Do used games REALLY steal money from developers?

  • 58 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Greyfeld
Greyfeld

3007

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#1 Greyfeld
Member since 2008 • 3007 Posts

The question in my topic is rhetorical. My faith in humanity dwindles, but I hope that my efforts can make an impact on some few individuals. It's a bit of a read, but this is an article from 2005, printed in the New York Times' economics section. It discusses the effect of Amazon's practice of selling new and used books next to each other, on the revenue for the sale of new books. I know that this isn't video games, specifically, but being a form of media, and entertainment, I hope that some of you will take the time to read this and see how it may reflect on the issues being discussed within the gaming industry and the used game market.

Link

Avatar image for fear9204
fear9204

641

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 fear9204
Member since 2009 • 641 Posts

its like they dont sell another copy, but used games are cheaper :D

Avatar image for Agent-Zero
Agent-Zero

6198

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Agent-Zero
Member since 2009 • 6198 Posts

its like they dont sell another copy, but used games are cheaper :D

fear9204
like 5 bucks cheaper
Avatar image for meteo_ryte
meteo_ryte

1962

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 25

User Lists: 0

#4 meteo_ryte
Member since 2005 • 1962 Posts
EA seems to think they do, for sports games at least. They're imposing an Online Pass fee for all their upcoming sports games. The pass allows you to access downloadable content & play online. Buy the game new, the Online Pass is free. Buy the game used, you have to dish out $10 for the pass. Check it out: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28482/EA_Sports_Introduces_Online_Pass_For_Premium_Content_Online_Play.php http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28565/Opinion_EA_Sports_Online_Pass_Entitlement__Gamer_Rage.php Don't be surprised to see this appear on other games. Makes me wanna scream or cry, i don't know which, because MOST of my games i get used.
Avatar image for BuryMe
BuryMe

22017

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 104

User Lists: 0

#5 BuryMe
Member since 2004 • 22017 Posts

[QUOTE="fear9204"]

its like they dont sell another copy, but used games are cheaper :D

Agent-Zero

like 5 bucks cheaper

Meh. After buying lots of games, that $5 really starts to add up.

And as games get older, the difference between used and new tends to get bigger. I've save more than $10 on quite a few games by buying them used.

Avatar image for Jordo321
Jordo321

884

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Jordo321
Member since 2008 • 884 Posts
I find it kind of stupid because... ANYTHING can be bought used, this applies to every item that can be bought ever lol The last few years have probably noticed a spike in used sales though, due to the economics times, or most likely, not wanting to spend 69.99 on a freakin game (companies are still trying to milk an extra 5 bucks etc. still). Steam has been smart about this offering sales on games as low as $5-10-20. Where the developers are actually seeing some of the money, and tons of people are buying a given game that never would have without the lower prices. Maybe if they'd realize people are voting with their wallets and buying used games/acceptable priced games instead of new, is telling them something about what people are willing to pay.
Avatar image for chico129
chico129

7964

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 chico129
Member since 2006 • 7964 Posts
I dunno, I like EA's new system, means that if you buy the game first hand, you get the first few DLC's free instead of having to pay like you do with most games... Aaaaallthough considering the small amount of maps BFBC2 was released with, and the fact that the two DLC characters in Mass Effect both had spaces already built for them onto The Normandy, they didn't reeeeaaally give us anything "New" In the sense that it should have come with the full release, instead of being released as DLC. Still though, if they released actual NEW DLC and made it free if you bought the game first-hand, then that would be a pretty good system for them to use I think.
Avatar image for pete_merlin
pete_merlin

6098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#8 pete_merlin
Member since 2007 • 6098 Posts

No they do not, the used game has been purchased before and therefore thedevelopersshouldn't be entitled to any more money.

Avatar image for QuistisTrepe_
QuistisTrepe_

4121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 QuistisTrepe_
Member since 2010 • 4121 Posts

Of course the secondhand market doesn't steal any money from developers. It actually enhances their exposure and advertises their works.

Avatar image for Backlash24
Backlash24

3674

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#11 Backlash24
Member since 2010 • 3674 Posts

From my most recent blog:

... Essentially, they claim that people who buy used games are costing them money. However, there is, at the time of purchase, only one disc, for one person to play online. If that disc is sold, then that person's money, which theoretically should partially be paying for online the entire time that the server is up, is still kept in the pockets of the publisher. If you make that second person pay for online, then you are double-dipping. You are literally ripping off the gaming market because you received payment TWICE for one game disc to go online for the entire life of the server.

