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

[Ivo]

See, this is where I disagree. The original buyer who sells it is the same as the original buyer who keeps it is the same as the original buyer who loses it is the same as the original buyer who throws it away when his toddler breaks it.

Finally! I identified the problem then!

Well you have a right to have your own opinion, but I don't see how that can be correct. See, the buyer that never sells it or the buyer that has his copy destroyed (intentionally or not, by a 3rd party or not) is NEVER going to "displace" a new sale, right? However, the guy the bought it new but then sells it used may or may not displace a new sale. I think that illustrates a very clear difference.

Put it in another way, nobody can buy a used game if nobody sells their used games. The trade takes 2 sides. Also, Gamestop can't sell used games (for huge profit) if nobody sells used games to gamestop for them to re-sell.

I agree that middle men exist for logistic reasons most often, and this is not just a detail, but that isn't really the point. Middle men may be enabling the transaction to take place, but they are not "contributing" to the industry by giving them their own money. They are giving a service in exchange for being paid (they are not really paid, they take a slice of the profit "away" from the industry for the service). I think everyone in the thread understands that part well, which is why I usually don't cover it.

Going to your brother scenario, really my view on it is that the difference between supporting and not supporting is whether or not you are making the effort to ensure your dollars go to the developer. So if you buy solo new, or you buy joint new, or in the scenario where the brother gives money to be part of the original purchase and become the sole owner after you finish your playthrough. By contrast, if he were to purchase the game from you after the fact he has no idea where his dollars are going.

I think that's been the point that keeps getting us going in circular routes. I look at support as voting with your dollars to say that you want more of game X or games from company Y.

[/quote]

I get where you are coming from, but tracking "intentions" isn't really logical, so no wonder you can then arrive at inconsistencies. If my brother likes a game and buys it used, then he obviously pays for THAT game. The devs are not selling an additional copy of the game of course, but whoever bought it new (me, in the example) is getting that money. So my brother does know where his dollars are going: to me. And I knows exactly why they are going to me - not because I'm his brother, but because I have THAT game that he wants. This allows me to track "support" in a logical and consistent way. I have another example which uses the stock market and may make things clearer. Coming soon!

I grant everyone that if you REALLY want to support the devs then you should buy new AND NOT SELL (apparently you disagree with the last part). But I also think that if you weren't around there and you want to support the devs retroactively, you can buy used. It won't resurrect companies that went bust for example (obviously), but you are partially taking onto yourself the (insufficient) support that someone else gave them. Whether you want to do that or not is not the point.

If the game retails new for $50, and I buy 3 used copies for $60 total (for example), I don't think I should have qualms about going up to a developer and telling him I supported his game MORE than someone that only bought 1 new copy and never sold it.

Ivo.

[isiolia]

B. is just wrong though (it has to be wrong because it is inconsistent), and that is the point I've been trying to make. The used buyers also get "credit".

The "original buyer" chose new, but ALSO CHOSE TO SELL IT (and therefore transferred part of the "credit" for choosing new). If you buy new and don't sell it you can get full credit. If you sell it you can't. If you sell it for PROFIT, then you get zero credit - just like the middle men get. I don't see how this is so hard to understand.

I agree with part of what you're saying there, and it made me think about how we may be considering this differently.

The more people play a given copy of a game without the developer seeing additional revenue, the more diluted the "support" they receive from that particular copy. The only thing the next buyer does, or the next, or the next, is chip away at how much the sale of that copy supported the developer relative to the number of people who played it.

Say a one-owner copy of a game represents 100% support. A copy passed between two people would drop to 50% support - two people played it, they got money for one. Three owners, 33%, four 25%, and so on.

I would still put the entire remaining credit for support on the original purchaser. You're right to point out that their decision to resell their game enables the secondary market in the first place, reducing their contribution. That said, from the perspective of support given by an individual copy, once the secondary market comes in, the only direction to go is down.

Whatever "support" would possibly be applicable to a secondary buyer is negated by the reduced support that the individual copy of the game provides the developer as a result of their used purchase.


