Court ruling could kill used game business

[Melook]

Nothing wrong with buying used games.

Just another attempt of money hungry companies to make more money.

When you buy a new video game you have a right to sell it. It is no different from a used CD or a chair.

[KatieHal]

I think the issue that they take umbrage with is more that the stores themselves are selling & making money on the used games, as opposed to the individual consumer doing so. Places like Game Stop have cut themselves out a nice chunk of money & market with this tactic.

[Melook]

I heard game stop was in dept.......

[crayauchtin]

Everything's in debt, Melook, it's a recession. Doesn't mean that it's fair to allow them to cut the people who make the games out of their profits.

[Lambonius]

The game makers aren't entitled to one dime that results from the sale of a used game.  They aren't getting cut out of anything.

Think about how these transactions work:

1) Game developer makes game for larger corporation.  Developers get paid by the corporation.  They don't get royalties or anything like that from the actual sales of games--it doesn't work that way.  The developers get their money at the end of this step, and that's all they're legally entitled to.

2) Corporation sells HUGE bulk of games to retailers.  Corporation makes its money right there--this is the end of the corporation's point of entitlement.  The corporation continues to make money ONLY from new bulk shipments of games sold to retailers--NOT from the sales of games by retailers to consumers.

3) Retailer sells game to consumer, retailer makes its money in this step.

4) Consumer sells used game to used game retailer.  Consumer makes back a little bit of money on his initial purchase.  The used game retailer now owns the item, and it is theirs to do with as they see fit.

5) Used game retailer now sells used game at a reasonable cost.  Used game retailer gets return on their investment--NOT in the initial NEW game, but in the USED game that THEY bought from a CONSUMER.

This is a totally silly discussion.  Every used game on the market was at one time bought NEW from the game corporation that produced it--not by the consumer, mind you, but by a retailer.  The corporation and developers ALREADY made their money.  To claim that they are still entitled to money from the sales of used, RESOLD products is like saying that the company who sells seeds to a farmer is entitled to part of the profits that the farmer gets every time he sells a vegetable.  Total BS.

[Cez]

Except for the fact that you wouldn't buy seeds --you'd buy the vegetables. You used the materials to create something else, and everytime you need to grow more vegetables, you continue to buy those seeds because vegetables eventually are wasted and new ones need to be grown. This is not the case with videogames.  

With Videogames, everytime you buy an used game, you are not getting the games from the developers anymore. At one point, Gamestop stops getting the game from the developers, stop selling them altogether, and only offers used copies (I could not, for the life of me, find a new copy of Assassins Creed last year at any of the local gamestops and ended up ordering it from Amazon). Because they hold the same face value (whereas seeds and vegetables would need to be regrown), that's where the difference lies. They cut the original source at one point and make their own business offering the same exact thing as if you were to buy new (unless you really care about a new package, the game itself never "deteriorates").

Also, the whole "reasonable price" is bull, too. Whereas I can get a new game at 60 bucks, gamestop offers the used one at 55 (90% of the time they reduce the price by 5 bucks of the market price). By doing basically NOTHING other than ripping off people for their games, and putting them back on the shelves. They sold it to them at 60, bought it back at 20 or 30 and are reselling it at 55. What you are supporting by getting a used game is a much bigger rip-off than whatever the company that originally made the videogame is charging. Heck, I can find cheaper new copies of games at amazon than used ones at gamestop.

I don't have a problem with the original consumer wanting to sell their games. But gamestop's doing a business out of this. Like Katie said, that's the problem. I laughed my ass off when companies like EA starting to come up with one time use only downloadable content stuff, and Gamestop immediately jumped to say that was a really bad idea.

So, if you want to save 5 bucks on a used game, that's all good and that's your choice. But don't try to justify it by defending gamestop's practice, one that is 5 times worse than what the original developers are charging.

[Melook]

I don't go to Gamestop. I go to  another shop. They pay you more and the games are cheaper.

[drunkenmonkey]

Sorry, you guys lost me at vegetables. Is that how you use that. 