Now some individuals may say that the money is not just for the server, but rather to offset the losses from the used game market, but the logic I have used is still valid here. If you produce one apple, and someone buys it, but only eats half of it, are you entitled to a royalty if they sell that apple half? No! You produced 1 ITEM and thus when it is bought new you are paid for said item. You are not entitled to any money after that because, well let's take an extreme example where a game is bought and sold 5 times: This would result in the publisher receiving x price for the game + 5 x $5 = $25. That would mean the company is making an extra $25 on a single game. Now imagine how much money that would be on the global scale over an extended period of time (say the life of a console) ...

Blog link: http://www.gamespot.com/users/Backlash24/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25826870&tag=all-about%3Bblog1

Avatar image for Greyfeld
Greyfeld

3007

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#12 Greyfeld
Member since 2008 • 3007 Posts
I hope everybody is reading the news article I provided in my original post. It sheds some light on the effects of used goods on the market as a whole.
Avatar image for warmaster670
warmaster670

4699

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 warmaster670
Member since 2004 • 4699 Posts

No they do not, the used game has been purchased before and therefore thedevelopersshouldn't be entitled to any more money.

pete_merlin

S you would be fine if they sold one copy of there brand new game but 5 million people played that one copy?

Used games = lost sales, its a fact.

Avatar image for Greyfeld
Greyfeld

3007

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#14 Greyfeld
Member since 2008 • 3007 Posts

[QUOTE="pete_merlin"]

No they do not, the used game has been purchased before and therefore thedevelopersshouldn't be entitled to any more money.

warmaster670

S you would be fine if they sold one copy of there brand new game but 5 million people played that one copy?

Used games = lost sales, its a fact.

Way to equate used games to piracy.

Please do yourself a favor and actually read the link provided in the first post, instead of coming in to make flawed and fallacious statements.

Avatar image for Remora133
Remora133

363

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 Remora133
Member since 2009 • 363 Posts

Of course the secondhand market doesn't steal any money from developers. It actually enhances their exposure and advertises their works.

QuistisTrepe_
not exactly. RARELY have i bought a used game then became a loyal customer to that company. only the BEST games make me do that. i try to by new because you do basically cheat the developer out of money. i like to pay for peoples work
Avatar image for Greyfeld
Greyfeld

3007

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#16 Greyfeld
Member since 2008 • 3007 Posts

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Of course the secondhand market doesn't steal any money from developers. It actually enhances their exposure and advertises their works.

Remora133

not exactly. RARELY have i bought a used game then became a loyal customer to that company. only the BEST games make me do that. i try to by new because you do basically cheat the developer out of money. i like to pay for peoples work

That's your own prerogative as a consumer. But understand that your buying habits don't hold true for the public as a whole.

Avatar image for skyyfox1
skyyfox1

13015

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

#17 skyyfox1
Member since 2003 • 13015 Posts

no i don't think used games steal mioney from developers. do used cars steal money from car manufacturers?

Avatar image for QuistisTrepe_
QuistisTrepe_

4121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 QuistisTrepe_
Member since 2010 • 4121 Posts




[QUOTE="pete_merlin"]


No they do not, the used game has been purchased before and therefore thedevelopersshouldn't be entitled to
any more money.


warmaster670



S you would be fine if they sold one copy of there brand new game but 5 million people played that one copy?


Used games = lost sales, its a fact.





Well no, in order for there to be used games, there would have had to have been a first sale. Used games=a robust
game industry.

Avatar image for QuistisTrepe_
QuistisTrepe_

4121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 QuistisTrepe_
Member since 2010 • 4121 Posts

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Of course the secondhand market doesn't steal any money from developers. It actually enhances their exposure
and advertises their works.

Remora133
not exactly. RARELY have i bought a used game then became a loyal customer to that company. only
the BEST games make me do that. i try to by new because you do basically cheat the developer out of money. i
like to pay for peoples work



You don't have the power to cheat the developer out of money. No one can. You've bought used and new games, you've essentially proved my point.

All you're really supporting even when buying new is the retailer. If you wanted to really support the developer, then pre-order. Gamers don't have any other way of doing so.

Avatar image for Daavpuke
Daavpuke

13771

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 50

User Lists: 0

#20 Daavpuke
Member since 2009 • 13771 Posts

Of course the secondhand market doesn't steal any money from developers. It actually enhances their exposure and advertises their works.

