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

[Johnodog]

I do not feel bad about buying games in the aftermarket. To me it is not that different from buying a car in the aftermarket. Also, as an aside, Keynesian economics it the "trickle up" theory of modern day liberals. Supply side economics is what the republicans call "trickle down."
personally I have never experienced trickle up economics in any form. I have always been hired by the wealthy. perhaps others have had different experiences. And I am not a fan of either political party. They both are corrupt. I just thought I saw a needless argument based on a simple misunderstanding of economic jargon. Have a good day all.

[Ivo]

Claiming only those that buy new are supporting the industry is that it isn't even consistent.

If I can "transfer" support (as I do) it always works in every corner case. It may even be wrong (it isn't), but at least it is internally consistent.

Conversely, if you argue that you can't transfer support it HAS to be wrong, because it isn't even internally consistent. If you believe that you can't transfer support, then the guy buying new isn't supporting the industry either - only the first chain of the retail process is (I hope it is obvious how this makes little sense, as the entities involved aren't even playing games).
Because the guy buying new doesn't buy it from the industry either, he buys it from the retailer and if you can't "transfer" support in a case where the game is used, how is it consistent that you can do it just because the game is used?

So if the guy buying new is supporting the industry (I think he is), then the guy buying used must also be supporting the industry. This is a logical conclusion.

If you are adamant that the guy buying used is NOT supporting the industry, then you must extend that to the guy buying new AS WELL (except in cases where you can buy games directly), which doesn't make sense.
Now that is a reductio ad absurdum.

Ivo.

[o.pwuaioc]

^ Exactly, Ivo! Yet another clear example of glaring holes in MrPopo's logic that I'm sure he'll distort and mischaracterize as he is wont to do.

[Ivo]

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...

I personally think that THIS is complicating it. You do not need or should not need to know what the seller uses the money for. Money is fungible. It is not so valid to say he used THAT money to do X or Y.

Where the buyer money has identity is at that specific transaction. So if the buyer gets Radiant Silvergun, he is buying Radiant Silvergun. He is not buying Ikaruga, Megaman, drugs, paying rent or anything else. So the only thing that makes sense consistently is that the buyer is supporting Radiant Silvergun.

I don't see how it makes sense to say you are supporting the seller or Gamestop - you don't care about the seller, you care about the game. Even if you buy it after it no longer retails.

And if you balance what the (original) buyer paid for having it for the time he had it, you conclude that it is less than the original retail price, so how can that be consistent with the original buyer having supported the developer 100%?

Ivo.

[isiolia]

And if you balance what the (original) buyer paid for having it for the time he had it, you conclude that it is less than the original retail price, so how can that be consistent with the original buyer having supported the developer 100%?

Because the only time that the developer sees a cut of the sale is that first time. No matter what happens with that copy afterwards, it's one sale (for them) in a volume based industry.

If ten people play that copy, they can rationalize all they want about who "supported" the company and when, but the fact is that the company still only got paid for one copy. Split up that "support" too much, and the game company will fail to achieve the sales numbers they need and likely goes bankrupt.

The original buyer gets the credit for supporting the developer because however they arrived at the decision to do so, their transaction was the one that actually contributed. Buy new? Buy used? They chose new. All subsequent owners chose used, and because of that, the developer saw no additional money from their purchase.

[MrPopo]

Claiming only those that buy new are supporting the industry is that it isn't even consistent.

If I can "transfer" support (as I do) it always works in every corner case. It may even be wrong (it isn't), but at least it is internally consistent.

Conversely, if you argue that you can't transfer support it HAS to be wrong, because it isn't even internally consistent. If you believe that you can't transfer support, then the guy buying new isn't supporting the industry either - only the first chain of the retail process is (I hope it is obvious how this makes little sense, as the entities involved aren't even playing games).
Because the guy buying new doesn't buy it from the industry either, he buys it from the retailer and if you can't "transfer" support in a case where the game is used, how is it consistent that you can do it just because the game is used?

So if the guy buying new is supporting the industry (I think he is), then the guy buying used must also be supporting the industry. This is a logical conclusion.