[Lambonius]

If I buy an item, and I decide to sell that item at a price of my determining, that isn't wrong at all.  So why is it wrong if Gamestop buys a product (in this case, a used game) and decides to sell it at a price of their determining (in this case 5 to 10 dollars less than the cost of a new game)?  There is a double standard going on here.  I still fail to see how this takes anything away from the game production companies, who make their money by selling bulk amounts of games to retailers.

[kindofdoon]

I still fail to see how this takes anything away from the game production companies, who make their money by selling bulk amounts of games to retailers.

When you buy a used game, you obtain the game without paying any money to the developer/producer. If used game sales did not exist, then you'd only be able to buy directly from the developer/producer.

In other words, used game sales cut into the profits of the developer/producer. If used game sales didn't exist, then developer/producers would sell more bulk and turn a larger profit.

[Cez]

I still fail to see how this takes anything away from the game production companies, who make their money by selling bulk amounts of games to retailers.

When you buy a used game, you obtain the game without paying any money to the developer/producer. If used game sales did not exist, then you'd only be able to buy directly from the developer/producer.

In other words, used game sales cut into the profits of the developer/producer. If used game sales didn't exist, then developer/producers would sell more bulk and turn a larger profit.

Exactly. It's really not rocket science.

[Cez]

If I buy an item, and I decide to sell that item at a price of my determining, that isn't wrong at all.  So why is it wrong if Gamestop buys a product (in this case, a used game) and decides to sell it at a price of their determining (in this case 5 to 10 dollars less than the cost of a new game)?  There is a double standard going on here.  I still fail to see how this takes anything away from the game production companies, who make their money by selling bulk amounts of games to retailers.

I just mentioned that since you are condemning the sale of a game for 60 bucks, and how developers are ripping people off, but are ok with a game priced at 55 bucks, used, where Gamestop probably gets a higher profit return per copy since they didn't have to invest as much as the studio. So, by doing nothing, they are ripping you off even if you are paying less at the end, because if you say the developers have no excuse to price a game at 60, Gamestop has absolutely no excuse whatsoever to get a game at 20 and selling it at 55

[Lambonius]

In other words, used game sales cut into the profits of the developer/producer. If used game sales didn't exist, then developer/producers would sell more bulk and turn a larger profit.

Yes.  And so would car manufacturers without used car sales, furniture manufacturers without used furniture sales, clothing manufacturers without used clothing sales, etc, etc, etc.  The list is endless.

Why should game companies specifically get special treatment?  That's the double standard.

[kindofdoon]

You know, that's a good point...

Perhaps used games sales are so prevalent that they cut into developer/producer profits more significantly than with other used goods. I don't have any statistics here, it's just a hypothesis.

[Cez]

In other words, used game sales cut into the profits of the developer/producer. If used game sales didn't exist, then developer/producers would sell more bulk and turn a larger profit.

Yes.  And so would car manufacturers without used car sales, furniture manufacturers without used furniture sales, clothing manufacturers without used clothing sales, etc, etc, etc.  The list is endless.

Why should game companies specifically get special treatment?  That's the double standard.

Because cars grow old. Furniture grows old. Clothing grows old. Or rather deteriorate.

With games, you get the exact same experience whether you played the game in 2001 or in 2010. They don't exactly grow old.

[Lambonius]

In other words, used game sales cut into the profits of the developer/producer. If used game sales didn't exist, then developer/producers would sell more bulk and turn a larger profit.

Yes.  And so would car manufacturers without used car sales, furniture manufacturers without used furniture sales, clothing manufacturers without used clothing sales, etc, etc, etc.  The list is endless.

Why should game companies specifically get special treatment?  That's the double standard.

Because cars grow old. Furniture grows old. Clothing grows old.

With games, you get the exact same experience whether you played the game in 2001 or in 2010. They don't exactly grow old.