QuistisTrepe_
agreed. My opinion is that someone who buy used, generally wouldn't buy the game at full price, so this way you at least open the gate towards potential new purchases.
Avatar image for AtomicTangerine
AtomicTangerine

4413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 AtomicTangerine
Member since 2005 • 4413 Posts

I'm not saying you are wrong outright, but I don't think that analogy holds up. A book can sell for a long time, but a video game has a very small window for making money. In this way, the video game market is unique. The used video game market isn't comparable to anything else really.

Avatar image for anthonycg
anthonycg

2017

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 anthonycg
Member since 2009 • 2017 Posts

No. The game was bought and profited from. As long as it's not being copied illegally then companies have no authority over what happens to it. Same for everything else in the world that is bought or sold...

Video games companies have a reputation of being greedy and like to make you spend $60 on 5 hour games. So this guilt trip they are trying to put out is just some way to make you spend more money. Don't fall for it.

If you don't want to waste $60 on something that you feel is not worth that much, you don't have to buy it. You can wait to get a used copy or get one from the bargain bin.

Don't let companies send you on these guilt trips.

Avatar image for oneMoreComment
oneMoreComment

259

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 oneMoreComment
Member since 2009 • 259 Posts

Ubisoft seems to think so. :evil:

http://www.dailytech.com/Ubisoft+to+Roll+Out+Used+Game+Fees+Too+Gamestop+Cheers+Idea/article18450.htm

Avatar image for BuryMe
BuryMe

22017

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 104

User Lists: 0

#24 BuryMe
Member since 2004 • 22017 Posts

I'm not saying you are wrong outright, but I don't think that analogy holds up. A book can sell for a long time, but a video game has a very small window for making money. In this way, the video game market is unique. The used video game market isn't comparable to anything else really.

AtomicTangerine

But in that small window, games tend to sell a lot more than books do...

A hit book in Canada sells about 5000 copies. A hit game will easily sell a lot more.

Avatar image for ronisize15
ronisize15

143

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#25 ronisize15
Member since 2008 • 143 Posts
Make good games and people will buy them. As for me I just got my xbox in sept so I went to game stop and for around 100 bucks was able to get Orange box, res 5, bioshock, assassins creed...etc all these games that I never would of purchased if I couldn't of gotten them at that price. However when Assassins creed II came out i got it new because they made a good game, I was intrigued to play the second. So the company in the end made money off of me because If I never played the original assassins creed I might not have purchased the second. I refuse to feel sorry for developers or major corporations. As a consumer we are getting hammered enough we need to worry about ourselves. Amen to anthonycg he got it right on the head. If you make a great game consumers will want it new ie Red Dead Redemption!
Avatar image for King9999
King9999

11837

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#26 King9999
Member since 2002 • 11837 Posts

There was a time when Nintendo tried to take Blockbuster to court in an attempt to make game rentals illegal. That was a long time ago, but take that for what it's worth.

Avatar image for Dire_Weasel
Dire_Weasel

16681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#27 Dire_Weasel
Member since 2002 • 16681 Posts

The Games to Books analogy is terrible.

Online games take up resources ... servers, bandwith and support. A used game takes up those resources without giving back any benefit to the game publisher. A used book takes up no publisher resources at all.

It's a company's right to charge for access to its online resources. If you want to save money by buying used games that's your prerogative but now you might have to pay a little extra to play those games online.

Avatar image for Greyfeld
Greyfeld

3007

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#28 Greyfeld
Member since 2008 • 3007 Posts

The Games to Books analogy is terrible.

Online games take up resources ... servers, bandwith and support. A used game takes up those resources without giving back any benefit to the game publisher. A used book takes up no publisher resources at all.

It's a company's right to charge for access to its online resources. If you want to save money by buying used games that's your prerogative but now you might have to pay a little extra to play those games online.

Dire_Weasel

Online resources are only sourced out to players that are actively online. Players can only be online if they have a copy of the game. Any 1 copy, new or used, will take up the same alottment of resources. So this argument is completely invalid.

And before you jump on the "but the servers have to store account information!!" argument, account info takes an extremely small amount of storage space, and accounts that are idle for X amount of time automatically get wiped off the server anyway. And even if that weren't the case, having the old account deleted when a copy of the game is registered with a new PSN/XBL would be simple and effective, without costing the consumers any more money.

