THQ: Buying used games is "cheating".

[Calax]

The problem with your theory is that you go out from a 5 new - 3 used basis.

 

IRL it's more like 2 new - 10 used.

So even if 7 of them wouldn't buy the full price, just getting the other 3 in already means a 150% increase in profit.

 

You can't have more used games than you sell new; If retail stores buy 30,000 copies of a game across the country, the most used games that could exist is 30,000 (ie every game sold and is now in the position to be bought back)

 

Even in your example, the "other 8" they buy back/sell used had to have been bought previously somewhere (and thus the publisher was paid for them already).

True, if there is only 30k copies across the US there can't be more than that, but you can resell that item via gamestop 20 times, compared to the publishers solitary sale. So one game could be owned by many people earning Gamestop (or other retailers) a huge amount of money compared to what they paid for it.

 

Right, but the publisher has still been paid for the copies bought. It doesn't matter if the copy is in the hands of 20 different people (one at a time), the publisher has already been paid (when the retail store it was bought at ordered it from the publisher) and someone has already paid that retailer for that copy.

 

I don't believe if the 20 people who bought it used did not have the option to buy it used it would magically become +20 orders from the retailer to the publisher for the item new.

 

Sure it *might* lead to an increase in orders. It might not as well.

Well I've seen cases when I worked at gamestop where people bought a game, beat it, and returned it inside a day, and then it happened again and again. So day 1 sales were significantly lessened because of the trade in system. Admittedly this is just pure greed on the publishers part, but still, you've got to see the point that Gamestop can make upwards of a grand on a single disk while the publisher gets less than 100 for that disk, which the publisher views as unfair.

[Thorton_AP]

My thought is that prior iterations of these games did not have the code system; that the code system was created as a way to cut out the used game market now. Also if you weren't being charged extra for it (ie if the cost of Madden XX without the code was the same as Madded XXI with the code), it was free. But again, I said that I could be mistaken (I personally don't pay attention to online content as I have no way to access it so I'm not sure what is the case; any clarity that can be offered is appreciated).

 

You can more legitimately complain about the online features now being pay to play than you can about not getting paid DLC. At the same time, videogamers are probably the biggest group suffering from a sense of entitlement as their hobby has pretty much seen 0% inflation over the last 20-25 years on the cost of a new game, yet bitch and moan about how unfair it is that other costs now come into the picture. Economies of scale have allowed the game developers to keep this price point, but the fact is that game dev cost has not remained static and you will get to a point where you have saturated your customer base and there is limited room to grow in terms of number of customers.

 

What I see here is game devs actually utilizing the free market to improve their revenues, and then you claiming that they aren't being fair and are trying to hurt the free market.

 

 

I don't believe if the 20 people who bought it used did not have the option to buy it used it would magically become +20 orders from the retailer to the publisher for the item new.

 

Sure it *might* lead to an increase in orders. It might not as well.

 

Lets be honest here. People buy the used copy of a game for $50 from Gamestop simply because it saves them $10 over the $60 new copy. It might not become +20 new copies of the game being sold at retail, but customers are sheep and they aren't going to go and say "oh you know what, I don't want this copy of the game that I went to the store for because I can't save $10 on a used copy now.

 

The situation becomes much muddier when Gamestop would sell used copies of the game at a high enough price that the used copy + the DLC is more than the new copy of the game. They got some negative press for this because people would just come in and go "hey, save $10 on the game," and then have to pay for the Day One DLC ultimately paying MORE money than if they had just purchased the new game.

 

Since this people were already paying more than they needed to, the idea that they wouldn't purchase a new copy because of the "increased price" is incorrect. Unfortunately for these people they got burned and Gamestop now needs to advertise that used copies of the game will not include bonus DLC.

[Hassat Hunter]

@ Amentep: You try REAL hard to avoid that GameStop makes $500,- per $60,- game copy right (and hell, from that $60,- $60,- doesn't arrive at the producer, while the $500,- for GameStop is pure buck)?

