No Used Games On Xbox 3

[o.pwuaioc]

I bet a game company would rather sell 1 new games than 10 used ones.

Touche.

So in other words, screw the lower-income gamers.

This hypothetical move wouldn't be about a deliberate "screwing" as much as it would be about a calculated risk that they think would maximize profit. These are businesses with bottom lines and shareholders who are trying to milk maximum profit out of the market, not non for profits who "could really use your support" and "would appreciate if you buy new".

And 2008/2009 showed why this model is ultimately bad for everyone except very few.

[dsheinem]

Touche.

So in other words, screw the lower-income gamers.

This hypothetical move wouldn't be about a deliberate "screwing" as much as it would be about a calculated risk that they think would maximize profit. These are businesses with bottom lines and shareholders who are trying to milk maximum profit out of the market, not non for profits who "could really use your support" and "would appreciate if you buy new".

And 2008/2009 showed why this model is ultimately bad for everyone except very few.

Are you seriously comparing the housing market collapse, credit swaps, bank bailouts, etc. to not selling used games just because all are profit driven?

[o.pwuaioc]

This hypothetical move wouldn't be about a deliberate "screwing" as much as it would be about a calculated risk that they think would maximize profit. These are businesses with bottom lines and shareholders who are trying to milk maximum profit out of the market, not non for profits who "could really use your support" and "would appreciate if you buy new".

And 2008/2009 showed why this model is ultimately bad for everyone except very few.

Are you seriously comparing the housing market collapse, credit swaps, bank bailouts, etc. to not selling used games just because all are profit driven?

Nope, and it's fallacious of you to assume so. I'm saying the justification that any company can do whatever they want merely because they should "maximize profit" for "shareholders" is quite honestly the stupidest justification I've ever heard. You could legitimize any practice, no matter how abhorrent, with those magic words.

If you want to argue what these gaming companies are doing is right, you'll need a better reason than rich people need more money.

[dsheinem]

Are you seriously comparing the housing market collapse, credit swaps, bank bailouts, etc. to not selling used games just because all are profit driven?

Nope, and it's fallacious of you to assume so. I'm saying the justification that any company can do whatever they want merely because they should "maximize profit" for "shareholders" is quite honestly the stupidest justification I've ever heard. You could legitimize any practice, no matter how abhorrent, with those magic words.

If you want to argue what these gaming companies are doing is right, you'll need a better reason than rich people need more money.

Wait, so you weren't referencing that stuff? Are you suggesting my asking you to clarify what you mean by "2008/2009" is a "fallacious assumption"?

If anything, it is you who is being fallacious here in your representation of my argument. I have never once argued that the proposed practices are "right" or "wrong" at all. There's no morality at stake here. Unlike housing and credit, the games industry produces luxury consumer goods. Of course I agree that profit>all is stupid in many contexts that directly impact people's needs or the entire economy, but in an industry like gaming it makes absolute sense.

[o.pwuaioc]

Wait, so you weren't referencing that stuff? Are you suggesting my asking you to clarify what you mean by "2008/2009" is a "fallacious assumption"?

No, I'm saying that it's a logical fallacy to question incredulously whether someone is comparing X with Y when that person actually showed that logically the justification for X is invalid because when it is applied more generally, for example, with Y, that justification breaks down. It's this logical fallacy which butchers and distorts Godwin's Law, among other things.

Mundane example:

"I hate Nickelback because bands with four members - a rhythm guitarist, a lead guitarist, a drummer, and a bassist - are so boring and cliche."

"The Beatles have that lineup. Are The Beatles boring and cliche?"

"Are you seriously comparing The Beatles and Nickelback?"

You see the problem here?

If anything, it is you who is being fallacious here as in representing my argument as I have never once argued that the proposed practices are "right" or "wrong" at all.

I quote you: "This hypothetical move wouldn't be about a deliberate "screwing" as much as it would be about a calculated risk that they think would maximize profit. These are businesses with bottom lines and shareholders who are trying to milk maximum profit out of the market, not non for profits who "could really use your support" and "would appreciate if you buy new"."

This is in direct response to BurningDoom's statement: "So in other words, screw the lower-income gamers."

So, yes, you did introduce a form of "right v. wrong", since the assumed premise is that "screwing lower-income gamers" would be wrong, but the companies wouldn't care about that, since their only "right" is to "maximize profit" for "shareholders".

There's no morality at stake here.

Every action is a moral action.

Unlike housing and credit, the games industry produces luxury consumer goods.

"Luxury." You cannot compare video games to yachts and Rolexes. (I give Hobie a free pass since he seems to be arguing from common diction rather than technical semantics.) The video game industry is a billion dollar entertainment industry (which must not be confused with luxury, yes, they are distinct) employing thousands of people. The product consumed has real economic impacts on people of all classes, including the lower classes, and not only in the form of the product consumed.