Of course, I haven't even mentioned the fact that the additional fees associated with used game purchases have zilch to do with server costs. These publishers have made it no secret that their reasoning for this move is to take profits from the used game market, because they feel that these sales cut their profits, period. That is what this thread, and the link I posted in the origial post, is addressing.

Avatar image for Anarons
Anarons

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 Anarons
Member since 2007 • 25 Posts

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]

The Games to Books analogy is terrible.

Online games take up resources ... servers, bandwith and support. A used game takes up those resources without giving back any benefit to the game publisher. A used book takes up no publisher resources at all.

It's a company's right to charge for access to its online resources. If you want to save money by buying used games that's your prerogative but now you might have to pay a little extra to play those games online.

Greyfeld

Online resources are only sourced out to players that are actively online. Players can only be online if they have a copy of the game. Any 1 copy, new or used, will take up the same alottment of resources. So this argument is completely invalid.

And before you jump on the "but the servers have to store account information!!" argument, account info takes an extremely small amount of storage space, and accounts that are idle for X amount of time automatically get wiped off the server anyway. And even if that weren't the case, having the old account deleted when a copy of the game is registered with a new PSN/XBL would be simple and effective, without costing the consumers any more money.

Of course, I haven't even mentioned the fact that the additional fees associated with used game purchases have zilch to do with server costs. These publishers have made it no secret that their reasoning for this move is to take profits from the used game market, because they feel that these sales cut their profits, period. That is what this thread, and the link I posted in the origial post, is addressing.

Excellent post Grey! couldn't agree more.

Avatar image for QuistisTrepe_
QuistisTrepe_

4121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 QuistisTrepe_
Member since 2010 • 4121 Posts

There was a time when Nintendo tried to take Blockbuster to court in an attempt to make game rentals illegal. That was a long time ago, but take that for what it's worth.

King9999

Because of sheer greed, nothing more.

Avatar image for Ensamheten
Ensamheten

392

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 Ensamheten
Member since 2010 • 392 Posts

If the developer made the game worth keeping they wouldn't lose any money.

Avatar image for Link256
Link256

29195

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 Link256
Member since 2005 • 29195 Posts

Personally, I do not buy games used.

However, with that being said, whether it be developers, publishers, or gaming media, I find it completely ridiculous all of the CRYING they do over used game sells. Gaming is no different than any other product sold used.

Avatar image for AtomicTangerine
AtomicTangerine

4413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 AtomicTangerine
Member since 2005 • 4413 Posts

[QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"]

I'm not saying you are wrong outright, but I don't think that analogy holds up. A book can sell for a long time, but a video game has a very small window for making money. In this way, the video game market is unique. The used video game market isn't comparable to anything else really.

BuryMe

But in that small window, games tend to sell a lot more than books do...

A hit book in Canada sells about 5000 copies. A hit game will easily sell a lot more.

A hit game costs multiple millions of dollars to make. A hit book takes an author and an editor. Also, books have a longer shelf life. Stupid kids will be buying Harry Potter and Twilight books in 10 years, but how many copies of Super Mario Galaxy 2 will be sold in 2020?

Avatar image for BuryMe
BuryMe

22017

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 104

User Lists: 0

#34 BuryMe
Member since 2004 • 22017 Posts

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"]

I'm not saying you are wrong outright, but I don't think that analogy holds up. A book can sell for a long time, but a video game has a very small window for making money. In this way, the video game market is unique. The used video game market isn't comparable to anything else really.

AtomicTangerine

But in that small window, games tend to sell a lot more than books do...

A hit book in Canada sells about 5000 copies. A hit game will easily sell a lot more.

A hit game costs multiple millions of dollars to make. A hit book takes an author and an editor. Also, books have a longer shelf life. Stupid kids will be buying Harry Potter and Twilight books in 10 years, but how many copies of Super Mario Galaxy 2 will be sold in 2020?

A book takes a lot more than that to gte on a shelf.

And if it's a famous author, you can be pretty sure he's getting a pretty big pay cheque for writing that book. And editing isn't exactly a cheap process, either.

And it's impossible to say how Mario Galaxy will be selling 10 years from now. But if tends like the VC continue, it could still be selling through some Virtual Console type of setup.

Avatar image for ratchet_ruler88
ratchet_ruler88

535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#35 ratchet_ruler88
Member since 2005 • 535 Posts

I rarely buy games new and I believe buying used games does steal money from developers.

