument.Can you provide evidence that a person buying a used game means the developer would've gotten any money for it anyway?Logically the developer/publisher already made their money when someone first bought the game so why should they be entitled to any money after the initial purchase?

This is like the piracy/torrent/piratebay arguments all over again.

As I qualified my statement in my previous post, sure plenty of people who got it reduced or for free would never have bought the game, but this has removed the option of buying it new.

If one of my mates gives me an album for free and lets me download it to my PC, why would I need to go buy it? I wouldn't. How blatantly simple a concept is it that a business would want to prevent this happening if they could. If they could prevent me from doing that action, they have the potential of a sale from me, if they don't prevent it then I have no potential of buying their product. Films have been doing it for years, radio even longer.

It is a natural business move to try and prevent people simply reselling their product or providing it to others for free, so that they do not get any money for people consuming their product. Publishers are attempting to remove peoples rights when it comes to reselling games and CD keys have tried to prevent this for online usage for an age anyway.

It's not even my opinion that I've put here, the OP just asked why some people would argue against reselling games and I have posed a suggestion as to why.

Mr.K.:

Buddy you live in a cannibal society and ask why it's ok to eat people... because that is what they were taught.

Right, thanks for assuming that people has any brain at all to think for themselves. Way to go to have civilized debates.

MysticSlayer:

I'd imagine that he was referencing this event in Germany. Essentially, people seem to be twisting the story a little into some narrative about Valve maliciously going after consumers.

People twisting Valve alledged intentions? Impossibiru!

Ubiquitous Duck:

It's like letting all your mates download a music CD you just bought. Sure, most of them wouldn't have bought it anyway, but one or two might have, but now they have no reason to, because they got it for free.

Why do you think all these hyper-aggressive DRMs exist?

Even if I don't care about the ban of re-selling as long as we get reduced prices, this is false. Last Steam sale I bought the whole Gothic Universe, and I probably won't ever touch it, because I've played those games to exhaustion over the years thanks to piracy/friends. Also got Risen and Risen 2 from humblebundles, which I had already played and finished.

I had no need at all to spend my money, but I wanted Pirahna Bytes to have it because I love their games.

Qvar:

Mr.K.:

Buddy you live in a cannibal society and ask why it's ok to eat people... because that is what they were taught.

Right, thanks for assuming that people has any brain at all to think for themselves. Way to go to have civilized debates.

MysticSlayer:

I'd imagine that he was referencing this event in Germany. Essentially, people seem to be twisting the story a little into some narrative about Valve maliciously going after consumers.

People twisting Valve alledged intentions? Impossibiru!

Ubiquitous Duck:

It's like letting all your mates download a music CD you just bought. Sure, most of them wouldn't have bought it anyway, but one or two might have, but now they have no reason to, because they got it for free.

Why do you think all these hyper-aggressive DRMs exist?

Even if I don't care about the ban of re-selling as long as we get reduced prices, this is false. Last Steam sale I bought the whole Gothic Universe, and I probably won't ever touch it, because I've played those games to exhaustion over the years thanks to piracy/friends. Also got Risen and Risen 2 from humblebundles, which I had already played and finished.

I had no need at all to spend my money, but I wanted Pirahna Bytes to have it because I love their games.

Again, I don't see how this debunks my point.

You are not everyone, you are one person. I know people who have bought the same music single 10 times to bump their favourite artists. Is this the standard behaviour of a consumer? No. Is it real? Yes.

You can't say my point is inaccurate just because it doesn't apply to you. As you said yourself, people have brains and can think for themselves. We are not all sheep, we do not all act the same. Some people are very open to not having to pay if they don't have to and some people will throw their money at a game they love. Plenty of people play LoL and have never shown any monetary return to Riot. Which is fine, do what you want as a consumer.

The OP asked for someone to provide a reason as to why people could argue against reselling games. I merely presented a viewpoint that could be held, in order to reason for arguing against them. I didn't say it was mine, I didn't say it should be everyones view and it isn't. But it is the viewpoint of 'some' people.

kklawm:
Reselling is not a legal right people own. I would argue against reselling of games (if I did) purely to check the sense of entitlement a lot of people have, like being a consumer somehow makes you the overlord of the product offered (hint: it doesn't).

At least in the United States, reselling is ABSOLUTELY a right, confirmed by the first sale doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works (for example, enabling individuals to sell their legally purchased books or CDs to others). In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder put the products on the market. The doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."

Once I pay money for a product, indeed I am the overlord of that individual item that I bought.

smithy_2045:
One very obvious argument is that the used games market props up the cost of new games by about $10, hence the price discrepancy between PC games and console games.