At least, with regard to a non-online pass, DLC, microtransaction, etc oriented game. My expectation is that the next generation will be following the lead of a lot of free-to-play games on tablets and PCs/web browsers, and may well benefit from the circulation of physical copies.

[Jmustang1968]

I get where you are coming from, but tracking "intentions" isn't really logical, so no wonder you can then arrive at inconsistencies. If my brother likes a game and buys it used, then he obviously pays for THAT game. The devs are not selling an additional copy of the game of course, but whoever bought it new (me, in the example) is getting that money. So my brother does know where his dollars are going: to me. And I knows exactly why they are going to me - not because I'm his brother, but because I have THAT game that he wants. This allows me to track "support" in a logical and consistent way. I have another example which uses the stock market and may make things clearer. Coming soon!

I grant everyone that if you REALLY want to support the devs then you should buy new AND NOT SELL (apparently you disagree with the last part). But I also think that if you weren't around there and you want to support the devs retroactively, you can buy used. It won't resurrect companies that went bust for example (obviously), but you are partially taking onto yourself the (insufficient) support that someone else gave them. Whether you want to do that or not is not the point.

If the game retails new for $50, and I buy 3 used copies for $60 total (for example), I don't think I should have qualms about going up to a developer and telling him I supported his game MORE than someone that only bought 1 new copy and never sold it.
Ivo.

You are not supporting the devs more by buying 3 used copies, you are supporting gamestop or the private reseller, the developer already received their support on that copy.
There is some indirect industry support and market health with a thriving second hand market. You get better mrketing, word of mouth, convenient store front presence that stock the new games and theoretically some of the money received by selling used games is funneled into new game sales. However, in the end the developer only sees support by the volume of units sold. They don't care how many times that game is re sold, they see no extra money from it unless that customer purchases an online pass or dlc.

[Ivo]

Say a one-owner copy of a game represents 100% support. A copy passed between two people would drop to 50% support - two people played it, they got money for one. Three owners, 33%, four 25%, and so on.

Precisely that, although the values you used are just average support per person (per capita), and to consider the individual support you would need to use the ratio that each paid towards it. In big populations only the average matters, and in fact I will state that I don't think the per capita is that relevant.

Anyway, even if you don't agree with me, I'm glad I got someone else to understand what I'm getting at.

I would still put the entire remaining credit for support on the original purchaser. You're right to point out that their decision to resell their game enables the secondary market in the first place, reducing their contribution.

Yes! In particular I think it is quite unfair to vilify whoever is *buying* used, and then glorify whoever is *selling* used just because, hey, they did buy it new before. Personally I don't vilify either, but if you are going to vilify the buyer, then vilify the seller as well, and glorify ONLY the people buying new and keeping it (or destroying it).

That said, from the perspective of support given by an individual copy, once the secondary market comes in, the only direction to go is down.

I disagree here, or maybe I just misunderstood you.
From the point of view of that copy, the only direction is nowhere - not up, not down. That copy is sold and gave the full 100% to the company - I think we all agree with that. What is going down is not the support given by *that copy*, but the support given per person (perhaps you meant the support given by an individual, rather than the support given by an individual copy?).

But what should the industry care about? I believe the relevant number is not the support per capita, but rather the total support. I can demonstrate this possibility in a few of ultra-simplified cases (I am not saying they are realistic, but it shows the different possibilities).

Case 1. There are three guys. One has $50, two have $25.
a) 1 guy buys the game for 50 (net 50, per capita 50)
b) 1 guy buys the game for 50, the other share a copy for $25 each (net 100, per capita <50).
In b) the average per capita went down, but the industry received more money.

Case 2. There are three guys. Two have $50, one has $25.
a) 2 guys buy the game for 50 (net 100, per capita 50).
b) 1 guy buys the game for 50, the remaining two share $25 each (net 100, per capita <50)
In b) the average per capita went down, the industry receives the same money, more people enjoy the game (I read enough to know that many developers - note, not publishers, developers - would vastly prefer b) over a)). Note it leaves one of the guys with $25 extra. Maybe he goes and buys another game with someone else, maybe not, but in b) the industry is not worse off compared to a) even if he does not!