The reason being that when someone buys a new copy, then sells it used, the person buying the used copy isn't supporting the developers revenue, the original buyer did, the used buyer is only paying the original buyer. It doesn't add sales to the developers revenue, the revenue they get is only for that one copy, not two.

Avatar image for BuryMe
BuryMe

22017

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 104

User Lists: 0

#36 BuryMe
Member since 2004 • 22017 Posts

I rarely buy games new and I believe buying used games does steal money from developers.

The reason being that when someone buys a new copy, then sells it used, the person buying the used copy isn't supporting the developers revenue, the original buyer did, the used buyer is only paying the original buyer. It doesn't add sales to the developers revenue, the revenue they get is only for that one copy, not two.

ratchet_ruler88

But can you be certain that the second buyer would have bout the game new if the used copy hadn't been available?

Avatar image for osan0
osan0

16445

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 osan0
Member since 2004 • 16445 Posts
ive only skimmed over the article but it does raise an interesting point...the used book market promotes the sale of new books since people can trade in their old book against the new ones. a good point but with games there may be a flaw. games are more expensive than books and people may be just trading in their games to get other used games instead..which would still deprive publishers of their moolah (i dont know if that was mentioned in the article). at the end of the day publishers have determined that they can kill off the second hand market (they have done it on the PC) and that it is better for them to have every game sold being a new game. the costs of killling it off in terms of potentially lost sales by trading in second hand games against a new title does not outweigh the benefit of having every game being sold being brand spanking new as far as they are concerned. are they right? no idea.
Avatar image for osan0
osan0

16445

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 osan0
Member since 2004 • 16445 Posts

[QUOTE="ratchet_ruler88"]

I rarely buy games new and I believe buying used games does steal money from developers.

The reason being that when someone buys a new copy, then sells it used, the person buying the used copy isn't supporting the developers revenue, the original buyer did, the used buyer is only paying the original buyer. It doesn't add sales to the developers revenue, the revenue they get is only for that one copy, not two.

BuryMe

But can you be certain that the second buyer would have bout the game new if the used copy hadn't been available?

fairly certain. usually the difference is very small between new and used games. its certainly safer to say that a used sale is far more likely to be a lost sale than a pirated copy for example. its not 100% certain of course but i think most would go the extra 5-10 bucks to get the game they want.
Avatar image for Dire_Weasel
Dire_Weasel

16681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#39 Dire_Weasel
Member since 2002 • 16681 Posts

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]

The Games to Books analogy is terrible.

Online games take up resources ... servers, bandwith and support. A used game takes up those resources without giving back any benefit to the game publisher. A used book takes up no publisher resources at all.

It's a company's right to charge for access to its online resources. If you want to save money by buying used games that's your prerogative but now you might have to pay a little extra to play those games online.

Greyfeld

Online resources are only sourced out to players that are actively online. Players can only be online if they have a copy of the game. Any 1 copy, new or used, will take up the same alottment of resources. So this argument is completely invalid.

And before you jump on the "but the servers have to store account information!!" argument, account info takes an extremely small amount of storage space, and accounts that are idle for X amount of time automatically get wiped off the server anyway. And even if that weren't the case, having the old account deleted when a copy of the game is registered with a new PSN/XBL would be simple and effective, without costing the consumers any more money.

Of course, I haven't even mentioned the fact that the additional fees associated with used game purchases have zilch to do with server costs. These publishers have made it no secret that their reasoning for this move is to take profits from the used game market, because they feel that these sales cut their profits, period. That is what this thread, and the link I posted in the origial post, is addressing.

My argument is entirely valid.

A typical gamer only plays a game online for a finite amount of time before he moves on to something else. This varies from gamer to gamer and game to game but it's pretty easy to understand that, eventually, the gamer will stop using online resources.

Selling the game used restarts the cycle for a new player and certainly extends the amount of resources used by a single copy.

Avatar image for AtomicTangerine
AtomicTangerine

4413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 AtomicTangerine
Member since 2005 • 4413 Posts

[QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"]

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]But in that small window, games tend to sell a lot more than books do...

A hit book in Canada sells about 5000 copies. A hit game will easily sell a lot more.

BuryMe

A hit game costs multiple millions of dollars to make. A hit book takes an author and an editor. Also, books have a longer shelf life. Stupid kids will be buying Harry Potter and Twilight books in 10 years, but how many copies of Super Mario Galaxy 2 will be sold in 2020?

