Whelp, another reason to boycott Capcom.

[AppleQueso]

What they are doing is creating a distinction between new and used titles for a consumer that exists for pretty much every other consumer item out there, but not for games.

It doesn't exist for music, books, or movies, which are much "closer" to games than a car, clothing, housing, etc...

Music and movies, sure. Books... they'll have noticeable wear and tear.

Is this really any different than the wear and tear that used games often have? Not just damaged or missing covers, but scratched up game discs, etc.

[MrPopo]

But there's nothing special about that economic impact. It doesn't "cut" into sales because there was nothing to cut, the right to sell what you own was always here.

And even if it did "cut" into sales, there's nothing wrong with that. The creators get what they deserve, the fact that they could get more by removing the basic economical right of selling what you own is kind of irrelevant, we would also see more sales if we forced people to buy games every month but that's pursuing means not goals.

But they AREN'T removing your right to sell what you own. What they are doing is creating a distinction between new and used titles for a consumer that exists for pretty much every other consumer item out there, but not for games.

Our previous posts and this one are not related. You were claiming that there was a problem and that problem was the volume of used sales and I was adressing that.

Your post is non-sequitur, I never claimed they don't have the right to fuck up their own products and remove replay value. They can make cartridges self-destruct if they want to. But this doesn't have anything to do with what we were talking about.

The volume is the problem, though. You didn't address the volume, simply the fact that people should be able to sell things they buy. I don't disagree with this. I also don't think all the mom and pop used game stores are a problem. It's the Gamestop model that's an issue. They positioned themselves as the primary place to buy your games, then slowly got their consumer base to switch over to the used game market. All used sales means a lost new sale. But the way Gamestop does it there is now a significant amount of money going to used sales.

[Ivo]

Yeah, this is a mechanism already in place. Textbooks are in a bad spot since the majority of them contain static knowledge. A book on classical mechanics isn't going to suddenly have a need to incorporate new discoveries we have about it. At most they'll have better problems in the homework section. So if a textbook publishing company wants to survive they have to create a reason for people to purchase their new items. If they didn't, they'd just publish an initial run of books, close shop, and let that run of books get continuously recycled in the campus book stores.

Recycling is good.

Seriously I do not feel pity for the industries. They need to adapt to the times. That is how it works. For example with books now there are print on demand services. So they should print a small initial run (perhaps at inferior quality), price them accordingly and print more when there is demand for it because the other ones are getting tattered.

They (Capcom in this case) are trying to adapt with this kind of systems that shafts the buyers, but I don't think it is going to work (but maybe I'm wrong). There are other ways to adapt. Charging separately for online is much more valid IMO... When the company provides the service themselves (if it is like PSN where Sony is providing it as far as I know, then it is no longer valid).

Blizzard has a different tactic, they provide patches for AGES and you pay for the online and new content etc.
Valve has a different tactic. Good Old Games has a different tactic. Several "free to play" are on freemium models and have a different tactic.
They essentially provide MORE to the customer to justify buying used instead of providing LESS. Sure, more and less are relative and depend on industry standards, but it matters for the buyer and informed buyers know when they are getting shafted. These companies know the buyers and give them what they want.

Ivo.

[Ivo]

It's the Gamestop model that's an issue. They positioned themselves as the primary place to buy your games, then slowly got their consumer base to switch over to the used game market. All used sales means a lost new sale. But the way Gamestop does it there is now a significant amount of money going to used sales.

Look, if this is really happening like this, and if people really want to buy their games for 5 bucks less from Gamestop used then the industry should just adjust the prices or development costs, and accept that this is the way things work now. Each game is only sold once new but bought twice used? Double the price so that the industry gets the amount they deem is fair for it. And see if people still buy the games. It is not like they are entitled to have buyers. If they want to sell they need to give customers what the customers want for a price they want it for. Customers want games for 5 bucks less? Lower the development costs and the price.

Ivo.

[MrPopo]

Seriously I do not feel pity for the industries. They need to adapt to the times. That is how it works. For example with books now there are print on demand services. So they should print a small initial run (perhaps at inferior quality), price them accordingly and print more when there is demand for it because the other ones are getting tattered.

Print on demand doesn't scale well. It's great for niche books that won't have the demand to make the standard print run economical but if you wanted to sell the next Steven King book you lose a lot in publishing costs by going print on demand. If I were a textbook publisher I'd leverage e-readers. You can't sell digital books back (and frequently can't transfer them to another account) so I would continue to get a steady stream of revenue.

They (Capcom in this case) are trying to adapt with this kind of systems that shafts the buyers, but I don't think it is going to work (but maybe I'm wrong). There are other ways to adapt. Charging separately for online is much more valid IMO... When the company provides the service themselves (if it is like PSN where Sony is providing it as far as I know, then it is no longer valid).

Blizzard has a different tactic, they provide patches for AGES and you pay for the online and new content etc.
Valve has a different tactic. Good Old Games has a different tactic. Several "free to play" are on freemium models and have a different tactic.
They essentially provide MORE to the customer to justify buying used instead of providing LESS. Sure, more and less are relative and depend on industry standards, but it matters for the buyer and informed buyers know when they are getting shafted. These companies know the buyers and give them what they want.

Ivo.

And I think those models are the way to go. Personally I'm not a fan of the specific method Capcom is using in this instance, but I think for this particular game it's fairly low impact if you're buying it new. All I'm trying to do is argue that there is a problem and we shouldn't hate game companies for trying to solve it.

[dsheinem]

Seriously I do not feel pity for the industries. They need to adapt to the times.

Unfortunately, DRM-infused distribution of books, movies, and music seem to be what adapting to "the times" is these days. Games are no different in this regard, they just figured out how to incorporate this feature into a physical product.

[AppleQueso]

All I'm trying to do is argue that there is a problem and we shouldn't hate game companies for trying to solve it.

We're not hating them for trying to solve the problem though, we're hating them for the way that they're trying to solve the problem.

[MrPopo]

It's the Gamestop model that's an issue. They positioned themselves as the primary place to buy your games, then slowly got their consumer base to switch over to the used game market. All used sales means a lost new sale. But the way Gamestop does it there is now a significant amount of money going to used sales.

Look, if this is really happening like this, and if people really want to buy their games for 5 bucks less from Gamestop used then the industry should just adjust the prices or development costs, and accept that this is the way things work now. Each game is only sold once new but bought twice used? Double the price so that the industry gets the amount they deem is fair for it. And see if people still buy the games. It is not like they are entitled to have buyers. If they want to sell they need to give customers what the customers want for a price they want it for. Customers want games for 5 bucks less? Lower the development costs and the price.

Ivo.

Do it cheaper? What an incredibly nebulous solution. Double the price? That'll most likely drop purchases even further than a simple 1/2 reduction that'd be a break even point. If they sell the games for $5 less then Gamestop will just price their used games $5 less and give you $5 less credit. So people will still buy the used copy. Gamestop isn't going away any time soon, so there's no way to combat their huge amount of used game sales with just playing with price. So you have to come up with alternative methods.

[MrPopo]

All I'm trying to do is argue that there is a problem and we shouldn't hate game companies for trying to solve it.

We're not hating them for trying to solve the problem though, we're hating them for the way that they're trying to solve the problem.

Read the thread again. There's a lot of people arguing that there isn't a problem.

[Jamisonia]

Recycling is good.

Seriously I do not feel pity for the industries. They need to adapt to the times. That is how it works. For example with books now there are print on demand services. So they should print a small initial run (perhaps at inferior quality), price them accordingly and print more when there is demand for it because the other ones are getting tattered.

This is why Capitalism in the long run encourages low quality, cheap products.