Edited August 27, 2010 by Hassat Hunter

[Gfted1]

Seems like resales are ramping up:

 

Best Buy expands game trade-in program to stores

 

Aug 26, 3:54 PM (ET)

 

NEW YORK (AP) - Electronics retailer Best Buy Co. said Thursday it is offering store credit in exchange for used video games at nearly 600 of its stores, expanding an online trade-in program that has been in place for about a year.

 

The move follows Wednesday's announcement by Target Corp. that it is launching an electronics trade-in program at 850 of its stores later this year. Besides video games, Target will also offer store credit to customers who turn in their mobile phones and iPods.

 

Best Buy plans to roll out the trade-in program to the rest of its 1,089 stores by October. The company also said it will start selling used video games in its stores soon, but it provided no specifics. The current trade-in program involves customers mailing in games after filling out forms online.

 

GameStop Corp., the world's largest video game retailer, has long offered such trade-ins. Selling used games is a big part of its business, and it has helped the retailer appeal to budget-conscious gamers in the recession.

 

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. also offer video game trade-ins.

 

Different video games will fetch different prices, depending on their popularity and other factors. The best-selling "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2," for example, will get you $13 to $17, according to Best Buy's online trade-in calculator. Buying the same game, also used, on Best Buy's website will cost you $35. A new game goes for $60.

 

Shares of Best Buy, which is based in Minneapolis, slid 53 cents to $31.95 in afternoon trading Thursday. GameStop investors seemed to shrug off the competition. The company's shares fell 18 cents to $18.24 amid a broader market decline.

[Hurlshort]

I never understood why you would buy a used game for $50 when a new one is $60. It seems like a terrible deal to me. I'd rather get a nice clean new game for a tad more. Now if I could get it for $35 instead of $60, that might be a bit more tempting.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Especially since Amazon usually sells with a big discount, not tax and free shipping. May not work if you have to have it on day 1 though.

[Calax]

I never understood why you would buy a used game for $50 when a new one is $60. It seems like a terrible deal to me. I'd rather get a nice clean new game for a tad more. Now if I could get it for $35 instead of $60, that might be a bit more tempting.

The two big factors at gamestop is that A) you can get the 10% off with their membership and B) if you don't like it within 7 days you can take it back if you bought it used. So ultimately it's the safer deal overall if you are unsure. But Best Buy and Target I don't know.

[Amentep]

Well I've seen cases when I worked at gamestop where people bought a game, beat it, and returned it inside a day, and then it happened again and again. So day 1 sales were significantly lessened because of the trade in system. Admittedly this is just pure greed on the publishers part, but still, you've got to see the point that Gamestop can make upwards of a grand on a single disk while the publisher gets less than 100 for that disk, which the publisher views as unfair.

 

And that may well be...but...so what?

 

It seems to me that the "solution" the publishers want is to punish the retail stores (who carry their games) by passing on certain extra fees to the consumer.

 

You can more legitimately complain about the online features now being pay to play than you can about not getting paid DLC. At the same time, videogamers are probably the biggest group suffering from a sense of entitlement as their hobby has pretty much seen 0% inflation over the last 20-25 years on the cost of a new game, yet bitch and moan about how unfair it is that other costs now come into the picture. Economies of scale have allowed the game developers to keep this price point, but the fact is that game dev cost has not remained static and you will get to a point where you have saturated your customer base and there is limited room to grow in terms of number of customers.

 

I'm not talking about DLC; DLC, expansions and the like are a different kettle of fish.

 

What I'm talking about is the ability to access the online component of the game; EA has said that used buyers of their game can't access the online content unless they pay an additional fee.

 

My misunderstanding was that the online content was a player-to-player connection, but I've been corrected in that this is actually a player-to-EA server.