A book takes a lot more than that to gte on a shelf.

And if it's a famous author, you can be pretty sure he's getting a pretty big pay cheque for writing that book. And editing isn't exactly a cheap process, either.

And it's impossible to say how Mario Galaxy will be selling 10 years from now. But if tends like the VC continue, it could still be selling through some Virtual Console type of setup.

I don't think you get it man. The majority of the work when it comes to a book is being done by ONE person. A modern video game is made by 100+ people over a period of two years, if not more. Let's pretend Dan Brown got a million-dollar check for writing the Da Vinchi Code. Divide that by 50 for a small team, and they get $20,000 each for making the game and live along the poverty line.

I know my numbers aren't accurate, but I'm trying to illustrate the point that making a video game is a much bigger endeavor than a book. For most video games, the vast majority of the money they make is also during the first few months, whereas a book can sell for decades. Think about it this way- Twilight can still be found in most book stores and is still heavily promoted in the store. It came out in October, 2005. What video games from the Christmas season in 2005 are still found on shelves? Twilight Princess, and that's about it. Heck, if you want a specific game from that period, you might not even be 100% sure a USED copy will be there. Games simply don't last as long as other media.

I want to state again that I am NOT saying you are wrong. I am saying that your analogy doesn't work.

Avatar image for morrowindnic
morrowindnic

1541

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#41 morrowindnic
Member since 2004 • 1541 Posts

its like they dont sell another copy, but used games are cheaper :D

fear9204

]

The difference between $60 and $55 is nothing to someone with a job.

There is NO point in buying a used game, unless its like 50% off.

Avatar image for BuryMe
BuryMe

22017

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 104

User Lists: 0

#42 BuryMe
Member since 2004 • 22017 Posts

[QUOTE="fear9204"]

its like they dont sell another copy, but used games are cheaper :D

morrowindnic

]

The difference between $60 and $55 is nothing to someone with a job.

There is NO point in buying a used game, unless its like 50% off.

I often find used games way more than $5 less than the new price.

And even with a job, I'd still prefer to save my money. Those $5s add up over time.

Avatar image for wizdom
wizdom

10111

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#43 wizdom
Member since 2003 • 10111 Posts
Developers don't make money on a game when it's bought used, so in theory yes it's steals money from the developer.
Avatar image for wizdom
wizdom

10111

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#44 wizdom
Member since 2003 • 10111 Posts
[QUOTE="fear9204"]

its like they dont sell another copy, but used games are cheaper :D

Agent-Zero
like 5 bucks cheaper

not all used games are 5 bucks cheaper
Avatar image for Greyfeld
Greyfeld

3007

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#45 Greyfeld
Member since 2008 • 3007 Posts

[QUOTE="Greyfeld"]

[QUOTE="Dire_Weasel"]

The Games to Books analogy is terrible.

Online games take up resources ... servers, bandwith and support. A used game takes up those resources without giving back any benefit to the game publisher. A used book takes up no publisher resources at all.

It's a company's right to charge for access to its online resources. If you want to save money by buying used games that's your prerogative but now you might have to pay a little extra to play those games online.

Dire_Weasel

Online resources are only sourced out to players that are actively online. Players can only be online if they have a copy of the game. Any 1 copy, new or used, will take up the same alottment of resources. So this argument is completely invalid.

And before you jump on the "but the servers have to store account information!!" argument, account info takes an extremely small amount of storage space, and accounts that are idle for X amount of time automatically get wiped off the server anyway. And even if that weren't the case, having the old account deleted when a copy of the game is registered with a new PSN/XBL would be simple and effective, without costing the consumers any more money.

Of course, I haven't even mentioned the fact that the additional fees associated with used game purchases have zilch to do with server costs. These publishers have made it no secret that their reasoning for this move is to take profits from the used game market, because they feel that these sales cut their profits, period. That is what this thread, and the link I posted in the origial post, is addressing.

My argument is entirely valid.

A typical gamer only plays a game online for a finite amount of time before he moves on to something else. This varies from gamer to gamer and game to game but it's pretty easy to understand that, eventually, the gamer will stop using online resources.

Selling the game used restarts the cycle for a new player and certainly extends the amount of resources used by a single copy.

