Why buying used games contributes to the industry

[sbk]

You buy game new. The company sees money from this. Your brother wants to buy game. Instead of buying it new where company would see money from it he instead buys it from you. Now instead of this game being bought new (company gets money) he buys it from you (company doesn't get money.) How hard is this concept? The company doesn't see money for the product for every one who buys it when half the people buy it used. You might as well pirate it at that point.

[johnblade]

To me, the game industry should start making game that can keep our attention for a long period of time. I don't like how some games are now turning into an annual game(like sport or COD game for example). Basically, you know games like COD, they will be another COD for next year. Basically, the one you will own will become junk when the new COD come up the following year. What's the point of buying them. I like game where you know the developer will add more stuff on it to keep the game community alive for a long while.

[Menegrothx]

To me, the game industry should start making game that can keep our attention for a long period of time. I don't like how some games are now turning into an annual game(like sport or COD game for example). Basically, you know games like COD, they will be another COD for next year. Basically, the one you will own will become junk when the new COD come up the following year. What's the point of buying them. I like game where you know the developer will add more stuff on it to keep the game community alive for a long while.

You cant modify console games and you cant host your own servers (or if you can, its very limited when compared to Steam games etc). So since people will get bored to playing the same old maps, people will stop playing the game. Then its not financially sensible to keep on hosting the games official servers, and the game dies along the servers. In games like Counter Strike and Enemy Territory for example there are tons of all kinds of crazy custom maps, different modes like zombie, surfing etc. And theres also the competitive scene. So the problem with console online games is ultimately the fact that consoles arent PCs.

[johnblade]

To me, the game industry should start making game that can keep our attention for a long period of time. I don't like how some games are now turning into an annual game(like sport or COD game for example). Basically, you know games like COD, they will be another COD for next year. Basically, the one you will own will become junk when the new COD come up the following year. What's the point of buying them. I like game where you know the developer will add more stuff on it to keep the game community alive for a long while.

You cant modify console games and you cant host your own servers (or if you can, its very limited when compared to Steam games etc). So since people will get bored to playing the same old maps, people will stop playing the game. Then its not financially sensible to keep on hosting the games official servers, and the game dies along the servers. In games like Counter Strike and Enemy Territory for example there are tons of all kinds of crazy custom maps, different modes like zombie, surfing etc. And theres also the competitive scene. So the problem with console online games is ultimately the fact that consoles arent PCs.

That's the problem. People just sell it when it reach there (this could mean around 6 months to a year since the game release). If the game developer for the console at least give the game community some kind of method (or program) where you can make your own map for the game and the developer host it on the server, it will be interested and at least keep the game community alive somewhat. I know "make your own map" program on game console isn't that great than say on the PC. Also, it's very limited of what you can build. But we can see it can be done in shooter like Timespliters. All we need is a system where gamer can send they custom map to the official server while at the same time able to download the custom map easily. Unfortunately, I don't think they will do it for console system.

[Ivo]

I never state that the company gets more money when the game is selled used. I'm stating that the money the company received for that copy is now (partially) "credited" or "supported" by the person that purchased it used.

sbk: you infiltrated several instances of "instead" where they shouldn't be - intentionally or not. By doing so, you are misrepresenting the cases I presented in my original post. There are no "instead" there. My brother buys it in those situations or he doesn't buy them. You may also be interested in the simple cases in another thread, where your case corresponds to case 3b) I believe.
http://www.racketboy.com/forum/viewtopi ... &start=140
(sorry it is a huge thread, which is why I tried to move this particular discussion here but it didn't seem to work).

JMustang:
Of course the comparison with stocks is a not directly comparable, but it is actually a pretty good comparison.
You wrote:

Stocks are shares of company value, games are a product a company makes. By owning a game, your aren't supporting that developer or publisher, nor do you have a stake in their company.

I don't see how owning a game made by a company doesn't represent your support for that company. What does it represent then? If you buy a car by Ford, you are supporting Ford. Even if the car was purchased used.

Incidentally if I ask a dev to sign my copy of a game, I think it would be highly unlikely that he would ask me if I got it used or refuse to sign it because of that. But maybe many of them think like you do.

In your point of view (which I claim is incorrect), you can't consistently claim that someone that got the stocks from someone else is supporting that company because the company only got money at the IPO. Care to explain how that makes sense and why the dividends (rightly) go to whoever owns the stocks?

Ivo.

[Jmustang1968]

JMustang:
Of course the comparison with stocks is a not directly comparable, but it is actually a pretty good comparison.

I don't see how owning a game made by a company doesn't represent your support for that company. What does it represent then? If you buy a car by Ford, you are supporting Ford. Even if the car was purchased used.

Incidentally if I ask a dev to sign my copy of a game, I think it would be highly unlikely that he would ask me if I got it used or refuse to sign it because of that. But maybe many of them think like you do.

In your point of view (which I claim is incorrect), you can't consistently claim that someone that got the stocks from someone else is supporting that company because the company only got money at the IPO. Care to explain how that makes sense and why the dividends (rightly) go to whoever owns the stocks?

Ivo.