 

Now comes the murky bit; technically if person A buys a game for $50 and is given a redeemable code to access the games servers, in theory either part of the price of the $50 should cover their access to the online server or the company is offering the service free to the consumer with the understanding that the consumer will take advantage of it. When person A sells their game to Gamestop they are now no longer accessing the server. Person B comes along and buys the game from Gamestop used. The company now wants Person B to pay to access the servers; except Person A's purchasing price on that disc "covered" that access (ie if Person A kept the game he'd be able to access the online content as long as that service was available from the company). The argument is that player B didn't buy it new so didn't pay the company to cover the cost of the servers; however what it seems that the game companies are doing is, in essence, finding a way to get extra money out of a single purchase.

 

So who loses in this scenario? Gamestop? The used-game buyer? Both?

 

What I see here is game devs actually utilizing the free market to improve their revenues, and then you claiming that they aren't being fair and are trying to hurt the free market.

 

Actually my real complaint has been that I don't think that this will stop to online, extra or additional content but taken to its (logical?) extreme which would make it impossible to sell a game used as no second hand user would be able to play the game since the second hand user didn't pay the publisher for it.

 

@ Amentep: You try REAL hard to avoid that GameStop makes $500,- per $60,- game copy right (and hell, from that $60,- $60,- doesn't arrive at the producer, while the $500,- for GameStop is pure buck)?

 

Not really avoiding it. I'm just not sure why Gamestop making a huge profit entitles the publisher to go down a path that could eventually shaft the consumer. I'm not entirely convinced that even the argument that online content has extra infrastructure costs makes it make sense either (see above).

 

I never understood why you would buy a used game for $50 when a new one is $60. It seems like a terrible deal to me. I'd rather get a nice clean new game for a tad more. Now if I could get it for $35 instead of $60, that might be a bit more tempting.

 

When the difference is $10 I always buy it new. Unless it something I really want and there's no new copies available, I usually only buy used when its below $20.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Explain to me why you think a company should maintain their servers for you even though you haven't paid them one cent? Unless it specifically states that online rights are transferable when the game was bought new, they have no such obligation.

[Nepenthe]

I never understood why you would buy a used game for $50 when a new one is $60. It seems like a terrible deal to me. I'd rather get a nice clean new game for a tad more. Now if I could get it for $35 instead of $60, that might be a bit more tempting.

 

Pretty much this...

[Calax]

Well I've seen cases when I worked at gamestop where people bought a game, beat it, and returned it inside a day, and then it happened again and again. So day 1 sales were significantly lessened because of the trade in system. Admittedly this is just pure greed on the publishers part, but still, you've got to see the point that Gamestop can make upwards of a grand on a single disk while the publisher gets less than 100 for that disk, which the publisher views as unfair.

 

And that may well be...but...so what?

 

It seems to me that the "solution" the publishers want is to punish the retail stores (who carry their games) by passing on certain extra fees to the consumer.

Except that there is little way to punish the retailer without the costs passing on to the consumer anyway. If they raise prices, that hits the gamers. If they refuse to send their product to the retailer, then gamers will gnash their teeth and rage like they are now.

 

This is a free market, and gamers seem to think that that means it's a static market in reference to their particular industry. If a publisher is going to start adding incentives to purchasing a game brand new, that's great for them, and I honestly think that they should be pissed at the trade in system because it makes SOOOO much money that they never get to see for their product.

[Amentep]

Explain to me why you think a company should maintain their servers for you even though you haven't paid them one cent? Unless it specifically states that online rights are transferable when the game was bought new, they have no such obligation.

 

Explain to me why nobody bothers to read when I write things like "Actually my real complaint has been that I don't think that this will stop to online, extra or additional content but taken to its (logical?) extreme which would make it impossible to sell a game used as no second hand user would be able to play the game since the second hand user didn't pay the publisher for it."

 

That said, if player A has bought a game for which he would always be able to access the servers as long as he wanted to or as long as the publisher supported the game and then sells it to player B, as player A can no longer access the servers, what justification is there that player B should not be able to access those servers? The net use on the servers hasn't changed.

 

The only justification is its a new revenue stream for the publishers. Yay for them.

 

My worry - as pointed out above - is that this will not stick to limited, optional, and/or online server-based content.