Now you're just making assumptions. And your assumption is completely and utterly incorrect, as can be illustrated by any number of online multiplayer games that have been active for years... See: Halo 2, Counterstrike, Warcraft 3. If we were living in a world where this crazy theory of yours was correct, developers would kill their servers a few months after selling the game. As it stands, the only company that does that is EA, with their Sports titles, and only because they pump out a new title in each of their sports franchises every single year, and need the resources to support the new titles.

Avatar image for James161324
James161324

8315

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 James161324
Member since 2009 • 8315 Posts

Honestly no. A majority of used sales are people who wouldn't buy it new in the first place or the game is old. Really they don't loose any money becuase they have already been paid for the games. So it isn;t like if a person buys it new or used they get a part of that money. They get there 47 bucks when they ship them to the retialer.

Avatar image for dezzyfiesta
dezzyfiesta

506

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 dezzyfiesta
Member since 2010 • 506 Posts

[QUOTE="Remora133"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Of course the secondhand market doesn't steal any money from developers. It actually enhances their exposure and advertises their works.

Greyfeld

not exactly. RARELY have i bought a used game then became a loyal customer to that company. only the BEST games make me do that. i try to by new because you do basically cheat the developer out of money. i like to pay for peoples work

That's your own prerogative as a consumer. But understand that your buying habits don't hold true for the public as a whole.

I don't know about the free content stuff but taking away people's online will really have a big impact on the public as a whole. It could become a complete PR disaster for EA and have a big impact on their sales. Or it might work out the way they hope but I doubt it....
Avatar image for btaylor2404
btaylor2404

11353

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

#48 btaylor2404
Member since 2003 • 11353 Posts
I think this is going in a terrible direction. Once a product is purchased from a company it should be able to be sold by said person. EA, if most of us agree, will feel a major backlash on this. And no I don't think it steals money, quite the opposite. If I buy a used COD game, and have never played one before and like it, I may very well buy however many thousand different versions they have. EA, IMO, is making a huge mistake.
Avatar image for Lockedge
Lockedge

16765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 Lockedge
Member since 2002 • 16765 Posts
It's not stealing from developers, but they lose out on money from potential sales. Maybe if retailers had to give a 20% royalty of their profits off their used game sales, it would be a better situation for developers, because so many buy used these days. If you like a developer and want them to keep making games, support them. I stopped buying used games when Free Radical, after countless incredibly enjoyable games, was killed by Haze, a legitimately mediocre shooter that was overhyped and that underperformed within the context of that hype. No dev should die because of one misstep, yet they did. Why? Because games cost tens of millions of dollars and if you mess up, you don't get work, or if you do, you work and get paid later on in installments depending on if the publisher likes what you've done or wants you to keep going. At least, unless you're an EA, Ubisoft or Activision 1st/2nd party branch, in which your team will probably get culled a fair bit before you continue on. People whining over a lack of online access from used games is crazy. You're not entitled to access the game's online modes unless they have LAN built in as an option. Use their servers, play by their rules. They feel they're losing out on sales, a $5 fee is an ok way to make that up. If people don't pay that fee, oh well. They'll come back. Anywho, it's a measure to mess with retailers selling used games, since shortly after release, retailers tend to sell newly released used games for $5 under MSRP, and having an extra $5 cost would either force them to make a $10 difference(cutting into their profits), or put egg in their face is they sell games for $5 less but without telling their customers about the online fee. Most people in the opening week who are willing to buy the game new do so anyways, either preordering or just buying new the first week. The used games hawks are the ones looking for any way to save money on the price of the game, who wouldn't consider buying it new under almost any circumstance, so they're hardly alienating anyone that would factor into their market audience. Fact: If you buy the game used, you're not immediately helping the publisher or developer, and chances are you won't help them out in the future for that franchise. Chances are you'll buy the next game used. Etc. If anything, approach retailers like Gamestop and EB and ask why they mark up newly released used games so much when their employees often have a "cost+tax" or "cost plus $10" fee, to buy the game? My buddy just bought a used game from the store he works at for $22, because the trade-in value of the game was $20 and with tax it came to $22. Regular consumers buy it for $49.99 If you want to force game prices down, ask your retailers why they're leeching so much profit when all they're doing is restocking the item and saran wrapping it.
Avatar image for shani_boy101
shani_boy101

5423

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#50 shani_boy101
Member since 2006 • 5423 Posts

technically it isn't stealing, but they do miss out on potential sales. No-one complains when people sell used cars so i don't see why this is a problem.