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

[Jmustang1968]

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.

I think you are taking the cart before the horse here. So since 250k sold it, that means they wouldn't have bought it if they couldn't resell it? There might be some who wouldn't , but that's a minority I think. You make a lot of assumptions here. I don't think many of these sales are that planned out. What if they only sold it because they gt tired of it and realized they could get some cash, or they just happened to need money? There a number of reasons after the fact someone would sell the game that would lead to a non pre-meditated plan of recouping cost because the couldn't only afford it if they re sold it later. This also doesn't factor those that would buy at full price if they had to but just buy it cheaper used because they know they can get it in the used market? I could go on with hypotheticals all day, but you stick to your one purchasing hypothetical like it is the end all be all and apply it to the whole market...

[J T]

1. John would buy his games new, but since he can save a few bucks buying them used, he never buys new games.

2. Sam and Joe don't have enough money to buy a lot of new games, but they know that if they buy them used and sell them afterwards, they then can afford to play more games. Buying a new game is too big of a risk for their small budget if they don't have the opportunity to sell it afterwards. They will occassionally buy a new game knowing they can trade it with each other or someone else to defer the cost of the game.



John is the guy that the game companies don't like. He would have been a sale if he wasn't given the other option. Sam and Joe wouldn't be able to game as a hobby if it wasn't for used game sales, but they will occassionally buy new or go in together to purchase a new game. Sam and Joe depend on used game sales to participate in the hobby of gaming. Sam and Joe are good for the the game companies because despite their limited income, they pool together to purchase the occassional new game and also participate in the larger pool of secondary market games. Now even if the game companies like the Sams and Joes of the world and dislike the Johns of the world, it's not fair to tell John he can't buy used simply because he makes enough money to contribute the full MSRP to the developers. On the other hand, it's not fair to Sam and Joe if they block used games sales, nor is it beneficial to the games industry.

Ultimately, what matters if there are more Johns out there than there are Sams and Joes. Given that gaming is such an expensive hobby and there are far more people with little money than there are people with a lot of money, I suspect eliminating the used games industry will actually hurt the gaming industry.

[Jmustang1968]

1. John would buy his games new, but since he can save a few bucks buying them used, he never buys new games.
2. Sam and Joe don't have enough money to buy a lot of new games, but they know that if they buy them used and sell them afterwards, they then can afford to play more games. Buying a new game is too big of a risk for their small budget if they don't have the opportunity to sell it afterwards. They will occassionally buy a new game knowing they can trade it with each other or someone else to defer the cost of the game.

John is the guy that the game companies don't like. He would have been a sale if he wasn't given the other option. Sam and Joe wouldn't be able to game as a hobby if it wasn't for used game sales, but they will occassionally buy new or go in together to purchase a new game. Sam and Joe depend on used game sales to participate in the hobby of gaming. Sam and Joe are good for the the game companies because despite their limited income, they pool together to purchase the occassional new game and also participate in the larger pool of secondary market games. Now even if the game companies like the Sams and Joes of the world and dislike the Johns of the world, it's not fair to tell John he can't buy used simply because he makes enough money to contribute the full MSRP to the developers. On the other hand, it's not fair to Sam and Joe if they block used games sales, nor is it beneficial to the games industry.

Ultimately, what matters if there are more Johns out there than there are Sams and Joes. Given that gaming is such an expensive hobby and there are far more people with little money than there are people with a lot of money, I suspect eliminating the used games industry will actually hurt the gaming industry.

I agree with this, and I also like there to be a 2nd hand gaming market. I like the option to buy used if I cannot buy new. It also allows my purchases to hold more value with a used market, even if I typically like to hold on to my games. My activity in the b/s/t forum speaks for that.

I think my argument that buying used doesn't directly support the developers was twisted to be that I thing used games are wrong or shouldn't exist. I simply like to purchase new if I can to support the developers and games I like, but if I miss that opportunity, I would also like to have the option to purchase used down the line... I can typically buy games on amazon new for the same or cheaper than gamestop sells used however...

[isiolia]

Ultimately, what matters if there are more Johns out there than there are Sams and Joes. Given that gaming is such an expensive hobby and there are far more people with little money than there are people with a lot of money, I suspect eliminating the used games industry will actually hurt the gaming industry.

It's also entirely possible that it'd be better for everyone, monetarily.

As a consideration, look at the state of the PC gaming industry (which I know you do, JT). There's very little in the way of used games, especially with how many use digital distribution. Despite that, games tend to be cheaper - often a lot cheaper when sales roll around.

Even those of use that aren't particularly keen on pure digital copies of things find stuff like Steam sales to offer deals too good to pass up. I'd say the majority of my Steam library was purchased for less than the difference between full retail and trade in credit, and I still have access to all of it.

To me, it's unlikely that if/when used games go away, it'll happen in a vacuum. There could easily be a change in pricing structure that more than makes up for the inability to recoup money spent.

[RCBH928]

Here is my point of view on the subject:
Problem:
1) I have the right to buy something used, its the rules of the free market. How is this different from buying a TV or a wrench. This is like Capitalism 101.