[Hurlshort]

One solution might be that publishers work a deal with Gamestop basically saying it will not sell used games during the first week of release. That would eliminate the pretty shady practice of selling one game multiple times in quick succession.

[Amentep]

Except that there is little way to punish the retailer without the costs passing on to the consumer anyway. If they raise prices, that hits the gamers. If they refuse to send their product to the retailer, then gamers will gnash their teeth and rage like they are now.

 

True, but as pointed out this seems to be a way to make double money off of one purchase.

 

This is a free market, and gamers seem to think that that means it's a static market in reference to their particular industry. If a publisher is going to start adding incentives to purchasing a game brand new, that's great for them, and I honestly think that they should be pissed at the trade in system because it makes SOOOO much money that they never get to see for their product.

 

If it was a truly reflective market, the price point on games would have went down when they switched to CDs since the cost to produce cartridges was higher than CDs.

 

Anyhow, incentives I don't mind. DLC, expansions etc. Sure no problem. Great stuff. If Player A buys a game and a DLC but only sells the game, sure player B who buys that used copy has to buy his own dang DLC.

[Wrath of Dagon]

That said, if player A has bought a game for which he would always be able to access the servers as long as he wanted to or as long as the publisher supported the game and then sells it to player B, as player A can no longer access the servers, what justification is there that player B should not be able to access those servers? The net use on the servers hasn't changed.

Because they're not selling a transferrable license. Most people will not utilize the servers 100%. If the game keeps getting transferred, that means much higher utilization of the servers in reality, something the publisher is not compensated for. Thus they have a right to charge extra for the transfers.

My worry - as pointed out above - is that this will not stick to limited, optional, and/or online server-based content.

There's no reason a publisher should be obligated to sell a transferrable license to their game. They could very well sell a single user license (as is commonly done with other software) and they'd be on solid legal and ethical ground.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Amentep]

That said, if player A has bought a game for which he would always be able to access the servers as long as he wanted to or as long as the publisher supported the game and then sells it to player B, as player A can no longer access the servers, what justification is there that player B should not be able to access those servers? The net use on the servers hasn't changed.

Because they're not selling a transferrable license. Most people will not utilize the servers 100%. If the game keeps getting transferred, that means much higher utilization of the servers in reality, something the publisher is not compensated for. Thus they have a right to charge extra for the transfers.

 

I see what you're saying; I'm not actually sure it really means higher utilization of the servers though unless the companies are only looking at a very short shelf life for the game (ie not like Diablo 2 was with Battlenet) but its a valid enough point.

 

My worry - as pointed out above - is that this will not stick to limited, optional, and/or online server-based content.

There's no reason a publisher should be obligated to sell a transferrable license to their game. They could very well sell a single user license (as is commonly done with other software) and they'd be on solid legal and ethical ground.

 

Hmmm...an interesting point, but I'd think it'd be impossible to enforce a Single-User License for console game as long as the games are on physical media (eventually they'll go to a totally digital distribution and much of this will be a moot point, I suspect).

 

It'd also pretty much ensure that once a game was bought, if the player didn't like it they were stuck with it (using the game as a coaster) which has been my concern about this policy all along. I'll buy a lot less games in general if I have to live with them or toss them as my only options. As an example I buy a lot more console games than I do PC games because I've got no real recourse to unload PC games I don't like.

 

Certainly the publishers can do what they want - just as Gamestop can as long as they have customers. But it doesn't mean I have to be happy about it (heck as I pointed out none of my consoles are connected online so at the moment this doesn't even effect me).

[Thorton_AP]

If it was a truly reflective market, the price point on games would have went down when they switched to CDs since the cost to produce cartridges was higher than CDs.

 

It did. Adjust your costs for inflation. Furthermore, factor in the cost of game development compared to what the end user pays.

 

 

Actually my real complaint has been that I don't think that this will stop to online, extra or additional content but taken to its (logical?) extreme which would make it impossible to sell a game used as no second hand user would be able to play the game since the second hand user didn't pay the publisher for it.