Of course you can also make other ultra-simplified cases:
Case 3. There are two guys with $50.
a) 2 guys buy the game for 50 (net 100, per capita 50)
b) They both share the game for 25 (net 50, per capita <50).
Now in b) the net went down.

And surely all this can happen with used games. I think you will agree that it isn't clear cut, it is probably impossible to prove in practice what effect is the dominant one etc. Having an opinion is something, but it isn't a fact that "Case 3b)" dominates (3b) could also occur similarly in Case 2 if the sharing occurs between the two guys with $50, leaving the $25 of the third guy unused).

I otherwise agree with what you wrote, and in general I don't begrudge gaming companies from trying to invent new ways to make money from developing the games.

Ivo.

[J T]

The thing about buying a game is that you are paying for a product. That product comes with ownership rights, which include being able to resell it.

Game companies want to sell games as a service now, where you only get to experience the game and you don't actually own it. However, their service is so complicated (some games can take over 100 hours to finish) that it makes it difficult to sell it as anything other than a product, unless you tie the game service to an online account where a company (like Valve) controls access to accounts and services. So games exist in this nebulous product/service area where it's not really clear which they are. This is true for more than just games. Any digital download product is just information. Without being tied to physical media, and with being very easy to replicate, it's not really clear what we own and what we use as a service now.

[8bit]

I do feel bad buying so many used games. I would love to support the publishers more. However in my opinion games are just too damn expensive. Since they are $50-$60 new I just can't justify not saving money where I can.

The only time I break down and make a full price purchase is if the game is compelling enough to buy it on day one (Halo, Uncharted, and Bioshock are a few series that come to mind for me), if its launch day of a system, or if it goes on extreme sale (like Rayman Origins did for $20 brand new. But other than that I am old enough and wise enough to just wait for a game to come down in price or look for a second hand purchase.

[isiolia]

From the point of view of that copy, the only direction is nowhere - not up, not down. That copy is sold and gave the full 100% to the company - I think we all agree with that. What is going down is not the support given by *that copy*, but the support given per person (perhaps you meant the support given by an individual, rather than the support given by an individual copy?).

I was still trying to model it as the perspective of the support an individual copy gives, versus individuals, but I think it can make sense either way.

This:

Precisely that, although the values you used are just average support per person (per capita), and to consider the individual support you would need to use the ratio that each paid towards it.

I don't think applies.

Generally speaking, I don't think what percent of the original purchase price was recouped really matters.

For any given game there's only a select market segment that would ever buy it. The highest level of support/profits a company will see is a 1:1 ratio of new copies to potential customers. That's why I say there's nowhere to go but down once you introduce the secondary market, and why the price they pay really doesn't matter. Someone that gets a copy second hand is most likely being removed from the pool of potential new copy customers, whether they paid more than retail or got it for free.

Realistically, almost nothing will ever sell at a 1:1 ratio. Even locked to a console or account, there are plenty of people who live together that'd share them. I'm not trying to suggest that things have ever been that way, should be that way, or even could be. Just saying that, for sake of argument, that's peak support/profits.

Essentially, it's just a ratio of new copies sold to total players/owners. You're right, in that it's really about money made per player, but making it something like "average players per copy sold" or something simplifies it in a way that illustrates the potential issue without making it personal.

[Ivo]

For any given game there's only a select market segment that would ever buy it. The highest level of support/profits a company will see is a 1:1 ratio of new copies to potential customers. That's why I say there's nowhere to go but down once you introduce the secondary market, and why the price they pay really doesn't matter. Someone that gets a copy second hand is most likely being removed from the pool of potential new copy customers, whether they paid more than retail or got it for free.

I realize there's more than this to your post, and that you are aware at least to some extent of what I'm going to state... But the part I quote above is a vast oversimplification. It consists in fixing the number of potential customers (e.g. 3 customers), and stating that they all can and will buy the game new / full price if they are given no other options. That misses important possibilities that I illustrated explicitly in the cases 1b) and 2b) above, some potential customers may not have that possibility or may only be willing to allocate a smaller amount towards the game, and by removing the options where they can get the game cheaper, the amount they allocated are lost (with the potential of lowering the net the company makes).