If you are adamant that the guy buying used is NOT supporting the industry, then you must extend that to the guy buying new AS WELL (except in cases where you can buy games directly), which doesn't make sense.
Now that is a reductio ad absurdum.

Ivo.

Did you ignore my statement about the middleman? That is completely consistent and fits my point.

[Jmustang1968]

And if you balance what the (original) buyer paid for having it for the time he had it, you conclude that it is less than the original retail price, so how can that be consistent with the original buyer having supported the developer 100%?

Because the only time that the developer sees a cut of the sale is that first time. No matter what happens with that copy afterwards, it's one sale (for them) in a volume based industry.

If ten people play that copy, they can rationalize all they want about who "supported" the company and when, but the fact is that the company still only got paid for one copy. Split up that "support" too much, and the game company will fail to achieve the sales numbers they need and likely goes bankrupt.

The original buyer gets the credit for supporting the developer because however they arrived at the decision to do so, their transaction was the one that actually contributed. Buy new? Buy used? They chose new. All subsequent owners chose used, and because of that, the developer saw no additional money from their purchase.

+1 here. When you buy used you support the seller of the used title only. The developer sees none of it. Now if you count second hand sellers as a part of the industry then yes, you are supporting the industry. But we are counting the support to the makers of the game. They only see money and support on new game sales. However many times your copy of radiant silvergun changes hands means nothing to them as they don't see a dime from it. Had you bought it new back in the day then they would've been compensated for it then.

[o.pwuaioc]

Because the only time that the developer sees a cut of the sale is that first time. No matter what happens with that copy afterwards, it's one sale (for them) in a volume based industry.

Any company worth it's salt would care more about future sales than about immediate ones. That's why, as mentioned earlier, Microsoft took a loss when selling their Xbox, because they wanted to make up that money earlier. The used game market helps people buy more games, thus translating into more sales. It's a fallacy to assume that everyone who buys a used copy would otherwise buy a new one, likewise with piracy. I might download an expensive computer program that I would not in a thousand years want to buy. Is that a loss? If a company sees profit in future sales because of a used sale, the support is clear and there is no loss.

[Jungell]

No, I don't feel bad.

As long as I buy the game legally, it's not wrong.
If I can get a game that I want for half the price that the stores ask, it would make me feel bad to buy the new one. If they wanted me to buy an unused copy, then lower the fucking price. I'm a student, I can't afford to buy your games new. I either wait until they drop in price, which can take up to six - twelve months here in Sweden, or I buy it used or not at all.

The market is a place for both me and the sellers. If they don't take care of me, and keep the price reasonable upon release, I won't take care of them and buy it new. It's as simple as that.
We're all part of the system and I choose to show that I buy my games when they drop in price.

I just hope that enough people are like me, so that the message will show. And NOT that they take it the wrong way and make it impossible to play a used game, like all the rumors say. Then I'll most likely completely give up in current gen games and only play retro.

[Jmustang1968]

Because the only time that the developer sees a cut of the sale is that first time. No matter what happens with that copy afterwards, it's one sale (for them) in a volume based industry.

Any company worth it's salt would care more about future sales than about immediate ones. That's why, as mentioned earlier, Microsoft took a loss when selling their Xbox, because they wanted to make up that money earlier. The used game market helps people buy more games, thus translating into more sales. It's a fallacy to assume that everyone who buys a used copy would otherwise buy a new one, likewise with piracy. I might download an expensive computer program that I would not in a thousand years want to buy. Is that a loss? If a company sees profit in future sales because of a used sale, the support is clear and there is no loss.

It would be a fallacy to think that every used copy would be a new one, but there would be a significant number of them that would be new. The same fallacy to think every used purchase supports a new purchase. There is some middle ground. You are making a lot of logic jumps and assumptions. I would say some of those used sales go back into helping fund new sales, but not as much as they lose from the used. There is a reason why gamestop is making so much money. It also helps the developer X none when their game is sold used and the money spent is used to buy a new game from developer Y.

I still like the used game market as a collector for retro systems and it gives my games value. Cutting out the used market just turns games into a transfer medium from the store to the gaming device and the physical media is worthless. I just don't see how people are convincing themselves they are supporting developers by purchasing used games...