 

This is the slippery-slope logical fallacy.

 

If this is actually as big of an issue as you are indicating that it will be, wouldn't this cause people to buy less games and see a significant reduction in revenues for the game devs, leading to them rethinking the actual policy?

 

 

The company now wants Person B to pay to access the servers; except Person A's purchasing price on that disc "covered" that access (ie if Person A kept the game he'd be able to access the online content as long as that service was available from the company).

 

The entire online component is not covered with the resale of a used game. Take an extreme example. I buy a game, and create my online user profile that the game uses to log my match history, statistics and so forth. I resell this game and this game continues to be resold a million times. The online servers still log each and every individual profile that was created and keeps track of a million times more data than they were originally compensated for.

 

The only cost is not just bandwidth and the matchmaking service.

 

Your scenario would only make sense if upon being resold, the game's online profile was now in possession of the new owner as well. This is not the case.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Calax]

That said, if player A has bought a game for which he would always be able to access the servers as long as he wanted to or as long as the publisher supported the game and then sells it to player B, as player A can no longer access the servers, what justification is there that player B should not be able to access those servers? The net use on the servers hasn't changed.

Because they're not selling a transferrable license. Most people will not utilize the servers 100%. If the game keeps getting transferred, that means much higher utilization of the servers in reality, something the publisher is not compensated for. Thus they have a right to charge extra for the transfers.

 

I see what you're saying; I'm not actually sure it really means higher utilization of the servers though unless the companies are only looking at a very short shelf life for the game (ie not like Diablo 2 was with Battlenet) but its a valid enough point.

 

My worry - as pointed out above - is that this will not stick to limited, optional, and/or online server-based content.

There's no reason a publisher should be obligated to sell a transferrable license to their game. They could very well sell a single user license (as is commonly done with other software) and they'd be on solid legal and ethical ground.

 

Hmmm...an interesting point, but I'd think it'd be impossible to enforce a Single-User License for console game as long as the games are on physical media (eventually they'll go to a totally digital distribution and much of this will be a moot point, I suspect).

 

It'd also pretty much ensure that once a game was bought, if the player didn't like it they were stuck with it (using the game as a coaster) which has been my concern about this policy all along. I'll buy a lot less games in general if I have to live with them or toss them as my only options. As an example I buy a lot more console games than I do PC games because I've got no real recourse to unload PC games I don't like.

 

Certainly the publishers can do what they want - just as Gamestop can as long as they have customers. But it doesn't mean I have to be happy about it (heck as I pointed out none of my consoles are connected online so at the moment this doesn't even effect me).

Just gonna point out that you can't trade or sell your Steam account, or your Xbox Live account, or world of warcraft account because of EULA. Locking online stuff to a specific person is pretty standard these days.

[entrerix]

yeah, but at least for steam its not a big deal for many users because the only steam games they buy are on those crazy awesome sales where the games cost $5 anyway.

 

if my steam account went bye bye overnight, it would suck, but not as much as me losing 30-100 full price games.

 

i think my whole steam account is probably only worth about $100. and i have a lot of games on it...

Edited August 27, 2010 by entrerix

[greylord]

I"ve found out in this thread there are two types of people. Those who feel like they stole land and houses, and those who feel people should be able to sell their land or houses after it's been bought the first time.

 

The first set feels like unless you buy it new...then you've stolen it. Unfortunately, land is never new, so if they own their own house, at least the land is STOLEN LAND!!! They never paid the first person ever to own it!!!!! I guess since land and houses are much more expensive and take a lot more time overall to make than many copies of a computer game, they are pretty bad thieves.

 

The rest of us just feel that's stupid logic and go ahead and have no qualms with second hand land or houses. I hear there were those that were really trying to make killer profits on second hand land and houses however, always selling it for even MORE then what they got it for...I guess that really just made the first set unhappy because all these people were stealing the houses from the original builders.