Ehhh...I'm not so sure about that.  It really depends on how you look at it.  Gaming technology certainly grows old--games from a few years or so ago look more dated, etc. than a game that's brand new right now.  This most definitely impacts the "experience" of playing the game.  Gamecube games wowed the crap out of me in 2001-2002--nowadays most of them would only elicit ho-hum responses from most people. 

Even in this generation, I'm certainly not going to pay the same price for a 2006 Xbox360 game than one that's just come out.  And for a lot of those games, $19.99 is the lowest "new" price point that games can have at retail--and depending on how long the game stays on the shelves, that might be a good deal or a not so good one.  I've certainly seen games available for $12.99 or $14.99 used that were available on shelves new for $19.99 or even $24.99.  

Additionally, the sheer fact that someone has used the product before, regardless of how good of condition it's in, lowers the value and potentially increases the odds that the product will eventually crap out on you.  

[Cez]

The technology grows old. The game doesn't.

I can still buy a playstation game from 97 and run it in my PS3 without hicups. I probably cannot say the same about a 97 car. With the game, I get the same experience that someone had in 97, give or take.

The car ALSO has the growth of technology about it, plus the fact that it may be running crappy at this point.

To put it into a better perspective: You can go and buy an old 07 Corolla, or get a 2010 Corolla. If you have the money to buy either, you'd probably prefer the 2010 brand new shiny corolla that no one has used before. If you take the 97, it may be deteriorated --You'll notice that there are dents on the car, the leather may not be as good as brand new, etc

Put that into the same perspective of Videogames. Get Mass Effect brand new now, or get it used. The game is going to be exactly the same --it's not like in the used copy, the texture of the games are going to be old, and the characters are going to be different than in a brand new copy. or you'll see graphic glitches in them. Yes, the package may come into play, but the game itself will be the same thing.

Get King's Quest 1 running in your computer --It may take a couple of hours of your time, but you'll get it running, and it'll be the same game as in 1984. Get a car from 84, and see how much money you need to put into it to get it running as it ran in 1984.

Digital software doesn't really deteriorate. And that's the difference between a car or any other material possession, and a game.

[Lambonius]

The technology grows old. The game doesn't.

Games aren't timeless.

It's certainly true that a game looks and plays the same way no matter when you play it, but the EXPERIENCE is definitely different.  The original Resident Evil was a great experience back when it first came out on PS1, but now it's pretty much the low point in a series which has vastly surpassed it in almost every way technology-wise, gameplay-wise, story-wise, etc.  Its value as an experience is significantly diminished today, just like any other gaming experience, given enough time.

When it comes right down to it, the consumer is paying for the experience--and regardless of whether or not a game looks and runs exactly as it did when it initially came out--the value of the experience is going to be different if the game is out-of-date, be it two years or twenty years.

I'll grant you though, that whether or not a game is used doesn't affect the value of the experience--that has to do with age and other factors more than anything else.  However, placing limits on the sale of used and out-of-print items based on the specific type of industry sets a shaky precedent that could be easily exploited by any corporations looking to make more money in situations where they are no longer entitled to it.

[Cez]

The technology grows old. The game doesn't.

I'll grant you though, that whether or not a game is used doesn't affect the value of the experience

Exactly, and this is what we are talking about. A used car is different to a brand new car. A game, not so much, and this is why that same concept doesn't apply to the car industry, the furniture industry, etc. An used car can't beat a new one. Whether an used game is the same as a new one.

That's why, in this case, you can't compare the two. And that's why the videogame industry suffers a lot more than the car or furniture industry.

As for new technocology making things better, I guess I find that hard to believe from someone that loves Sierra old games and makes games in VGA, and considers the old Indiana Jones movies some of the best movies ever made But of course, I kid with this.

[KatieHal]

As for new technocology making things better, I guess I find that hard to believe from someone that loves Sierra old games and makes games in VGA, and considers the old Indiana Jones movies some of the best movies ever made But of course, I kid with this.

I don't! The fact that two guys from teams that made fangames/remakes of old KQ games pretty much proves that games can in fact be timeless!