I don't buy that at all. Like any business they charge whatever price they think will maximize their profits. And there are other reasons that more likely explain why PC games are cheaper on average. Mainly that they're easier to make [1] and devs/publishers don't have to give a cut to console manufacturers and retailers.

If used games went away tomorrow I don't think you'd see console game prices drop a dime. If anything I'd expect prices to go up since they wouldn't need to stay even remotely competitive with used prices anymore. Also games would probably drop in price much much more slowly if at all. I mean with an artificial monopoly like that why would they?

[1] Though the new consoles close that gap a bit more.

kklawm:
Reselling is not a legal right people own. I would argue against reselling of games (if I did) purely to check the sense of entitlement a lot of people have, like being a consumer somehow makes you the overlord of the product offered (hint: it doesn't).

Personally feel it's not an issue because it's one of the few things companies have done a very good job offering incentives and functionality for the loss of that privilege. As things become more and more online, the offering of social cross-game channels, account management and easy buy stores makes up for the ability to resell for most games.

Just remember for a long time you've not legally been allowed to resell games (according to the TOS and the consumer laws) but they obviously couldn't police it so it was done anyway. Now they can control it, they do control it but they offer things in turn (which I think is nice). I suppose this doesn't apply as much if you play games from companies like EA or Ubisoft who aren't likely to offer anything in return, but it's the consumers onus to choose products wisely and make better purchases.

First Sale Doctrine:"The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works (for example, enabling individuals to sell their legally purchased books or CDs to others). In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder put the products on the market. The doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."

What was that about nobody having a legal right to sell things again?

Joccaren:
Lets reword that and use Piracy as the topic.

Why do people argue against piracy?

In particular, this line, though the same thing can apply to basically your whole post.

"I've heard the arguments that pirating a game counts as a lost sale but there are no numbers or proof that's the case."

Pretty bullshit argument right there. It doesn't work for piracy, it doesn't work for used game sales.
Basically your whole post revolves around the fact that "Its good for me, therefore it can't be bad". Being allowed to go into a store and take everything I want for free is ALSO good for me, doesn't mean its something that isn't bad for some entity. That store would lose a fortune, and game companies do lose a fortune to used game sales no doubt.
HOWEVER.
Game companies can afford to lose a fortune far more than they let on. They're just greedy and want more money.

But, for smaller game developers who don't earn in massive profits, I can understand the viewpoint of being against used games. Whilst it would have been incredibly easy to pirate, especially thanks to no DRM, or buy used a bit later on a console, I know many people who opted to buy The Witcher 2 new simply to support CD Projekt and their ethics in the game industry, and their amazing game. Its a matter of wanting to support a developer, and had everyone pirated or bought used TW2, CD Projekt still would have probably made their money back as from memory it didn't cost them too much money to make, but would they have made the sequel, or had the money to make it as awesome as it sounds? Possibly not, and that would disappoint me.

Really, I view it on a case by case basis. If there's a company you want to support, buy new. If you really don't give a rats about the company *cough* EA/Activision/Ubisoft/Most AAA companies *cough*, but still want the game, buy used. But there are reasons to buy new instead, and simply saying "There's no proof" and standing with your fingers in your ears isn't going to help you understand them.

Buying used is not piracy,again I have to ask:why should developers be entitled to money after the initial purchase when no other industry has done so?You don't see house makers demanding a cut if you sell your house that you own,you don't see car makers demanding a cut if you sell your 12 year old car....so why are game devs special snowflakes?

Savagezion:
The CD market is a pretty decent comparison. Both have their content released on the release of the CD and haven't had a "theatrical" release. Both heavily decry piracy. (As does Hollywood) None can really prove it. Regardless of your stance on piracy, the numbers don't always line up to suggest one way over the other. That is probably a fair way to state that debate.

Second hand markets only exist if there is a strong first hand market. Unless you sell 5 million CDs, 5 million CDs can't be in circulation. Your fighting your own sales in the second hand market. Now, keep in mind that the point of a second hand market to consumers is to buy something for less money than a new one. Chopping off the second hand market keeps publishers in control of how much you have to pay for something. If a game is $60 for 5 years, there is nothing you can complain about. The problem is you may own a game worth $60 dollars like the latest Sim City, Aliens: Colonial Marines, etc. You can't try to make some money back by selling it to someone else.
The idea of a license would mean they are providing a service and not a product. I want you to now think of online DLC, which is a service, they fail at EVERY time. They often use the public as free beta testers, the opposite of providing a service. I know some people enjoy it, but that is providing a service to the publishers and devleopers. That is because what they spend money on and advertise is the "product", not the service. The content on that disc.

