Do you feel bad about buying new(ish) releases used?

[MrPopo]

I wish i could buy new games $25 or less.

That is sort of my point - you can do that, by buying used. If a game is $50 and you buy it new with another person, then both of you pay $25 for it (you need to share the game of course). This is actually rather similar to having someone buy it new, play it and no longer wanting to replay it, sells it to you for $25 some weeks (months?) later.

By this logic, the money I spend at the grocery store then goes to the burn-out stockboy, who then spends that money on weed. So my buying of groceries supports drugs.

You can't transfer the money that way. The original $50 supports the industry. The used $25 does not.

[ElkinFencer10]

honestly, I care about the game industry, but I care about my pockets more.

I'll get it as cheap as I can.

This perfectly sums up my feelings on the matter.

[Ivo]

By this logic, the money I spend at the grocery store then goes to the burn-out stockboy, who then spends that money on weed. So my buying of groceries supports drugs.

You can't transfer the money that way. The original $50 supports the industry. The used $25 does not.

False. The comparison is fallacious. In the correct way of comparing my analysis, you need to consider what you want to buy when you buy it. You buy Radiant Silvergun used? You wanted a Treasure game and you bought it - you support Treasure. If the guy that sold you the game takes the money and buys Megaman you don't support Capcom (he does, that is his business and his taste for games not yours)! Similary you don't support a drug dealer if the guy that sold you Radiant Silvergun goes and buys drugs.

The correct comparison is rather, that when you buy groceries because you want groceries, so you support the makers of those groceries. So if you buy oranges you support the farmer of oranges, not the farmer of apples.
Would you say that it is the grocer supports the farmers? I wouldn't, but maybe you do. And yet the grocer is "buying the groceries" and selling them to you, so if transferring support that way can't be done...

The grocer (middle man) is like Gamestop, buying cheap and selling for more. They are not really supporting the respective industries, but rather having the respective industries support them as middle men (lets not get into the industry needing these middle men due to logistics).

Also Mr. Popo, I have a request for you: would you answer (for each case) who supports the industry in each case of this thread here:
http://www.racketboy.com/forum/viewtopi ... 44&t=37055
I want to track down where you think it breaks down. I think you would agree in case 1 that my brother would be the one supporting the industry for example, so I want to see at which step you disagree.

Ivo.

[Jmustang1968]

Buying new supports the middle man and the developer/publisher.

Buy used supports the store you bought it from only...

The only way the industry gets indirect help from used game sales is the people who go and trade 4 or 5 games for a newly released game. Theoretically, some of those trade in purchases will only happen because that is the consumers only way to afford the new game. It makes up for the overall used sales revenue some, but I doubt not near enough to offset it...

[MrPopo]

By this logic, the money I spend at the grocery store then goes to the burn-out stockboy, who then spends that money on weed. So my buying of groceries supports drugs.

You can't transfer the money that way. The original $50 supports the industry. The used $25 does not.

False. The comparison is fallacious. In the correct way of comparing my analysis, you need to consider what you want to buy when you buy it. You buy Radiant Silvergun used? You wanted a Treasure game and you bought it - you support Treasure. If the guy that sold you the game takes the money and buys Megaman you don't support Capcom (he does, that is his business and his taste for games not yours)! Similary you don't support a drug dealer if the guy that sold you Radiant Silvergun goes and buys drugs.

But you didn't support Treasure. The first guy did. You supported the first guy.

The correct comparison is rather, that when you buy groceries because you want groceries, so you support the makers of those groceries. So if you buy oranges you support the farmer of oranges, not the farmer of apples.
Would you say that it is the grocer supports the farmers? I wouldn't, but maybe you do. And yet the grocer is "buying the groceries" and selling them to you, so if transferring support that way can't be done...

You're right that any retailer is a middleman. Right now the way retail is set up the retail stores take on a burden (they purchase the product entirely) and then they sell the product to you to recoup that burden and make some profit on top. But things could just as easily operate on a consignment basis; Kitchenaid sends Target a pallet of stand mixers but Target doesn't give Kitchenaid any money yet. Then, each one that sells has a portion of the sale price go back to Kitchenaid to pay for the stand mixer and Target takes their cut off the top.