2)Its the developers fault that people can get their games used for less within few weeks of release. This means one of 2 things:
1-The Game was short for the $60, so they deserve it .
2- It has no replay value, again developer fault. They want $60 for something that I can be done with in 5-10 days?
People are a lot more likely to keep their copies of GTA4/Red-Dead and Call of Duty(although I hate it) because it will take like at least a month to complete the GTA4 games and COD will give you a full year or more of competitive online multiplayer. But if I want to sell your title within 2 weeks, whose fault is it?

Solution:

1) $60 copies are so NES/SNES days. Now with the internet I can buy the whole catalogue of N64 from my computer and delivered to me from Japan across the Middle East all the way to the USA. Finding used games of any generation is no where difficult as it was in like '97. The fact that games can be downloaded and the CD/dvd/bluray medium is like only few pennies to manufacture yet they still sell games at $60 is stupid.

2) Companies should sell licenses instead of copies just like all other software. Think about it, its more profitable to them to sell $30 title to 5 ppl (total $150) instead of selling 1 $60 copy passed between 5 people(publisher income $60) . Not all that but people will be more happy to pay $30 per game instead of $60, in addition they will be happy to get a NEW game for $30 instead of used at $30 or $35 maybe. Its a win-win situation.

and to be completely honest, with downloadable games the publisher can save a ton on shipping and shelf space in stores. Also I will be more happy to download the game instead of making the drive to the store only to hear that the game is out of stock, or have it shipped and waiting for it for a whole week or more.

Also downloadable content is a lot more less likely to be pirated that hard copies, as far as I know but I can be wrong. I haven't heard much people pirating off Xbox Arcade or PSN or Steam on the opposite of PS2(like everyone I know) and psx(also everyone I know).

Also I would like to add that games at $30 will turn piracy much lower, as more people are willing to pay reasonable prices. I for one do NOT pirate on my iPad because apps are reasonably priced. Great apps and games are priced between $1-$10 . I got great titles like Monkey Island and Broken Sword.

Now compare prices to the PC software:
1-Photoshop-$500 2-Windows:$300 3-Microsoft Office-$270 .
Photoshop on ipad(although not as powerful as the full pc version) is only $10. The whole iWork suite from Apple(alternative to Microsoft's Excel, Word, and Powerpoint) costs a total of $60!!! compare that with Office's price! Not only that but you can buy individual app like Keynote(excel alternative) separately for $20. On the other hand Microsoft Excel sells for $120 on amazon!!!

These are only few examples why I am more likely to pirate PC software over reasonably priced software.

One other thing I don't understand is why PC software is more expensive than else where. For example iPad game, World of Goo is $10 for Mac but only $3 for iPad.
What the hell?

[noiseredux]

They want $60 for something that I can be done with in 5-10 days?

whenever people bring this up, it hurts my brain. You know that movie studios expect $20 for a DVD -- which is 2 hours of entertainment, right?

[pepharytheworm]

They want $60 for something that I can be done with in 5-10 days?

whenever people bring this up, it hurts my brain. You know that movie studios expect $20 for a DVD -- which is 2 hours of entertainment, right?

It's only two hours of entertainment if you watch it once. Plus movies are a shared experience, you don't usually watch a movie you bought alone do you? Games to me are a little different if its really long (RPGs) I will probably play it once in my lifetime, if it really short I will probably play it many times (Fighters, Shmups). If its a medium length (FPS/action adventure) it depends on how compelling the gameplay is, it could be once and thats it or many times. For the most part I will say I put the most time in the longer games I like. Even if I only played ToS once, I spent 80+ hours finishing it. There aren't that many fighters and shmups I have put that much time into, even if I play them several times a year.

[o.pwuaioc]

They want $60 for something that I can be done with in 5-10 days?

whenever people bring this up, it hurts my brain. You know that movie studios expect $20 for a DVD -- which is 2 hours of entertainment, right?

But you can always get it used for much cheaper.

[MrPopo]

They want $60 for something that I can be done with in 5-10 days?

whenever people bring this up, it hurts my brain. You know that movie studios expect $20 for a DVD -- which is 2 hours of entertainment, right?

It's only two hours of entertainment if you watch it once. Plus movies are a shared experience, you don't usually watch a movie you bought alone do you? Games to me are a little different if its really long (RPGs) I will probably play it once in my lifetime, if it really short I will probably play it many times (Fighters, Shmups). If its a medium length (FPS/action adventure) it depends on how compelling the gameplay is, it could be once and thats it or many times. For the most part I will say I put the most time in the longer games I like. Even if I only played ToS once, I spent 80+ hours finishing it. There aren't that many fighters and shmups I have put that much time into, even if I play them several times a year.

Why would you only play a game once but watch a movie several times? Movies don't change but the way you approach the problems presented in a game do.

[gtmtnbiker]

whenever people bring this up, it hurts my brain. You know that movie studios expect $20 for a DVD -- which is 2 hours of entertainment, right?

That's why I don't buy movie DVDs and rarely go to the movies. I'm ok with renting a movie for $3 from Amazon.