Second hand markets help the cost of an product meet consumer demands better instead of supplier demands. If a game comes out tomorrow and sucks, the second hand market is going to drive the cost of the game down because a new copy of that crappy game has to compete with previous sales. A new copy of a game the market has determined "good" will still continue to sell. Some will get traded in but overall, demand will be too high and drive more new sales.

Season passes do provide a service. Individual DLC though, is a digital product. By all rights you should be allowed to sell it, but darn it EA forgot to add that into the product. I ain't saying they should have to add in a way for you to, I actually tip my hat to how clever that is and think that alone makes them deserve to have it be the way it is. It is their product after all. However, they aren't clever enough to make DLC sell well often.

Used games are good for consumers all around. It makes releasing a game people don't want to play immediately worthless in the market. Overall, it makes games find a natural place in the market. Many games like TES, Sims, Diablo, etc. stay around $30-40 and never drop below. But that is because demand on the market is high for those games because people demand them in the market. I feel Alpha Protocol got judged too harshly and should have done better, but that is my bias view as a gamer. The market made its decision and I accept it. There are games I hate that have done wonderfully. So what do I know about what the market wants specifically.

Going back up to the top, A music CD also has to compete against itself in the market. It also uses digital downloads. However, used CDs aren't worth much because a new CD only costs $10-20 on release. Used usually only saves you about 5 bucks. While one could say "Gamestop is only a $5 difference too" it is also a matter of the CD is at 50% its retail price used and games are still at ~80% their retail price used. This is something I see as a credit to Gamestop's model to try and help the industry. Imagine if when Skyrim released, there were $30 used copies sitting there next to $60 new copies. It wouldn't be smart for Gamestop to do that and so we see the market adjusts itself automatically. High demand prices stay higher longer. It all depends on how much stock vs. demand there is. That is why FIFA's and Madden's value plummet the minute the new one comes out. The same thing happened to Guitar Hero. If the industry truly was worried about the used market, they would lower their price to make buying new more accessible than buying used. Instead what we get is a $60 price tag and no refunds/returns. Compare that to a $55 price tag with refunds/returns available.

The music industry is still well of the mark, it has multiple revenue streams and games do not. Music sells as digital and physical products, it earns royalties from movies, TV and radio and finally performance licensing.

Games just get a chance to sell either by retail or digital distribution.

To me, it seems logical that if you sell a game and someone else buys it used, since their money is going to the retailer and not to the company that made the product, you are hurting their profits. I want to support the industry as much as I can, especially if it's from a company I love.

Ubiquitous Duck:
Well, in that sale, only the person who originally bought the game is making money.

The person who actually made or developed the game, receives nothing.

If you want a developer to continue making games that you want, they need to have money in order to do this. If people don't buy the game directly from them, then the developer are effectively having a lost sale, because this person has acquired their game without them seeing any money for that purchase.

It's like letting all your mates download a music CD you just bought. Sure, most of them wouldn't have bought it anyway, but one or two might have, but now they have no reason to, because they got it for free.

Why do you think all these hyper-aggressive DRMs exist?

It's not like copying at all. Because in order for a used copy to exist it must have been a new copy before. The developers DID see money for it, the first time it was sold.

As others have pointed out holding games to a different standard than other products is absurd and helps no one. Well, no one except greedy publishers who would love nothing better than to have the prices of games stay the same no matter how old they get. Which they already do in console download spaces as BakedSardine points out above.

the hidden eagle:
Why would anyone be against selling something they probaly won't even use?

Same reason the industry convinced many to "support" a developer by buying a game they don't care about. You should buy something because you are interested in the item, not necessarily the creator's well-being. I would understand if there was some charity involved.

Also, this "hurting the industry through reselling" is the biggest line of bullshit I've ever heard. If your industry is so fragile that third-party sales are going to completely undermine your profits, then you should consider liquidating your business.

Maximum Bert:
Because they have bought into what companies are telling them i.e that its harming the industry. I personally dont sell my games because you rarely get anything for them but I cant see any reason to oppose someones right or ability to do so.

Pretty much this. I don't have anything against the practice of selling used games (in fact I would defend that right), but I also don't like GameStop and GAME. They buy games used paying almost nothing and then sell it at prices that might actually be higher than new games in other stores. So I don't buy games used (unless they're out of print) and I don't sell my games.

Is it killing the industry? Well, I think Nintendo actually said it best. If developers focus on making games the consumer wants to keep then that's the best tool against lost revenue to used sales. So yeah, if used games really is cutting into profits you might want to analyse the problem a little more than just scapegoating.