My assertion is that each original-owner->retailer->customer chain is an independent transaction, and the customer supports the original owner. So for new sales, original owner is the devs. For used sales original owner is Noiseredux. By your general used game logic, if I were to go out and purchase a copy of Pitfall for the 2600 then I would be supporting Activision. That's just absurd.

Also Mr. Popo, I have a request for you: would you answer (for each case) who supports the industry in each case of this thread here:
http://www.racketboy.com/forum/viewtopi ... 44&t=37055
I want to track down where you think it breaks down. I think you would agree in case 1 that my brother would be the one supporting the industry for example, so I want to see at which step you disagree.

Ivo.

Step 3. That's the first step where money is no longer part of the original transaction on the new item.

[o.pwuaioc]

But you didn't support Treasure. The first guy did. You supported the first guy.

But by supporting the first guy, you're supporting him supporting Treasure. I like how you've been ignoring that for months now, if not longer.

[MrPopo]

But you didn't support Treasure. The first guy did. You supported the first guy.

But by supporting the first guy, you're supporting him supporting Treasure. I like how you've been ignoring that for months now, if not longer.

If you want we can conduct the entire money chain which shows that Shigeru Miyamoto supported Kim Jong-il. It's all independent transactions.

Here's the thing you keep ignoring. The first guy already had the money. You aren't supporting anything. Also, I'm not saying used games are bad; all of my non-Nintendo and a decent chunk of my Nintendo retro stuff is used. All I'm saying is that used sales don't benefit the developers, so if you think they should get your money you should buy new.

[o.pwuaioc]

But you didn't support Treasure. The first guy did. You supported the first guy.

But by supporting the first guy, you're supporting him supporting Treasure. I like how you've been ignoring that for months now, if not longer.

If you want we can conduct the entire money chain which shows that Shigeru Miyamoto supported Kim Jong-il. It's all independent transactions.

Really? A reductio ad absurdum from you? Why am I not surprised?

Here's the thing you keep ignoring. The first guy already had the money. You aren't supporting anything. Also, I'm not saying used games are bad; all of my non-Nintendo and a decent chunk of my Nintendo retro stuff is used. All I'm saying is that used sales don't benefit the developers, so if you think they should get your money you should buy new.

If person A wasn't able to sell his games, then he'd have less money to be new ones. And the Nintendo claim is a red herring, since we're talking about the current market. You can't buy a new SNES cart developed by Nintendo that in any way, shape, or form benefits Nintendo.

[MrPopo]

But by supporting the first guy, you're supporting him supporting Treasure. I like how you've been ignoring that for months now, if not longer.

If you want we can conduct the entire money chain which shows that Shigeru Miyamoto supported Kim Jong-il. It's all independent transactions.

Really? A reductio ad absurdum from you? Why am I not surprised?

Because your claim is absurd. If your logic is valid then my logic is valid.

Here's the thing you keep ignoring. The first guy already had the money. You aren't supporting anything. Also, I'm not saying used games are bad; all of my non-Nintendo and a decent chunk of my Nintendo retro stuff is used. All I'm saying is that used sales don't benefit the developers, so if you think they should get your money you should buy new.

If person A wasn't able to sell his games, then he'd have less money to be new ones. And the Nintendo claim is a red herring, since we're talking about the current market. You can't buy a new SNES cart developed by Nintendo that in any way, shape, or form benefits Nintendo.

If person A didn't get that raise last month he'd have less money to buy new games. Therefore his place of employment supports the game industry.

Why is it so hard to accept that you don't support the industry when you buy used? Keep buying used if it makes financial sense for you. Just accept that if you do so the devs don't get your money.

[Jmustang1968]

If person A wasn't able to sell his games, then he'd have less money to be new ones. And the Nintendo claim is a red herring, since we're talking about the current market. You can't buy a new SNES cart developed by Nintendo that in any way, shape, or form benefits Nintendo.

Or he uses it to pay rent or buy a used game. Or if the person who didn't buy the used game instead bought a new one. Do people who get money from used games spend it on new? Sure, but there are a multitude of things they could spend it on. I support used game sales and such, I am just refuting that used games are supporting the developer. I try to buy new unless I can't get it new, then I will settle for used. Obviously 99% of retro stuff I get is second hand, so I like that aspect of the used game market, especially down the line...