Of course I agree that profit>all is stupid in many contexts that directly impact people's needs or the entire economy, but in an industry like gaming it makes absolute sense.

On your word alone? What makes this an exception?

Oh, and since MrPopo says I have to be a "pompous ass" (nevermind that he's abusing the word pompous here) in arguing with you, uh, "You're a pathetic fool to my brilliant, unerring mind!"

[dsheinem]

Are you also up early, or up late?

I still want to know what you meant by 2008/2009 if not drawing comparisons to the economic collapse...

By rejecting BurningDoom's "screw the lower class" comment I was not saying that the industry's actions are "right," just that they are not deliberately "screwing" anyone. I was trying to remove morality from the equation, not suggest that their actions were morally defensible. However, you do point out...

Every action is a moral action.

I don't think this is true.

That said, you are right in this case that there is a "moral component" to an act of changing an industry's practices due to the fact that those changes impact people's livelihood, consumer identity, etc. I guess a better way of making my point would be to explain that the importance of moral considerations in the industry's choices is understandably and justifiably very low compared to the 2008/2009 economy example. The "moral quandary" surrounding used games is basically: "Do we stay in business (employing people!) by keeping profits up and trying a new model? or "Do we risk going bankrupt by continuing to allow used games sales (keeping lower class gamers happy)?". That's very different than "Do we maximize profits?" vs. "Do we risk collapsing the market and wiping pensions?"

[o.pwuaioc]

Are you also up early, or up late?

Late. :/

I still want to know what you meant by 2008/2009 if not drawing comparisons to the economic collapse...

Follow that example.

That said, you are right in this case that there is a "moral component" to an act of changing an industry's practices due to the fact that those changes impact people's livelihood, consumer identity, etc. I guess a better way of making my point would be to explain that the importance of moral considerations in the industry's choices is understandably and justifiably very low compared to the 2008/2009 economy example. The "moral quandary" surrounding used games is basically: "Do we stay in business (employing people!) by keeping profits up and trying a new model? or "Do we risk going bankrupt by continuing to allow used games sales (keeping lower class gamers happy)?". That's very different than "Do we maximize profits?" vs. "Do we risk collapsing the market and wiping pensions?"

Risk going bankrupt by allowing used sales? This is a false dilemma, since many companies did just fine - and even expanded greatly! - while there was a used sales system in place. You yourself noted that sales - when factoring in digital - are through the roof. If there any risk of bankruptcy, you cannot blame it on used sales.

[J T]

So in other words, screw the lower-income gamers.

Well, video games are a luxury. Nobody ever died from lack of video games. I barely had an allowance when I was a teenager, so I might as well have been called a 'low income gamer' since I wasn't spoiled.did back then. Other friends had a good number of the books between then and If I hadn't been able to rent games, I probably would have just played more D&D than I pencil, paper, and my time to bike to the rec center or their house was cheap.

While video games are a luxury, they've traditionally been a luxury that even people with lower incomes have typically been able to afford. Some have only been able to do that because of the used and rental markets. If they get priced out of what they are accustomed to having, then yeah, I think they have every right to be pissed.

[isiolia]

While video games are a luxury, they've traditionally been a luxury that even people with lower incomes have typically been able to afford. Some have only been able to do that because of the used and rental markets. If they get priced out of what they are accustomed to having, then yeah, I think they have every right to be pissed.

True, but that's also making the assumption that nothing else about the business model will change except no used games. I think that wouldn't really be the case. Not that AAA games would all suddenly be 99 cents or something, but I do have faith in game publisher's desire to make money. So, I doubt they'd deliberately price things out of reach for a significant market segment.

I could maybe see it impacting the ability for low income gamers to acquire new release games, but not their ability to afford gaming in general. It'd probably just mean needing to wait on a price drop for more "big" titles, which plenty of people wait for price drops on anyway.

But, again, we could see a dramatically different standard business model emerge. Perhaps something like the Playstation Plus model, where a few bucks a month will grant access full games. Less than people would be losing trading games in.

[o.pwuaioc]

I could maybe see it impacting the ability for low income gamers to acquire new release games, but not their ability to afford gaming in general. It'd probably just mean needing to wait on a price drop for more "big" titles, which plenty of people wait for price drops on anyway.

So in reality, it really doesn't matter. If most people start waiting for the giant drops (like in Steam), then I imagine, though I could be wrong, that instead of 100k people buying it at $60, 200k will buy it at $10. That doesn't sound like the soundest business model to me on those numbers, though it may work. *shrugs* I guess we'll find out when the time comes.