Do used games REALLY steal money from developers?

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

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

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

fear9204

[QUOTE="fear9204"]

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

Agent-Zero

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.

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

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

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

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.

[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.

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

QuistisTrepe_

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

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

Remora133

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

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

[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

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

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

Remora133

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

QuistisTrepe_

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.

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.

Ubisoft seems to think so. :evil:

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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

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.

[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

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?

[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

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?

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 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.

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

[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

[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.

[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?

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.

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.

[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.

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

[QUOTE="fear9204"]

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

Agent-Zero

[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.

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.

[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

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

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.