Dividends go to stockholders because they are shareholders of the company and own a stake. There is a risk involved as well, it is an investment. If the company tanks you lose assets and personal value. Owning a product made by a company is not comparable to owning a public share of the company... the only thing you ow when you buy a game is the physical media, and the only way the devs see money from it is if you buy it new. Stocks do not equal consumer goods.

A dev won't ask you if you bought it new or used because that would be rude...

The only support you give by owning a used game is acknowledging that you like the game. The dev saw nothing from it. You helped the original purchaser recoup some cost, but that's about it.

So you tell me, what did the developer get from you when you buy one of their games used? They certainly didn't get any cash from you. They got that money regardless if the game changes hands 5 times or not at all. And there are potential, but not guaranteed, new game sales lost in there as well... they may get some sort of token moral support out of it, but there is no net gain of revenue or units sold, that copy was just spread out amongst users.

You also can't compare them to cars. People see the car name brand driving on the road, so there is a smal level. of marketing support there. You also get routine maintenance done on used cars and purchase replacement.parts. But if a car manufacturer stopped selling enough new cars, they would go out of business too.

[Ivo]

Credit for supporting a game company partially goes to the current holder of that copy. There is a risk involved as well. The value of the copy typically goes down, so the holder loses personal value. Seems pretty comparable after all, I just adapted your paragraph appropriately.

You are aware that many "consumer goods" are effectively commodities? Commodities are tremendously similar to stocks in many aspects.

A. So you tell me, what did the developer get from you when you buy one of their games used? They certainly didn't get any cash from you. They got that money regardless if the game changes hands 5 times or not at all. And there are potential, but not guaranteed, new game sales lost in there as well... they may get some sort of token moral support out of it, but there is no net gain of revenue or units sold, that copy was just spread out amongst users.

B. You also can't compare them to cars. People see the car name brand driving on the road, so there is a smal level. of marketing support there. You also get routine maintenance done on used cars and purchase replacement.parts. But if a car manufacturer stopped selling enough new cars, they would go out of business too.

A. We are going around in circles as I have addressed this from the start. The developer only gets cash for that copy once. I'm not disputing that. I'm stating that in order to be consistent you have to credit parts of that total amount to all the users that paid for it.
Just like the company only gets cash in the IPO (once) but you correctly credit parts of ownership according to what each subsequent buyer pays for it.

B. Of course I can, the comparison simply isn't 100% accurate. But the objections you brought up actually have quite direct equivalents:
People can see you own and/or play that game, so there is the same marketing effect.
Just as you can buy parts from the same manufacturer in cars, you can buy new games, expansion packs, subscriptions and DLC, and if a game dev stops selling enough new games, they also would likely go out of business.
But that isn't really important to the discussion anyway.

Ivo.

[Jmustang1968]

Still wrong, unless you purchase the dlc, none of your money went to the dev. All you did by purchasing new from that perspective is reimburse the original buyer or allow a reseller to make some money off the used sale.

These are not stocks, you can't compare them. I guess you can talk yourself blue in the face that you help the developer out somehow by buying their game used, but they don't care how many times that game changes hands once the original purchase has been made. $60 from one guy, or $60 from one guy who then sells it to another is the same amount of $. If a guy bought new at 60, played 3 weeks and sld for 40, that just means he effectivelely played and owned it for 20$ as he got some reimbursement on his original purchase. Great for him, but that doesn't do anything for the developer $$ wise as they were completely out of the equation. Now when the dev/publisher financial success on a title is merited by new game sales #s that is all that matters to them. Why do you think they have tried to implement online pass? They are trying to recoup some of that used sales $. Now if gamestop and the publishers created some deal where a % went back to each dev or publisher on used games sales in the form of royalties or something, then you would be giving back support. The music industry does this with online sites often.

This is getting ridiculous. Do you think you support midway if you go on ebay right now and buy a snes copy of nba jam tournament edition?

And with the marketing of games by owning it, cars are driven on the road and seen constantly, thre you get brand recognition. Owning items in our homes obviously don't get the same type of exposure. You cling to the most narrowest of threads and stretches of similarity when comparing these things...

[Vita Mayo]

Business is business and the devs / studios / publishers would push to strangle the used market and even geniuses couldn't spin a rationalization that would defend their stance, other than more moneys for them. If you want to support the devs, buy the games new, because you send directly your money to them.

BUT, you cannot ostracized the used market because by law, we are protected to do anything we like (as long as it is not illegal) to our purchased goods, because we own it regardless of what the EULA says for it is always preceded by our essentially basic human right.

I myself buy games new. If I can't afford it yet, I just wait for the price drop or cut my expenditures to buy the game. However, I won't accuse the used market of crippling/killing the industry, because it is their right to sell their properties.

[ryanofcali]

There seems to be a huge assumption that the people who bought the game used would have bought it new in the first place, that was never a guarantee and some people are acting like people that buy used are stealing money out of a developers pocket.

a sale that never took place is just that, the money never existed therefore it cannot be taken out of someones pocket, if your game does not sell to expectations oh well don't blame everyone else.