I always sell my games once ive completed them and its no ones business but mine. Some like to collect games, some dont.

I've actually been wondering about this. Why do people sell their games? I've kept every single game I've ever owned, even the crappy ones.

I don't argue against game reselling but I don't sell or trade my own games back in forthe same reason I own a bookshelf full of leatherbound copies of books I've already read. It's nice to look at.

Additionally, the pittance I get from reselling them just isn't worth it. Why should I buy a game for $60 and then resell it for under $20 just to see them sell it back to someone else for a 150% markup well in the $50s?

Then I have Steam in which I can't resell the game but can usually get it for less than $10.

So reselling games doesn't really benefit me at all. You guys can do whatever you want with your games. I just don't feel rewarded enough to do so and I have friends who like to borrow my games.

Well. Look at it this way.

You spent three to four years of your life making a game. It is a good game. Enjoyed by many people, for some, possibly sunk your entire life into that product. Now someone that may or may not have enjoyed it, is going. "Hmm I Did/Did not enjoy this game, but I am done with it. Time to get rid of it."

They sell it to someone else for half of what they bought it for, now, the person who made the game lost a potential sale, either now or down the line when it is on sale. Either way, he gets no money what so ever. Now imagine half of the people that bought his game do this, And lets say only 500k people bought it, 750k People have played it, but he/she only made money on 2/3rds of the people playing.

I understand people wanting to save money on their gaming, I did too. But now that I am part of the working world, I just can't justify it anymore. If someone came to me and said "Yea. You did this work but you wont get paid for it" I would be down right furious. And I guess that is just how I see it now. You are enjoying his content, and none of your money went to him. Unless you bought it originally, in which case if you are reselling it, None of their money went to the person who made it.

It may not be harming the industry, but it is harming someone. Maybe not you, maybe not the person you are selling it too. In fact as I understand it, it doesn't even directly impact people who work under publishers, though the lack of sales to the Publisher might stop a sequel.

Really only hurts independents, if at all.

Edit 2 - Same with Ads and Youtube or the internet in general, yea, Ads annoy me, but again I go into work, I do my work, I get paid for that work, by going to Youtube, or The Escapist and using adblocker here, I am basically saying "Yea. Uh.. No. I dont think you deserve money. Thanks for the free stuff".

And I just, can't do it anymore. I can't... "Steal" from people who are making something I enjoy.

I do draw a line however, Master of Orion for example, I doubt the people that made this game are still going to get a cent from the Amazon sale, I would buy that from someone else.

the hidden eagle:
This is something that has always baffled me for several years but why are there people who are totally against someone selling their games to make some money back?Surely this can't be the result of corporate propoganda that has been going on ever since the invention of online passes.

Why would anyone be against selling something they probaly won't even use?I've heard the arguments that selling back a game counts as a lost sale but there are no numbers or proof that's the case.If someone has no need for something then they should be allowed to sell it in the hopes that other people will find some enjoyment out of it.

If I can go buy a used copy of a game from Gamestop (that someone else sold back) cheaper than buying it new OF COURSE it's one less sale for the company. You don't need numbers or proof of that, it's basic logic. I bought a used copy INSTEAD of a new copy and the only people making money off of the transaction is Gamestop; rather than the company who spent millions producing it.

Lyle

Well I don't know if I apply, but I have several original games, which I wouldn't sell - ever... I mean, I replay most games but I'm against of re-selling something that I like, I use from time to time (almost all games are re-played in some way or other) and I like how my small collection looks.

lylemcd:

the hidden eagle:
This is something that has always baffled me for several years but why are there people who are totally against someone selling their games to make some money back?Surely this can't be the result of corporate propoganda that has been going on ever since the invention of online passes.

Why would anyone be against selling something they probaly won't even use?I've heard the arguments that selling back a game counts as a lost sale but there are no numbers or proof that's the case.If someone has no need for something then they should be allowed to sell it in the hopes that other people will find some enjoyment out of it.

If I can go buy a used copy of a game from Gamestop (that someone else sold back) cheaper than buying it new OF COURSE it's one less sale for the company. You don't need numbers or proof of that, it's basic logic. I bought a used copy INSTEAD of a new copy and the only people making money off of the transaction is Gamestop; rather than the company who spent millions producing it.

Lyle

No, it's not a lost sale because the game dev already made money from that copy.And at this point if any game dev/publisher has money troubles then maybe they should cut back at the bloated marketing budget.When games have to sell five million copies just to break even then the problem isn't the used game market.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked