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

[o.pwuaioc]

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.

But you didn't weigh your statement at all, therefore it's pointless. Yes, everything you do right now affects nearly everyone on this planet, but keeping the used market afloat more directly affects the people who buy news games from selling back their old ones, whereas Miyamoto's purchases are much further removed and thus matter far less.

I guess you skipped that part of Logic 101.

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.

Yes, this is a simple market economy. This is how it works. This is how it always works. If you think that a person's salary has no bearing on their purchases, you really need to educated yourself on the fundamentals of economics.

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...

Let me know where I said "always and in every case".

[MrPopo]

Alright, I'm done with you o.pwuaioc. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works, and I'm no longer going to engage with you on this topic.

[isiolia]

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.

Not sure why you keep trying to complicate stuff like that.

There are two basic ways that the industry gets supported: directly, and indirectly.

New sales, by actual volume, directly support the game developers and publishers. The only thing that matters are the initial sales, because that's when they get a cut.
Provided that there are sufficient copies to go around, the only thing that sales past the first one do is increase the number of people who played the game.

Arguing that people "split" the lifetime support of the company is about as logical as saying that 100 people eating for the cost of one at a buffet is still supporting the restaurant, or that theater hopping is supporting a movie theater.
If 500,000 people play a game, but only 100,000 new copies actually sold, then that's quite a lot of money that developers never see, despite their game being enjoyed by a lot of people. From a profit/not going bankrupt standpoint, 250,000 people all playing a copy they bought new would be a huge improvement.

Indirect support would be factors that increase new sales. For example, you wouldn't have ever bought the game if you couldn't trade in games towards it, or in turn trade it for more games later. You wouldn't have bought a sequel if you hadn't borrowed the first game from a friend. That kind of thing.
Still, it's a balance. One sale is better than none, but two sales would still be better. It's only a benefit to the industry if the overall new sales are higher than otherwise.

[o.pwuaioc]

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.

Btw, I never claimed that I support the "industry". In fact, I know quite clearly that I don't. I don't have any current gen stuff at all, and therefore I accept that none of my actions benefit the developers of any console games. (I do, however, buy tons of Steam and indie games, which even more directly benefits the developer than buying a new console game). I am only here to point out the gaping and glaring holes in your understanding of simple economics. If you can't accept that, go ahead and ignore me, but the simple fact is that in general (for you, Jmustang), without a used game market, people who 1) have games they no longer want, 2) can't afford to buy anything new, will 3) be able to buy new games if they sell back their unwanted games.

[Jmustang1968]

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...

Let me know where I said "always and in every case".

I know you didn't, so it isn't a very useful way to track or as a support for new game sales. You track that by new games sales #s. That person bought used so that guy may or may not buy a new game. Or if that guy just boughtit new, that's a gaurantee of a new game sale. What mr popo is saying, that by this logic, anything that someone purchases used could theoretically be spent on a new game sale. the average disposable income of a gaming consumer is what will help dictate sales.

[AppleQueso]

I get the feeling that o.pwuaioc and/or MrPopo are misinterpreting what the other is saying.

[Jmustang1968]

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.

Btw, I never claimed that I support the "industry". In fact, I know quite clearly that I don't. I don't have any current gen stuff at all, and therefore I accept that none of my actions benefit the developers of any console games. (I do, however, buy tons of Steam and indie games, which even more directly benefits the developer than buying a new console game). I am only here to point out the gaping and glaring holes in your understanding of simple economics. If you can't accept that, go ahead and ignore me, but the simple fact is that in general (for you, Jmustang), without a used game market, people who 1) have games they no longer want, 2) can't afford to buy anything new, will 3) be able to buy new games if they sell back their unwanted games.

I wasn't nitpicking the always, but at the assumption that is what they will spend money on. Any increase in disposable income could theoretically turn into a new game purchase.

[o.pwuaioc]

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.

Btw, I never claimed that I support the "industry". In fact, I know quite clearly that I don't. I don't have any current gen stuff at all, and therefore I accept that none of my actions benefit the developers of any console games. (I do, however, buy tons of Steam and indie games, which even more directly benefits the developer than buying a new console game). I am only here to point out the gaping and glaring holes in your understanding of simple economics. If you can't accept that, go ahead and ignore me, but the simple fact is that in general (for you, Jmustang), without a used game market, people who 1) have games they no longer want, 2) can't afford to buy anything new, will 3) be able to buy new games if they sell back their unwanted games.

I wasn't nitpicking the always, but at the assumption that is what they will spend money on. Any increase in disposable income could theoretically turn into a new game purchase.

True! Which is why it's smarter to have a healthier economy overall. A trickle down system is a figment of the Liberal economic imagination, but trickle up has been shown to be much more tangible.

[Opa Opa]

Why don't publishers go to a Print-On-Demand service?
Sell it new on your website and you wouldn't have to deal with the middleman.

Granted you'd probably still have to send some copies to retail but still have the POD option available for those who would rather buy the game new.

[MrPopo]

True! Which is why it's smarter to have a healthier economy overall. A trickle down system is a figment of the Liberal economic imagination, but trickle up has been shown to be much more tangible.

Ummm... trickle down is the primary platform of conservative economics, not liberals.

Why don't publishers go to a Print-On-Demand service?
Sell it new on your website and you wouldn't have to deal with the middleman.

It's generally not economically feasible. PoD is more expensive per-unit than traditional mass production with the benefit of flexibility. However, now you have to maintain that equipment, maintain employees to take the finished PoD product and get it shipped out and pay for distribution. If you're only leveraging PoD in your facility then your distribution is going to be more sporadic which leads to higher costs from shipping companies. Similarly, it becomes much harder to plan your labor resources.

Amazon has a PoD service for books and DVDs which is housed inside their existing warehouses. This lets them leverage their existing labor resources and distribution network; rather than picking items off the shelf of inventory from vendors they pick it off the output of the PoD line. Since it's piggybacking on their existing business they can easily absorb the ups and downs of demand for the PoD items. By contrast, your average publisher would have a much more difficult time with it.

Now, if a company came along and offered PoD service for all publishers you might be on to something. If you had a large enough catalog it becomes easier to handle PoD as you have more consistency of volume.