Many people in this thread clearly stated that they consider commercial, full priced games too expensive (I'm one of those people). There are many other entertainment options - and many of them provide what I personally consider significantly better value for money (some good examples that make the comparison quite easy are high-quality freeware games or rather cheap but very good indie games).

Basically you are only referring to the effect illustrated in 3b) - someone getting a copy second hand removes one potential buyer of a new copy. This is also what the industry usually claims (and the similar incorrect reasoning often seen in discussing piracy).

Ivo.

[Jmustang1968]

I realize there's more than this to your post, and that you are aware at least to some extent of what I'm going to state... But the part I quote above is a vast oversimplification. It consists in fixing the number of potential customers (e.g. 3 customers), and stating that they all can and will buy the game new / full price if they are given no other options. That misses important possibilities that I illustrated explicitly in the cases 1b) and 2b) above, some potential customers may not have that possibility or may only be willing to allocate a smaller amount towards the game, and by removing the options where they can get the game cheaper, the amount they allocated are lost (with the potential of lowering the net the company makes).

Many people in this thread clearly stated that they consider commercial, full priced games too expensive (I'm one of those people). There are many other entertainment options - and many of them provide what I personally consider significantly better value for money (some good examples that make the comparison quite easy are high-quality freeware games or rather cheap but very good indie games).

Basically you are only referring to the effect illustrated in 3b) - someone getting a copy second hand removes one potential buyer of a new copy. This is also what the industry usually claims (and the similar incorrect reasoning often seen in discussing piracy).

Ivo.

You are also missing a point. Sure, not every used sale would've been a new sale, but some are. However, it is gauranteed that every used sale won't be a new one. So just because not every one of those used sales would havel been a new one, doesn't mean you can disregard those that may. There is some loss there, it just isn't 100% or 0%...

Bottom line, a developer gets financial support from volume of new game sales sold. If 500k people bought the game new and 250k bought used, they get the same amount of money and support if 500k bought it new and 0 bought it used, and this is disregarding timing and price drops. A used game sale either recoups the cost for the original buyer or makes profit for a used game store like gamestop.

[Ivo]

A. You are also missing a point. Sure, not every used sale would've been a new sale, but some are. However, it is gauranteed that every used sale won't be a new one. So just because not every one of those used sales would havel been a new one, doesn't mean you can disregard those that may. There is some loss there, it just isn't 100% or 0%...

B. Bottom line, a developer gets financial support from volume of new game sales sold. If 500k people bought the game new and 250k bought used, they get the same amount of money and support if 500k bought it new and 0 bought it used, and this is disregarding timing and price drops. A used game sale either recoups the cost for the original buyer or makes profit for a used game store like gamestop.

A. I'm not missing that at all, I covered all distinct possibilities quite explicitly in ultra-simplified examples. I'm aware of them.

B. I agree with B, but you are stating it in a misleading way. Don't forget that in the case where 500k bought new and 250k bought used, it is practically impossible that some of those 500k that bought new would still have bought the game new if they couldn't have sold it - in fact half of them sold the game (they had to, for 250k to buy used)!

250k people have $50 each allocated to that game, 500k have $25 allocated to be spent on that game. Some of the second group, 250k of them in fact, have an extra $25 that they need for something else in a few months time.

Case 1a) Used game market not allowed. Every single one of the 250k buy the game new, none of the remaining 500k can buy the game at all. Net: 50*250k, per capita, 50.

Case 1b) The used game market is allowed. Every single one of the 250k with $50 allocated to the game buys the game new. The half of the 250k that can only allocate it $50 for a few months pays $50 buy it, plays it and then sells it to the other half for $25 before they need the other $25.
Net: 500k*50 > 250k*50, per capita <50. Sure, the per capita went down. But the net did go up.

You compared the wrong situations (intentionally or not) to produce a true statement, which is very misleading - you compared a situation where 500k people had $50 allocated to the game with one where only 250k people had $50 allocated to the game - which is evident as 250k of the 500k people that bought it new then sold it!

Ivo.