 

I on the otherhand am just amazed at how far people will go to try to say that houses bought second, third, or fourth hand are stolen as if that makes any sense at all. The original builders already sold the house, they made the money which they charged for it. Most of them are satisfied at that. It's not like they put any more effort into it beyond their inital building to be able to claim they should make even MORE than what they originally charged it for. In fact after they sell it, they don't do anything more with it to deserve a mark up from what THEY CHOSE TO SELL IT FOR.

 

On the otherhand, if it's a faulty construction, they can be held liable for building something that could cause injury or death on purpose. Even if it's a second hand house...or occasionally a third hand house if it's soon enough. That seems common sense to the second crowd I'm part of.

 

The first crowd however, who thinks people steal houses, are outraged. Afterall, the builder didn't sell it to the second buyers, who cares about them right. The builders shouldn't care about what they made, or worry about any deathtraps they made. Builders in fact should never build houses again, they should merely rent them out...and ensure NO ONE can ever have a house again according to their logic.

 

My oh my...this thread has been an interesting one about houses...I just don't get that first crowd that claims I stole them. However, THQ, someone who used to be a big realtor on the block, but now only rents their homes, feels as if I have stolen something from them as well...which mystifies me. Well, they can say what they want in the US, it's a free country...but if they come to try to take their house back...I'm going to call the cops.

[heathen]

Why are you talking about houses? That's the worst analogy in this thread yet.

[greylord]

Why are you talking about houses? That's the worst analogy in this thread yet.

 

 

Isn't that what we are discussing. Vendors who sell new property...and then are unhappy when the buyers resell it, but the original Vendors don't get any of the money even though the original Vendors didn't lift a finger to do anything more to add or even earn any more money from it?

[Hurlshort]

What about property taxes?

[Calax]

Why are you talking about houses? That's the worst analogy in this thread yet.

 

 

Isn't that what we are discussing. Vendors who sell new property...and then are unhappy when the buyers resell it, but the original Vendors don't get any of the money even though the original Vendors didn't lift a finger to do anything more to add or even earn any more money from it?

Houses are an investment, games are not. Houses actually appreciate over time rather than depreciate like games or 90% of the other things that are mentioned in this thread. Thus you're using quite possibly the absolute WORST analogy for this particular discussion.

[greylord]

Why are you talking about houses? That's the worst analogy in this thread yet.

 

 

Isn't that what we are discussing. Vendors who sell new property...and then are unhappy when the buyers resell it, but the original Vendors don't get any of the money even though the original Vendors didn't lift a finger to do anything more to add or even earn any more money from it?

Houses are an investment, games are not. Houses actually appreciate over time rather than depreciate like games or 90% of the other things that are mentioned in this thread. Thus you're using quite possibly the absolute WORST analogy for this particular discussion.

 

Why do houses increase in value? I have some star trek games people for some odd reason were willing to pay MORE then what I got them for...they apparantly appreciated in value. Was it the same reason? Both are property. Both are designed before being created. Both are then built on a framework and developed. Then both are sold to a buyer. It's the sellers and buyers that determine the market.

 

According to what some are saying here, the value of a videogame being sold second hand rises 500%, or that's the profits that are made (which is actually quite ridiculous. GS buys the game and then turns around and sells it, which is true, but the profits come from people willing to trade in a game for 50% of what Gamespot is going to turn around and sell it for...ONCE...which then the second hand buyer can keep it, or sell it, or whatever, just like someone who has gotten other property...in this case...a house).

 

Perhaps if the people who create the property don't like how it goes second hand, they should get into the deal by dealing in second hand properties themselves. Believe it or not there are Companies that not only build houses, but deal in secondhand sales of them (and third hand sales, and fourth hand sales...and so on) as well.

 

Property is property...or would you rather start talking about something else that is property (at least taxes say they are in some states), automobiles...

 

Same thing applies to them as well...except on a much more extreme level. Toyota for example, was still held accountable for it's mistakes...EVEN WITH SECOND/THIRD/FOURTH/FIFTH hand owners...and so forth.

 

Shame if THQ suddenly had to realize that they were actually no better then anyone else who makes something and then sells it.