Xbox killed the used game

[xDragonWarrior]

I just googled those. FYI, it's been done before. Basically the modern reinvention of the Virtual boy paired with a treadmill.

 

but much better.Imagine playing Metroid prime and running around with a Arm cannon controller with the"Virtual Boy" ... ... !

[Andromeda Stardust]

Man I told myself I wasn't going to get worked up about this again but I nearly choked on my coffee at the bit about loaning games to your friends.

 

You can only loan games to people who have been on your friends list for 30 days and you can only loan the game once?

 

Pardon my language but F*** You Microsoft

No, it's worse. If you "loan" the game to your friend, you'll never get it back. Every kid has a story of how he loaned some game to a friend and never got it back. Really sucks. Then 20 years later you look it up on ebay only to discover that your long lost Bubble bobble 2 is now worth over $200! Only difference is this time around, your friend is actually a responsible borrower, and he returns you the Xbox One disc, but to your dismay you attempt to play it in your system only to find you no longer have the rights to it anymore... :mad:

[Lendorien]

The whole argument against used games that the game companies use just has never made sense to me.

 

They talk about lost sales due to used games. As a gamer with a limited gaming budget, I can tell you right now that people like me will end up spending the same amount of money on games regardless of whether they can buy used games or not. It might mean that whole budget goes into new games, but as a consumer, it means they buy less games, especially since a good number of people supplement their gaming budget by SELLING games they're done with. So just because the used games market is gone doesn't mean an immediate transfer of all those used game sales dollars to brand new game sales. The simple fact is, a good bit of the dollars spent on new games comes from the used game market.

 

If I buy a new game for 60, sell it for 30, and buy another game for 60, the money I really spent was 90 dollars. My budget was thus stretched. No used games means I spend 60 dollars on exactly one game, with the other 30 dollars of my entertainement budget spent on something else. That 30 dollars I got from my used game no longer exists and is money the game developers lose in sales of new games.

 

In addition, I think that without used games, people are going to be a lot more discerning... I mean, how many of us have bought a marginal title, or a game when it first came out, knowing we could sell it if we didn't like it? With no used market, people will be a lot more careful. Developers, facing less dollars being spent on games all around, will be less likely to take risks for fear of bad reviews killing their sales. As a result, the lack of risk will make games stagnate. Woopie, yet another Call of Duty or EA sports game sequel.

 

And of course some people who simply can't afford to pay for a lot of $60 games will be driven look for entertainment options elsewhere.

 

And where would one place be? Piracy. Yup. Killing off used game sales will encourage piracy. If they think it's bad now, Just wait til they kill all used game sales. Piracy will go through the roof, and the drive of the pirates to break the antipiracy systems will be more intense than ever. The tighter they squeeze their grip, the more star sys... I mean, the more people will look for ways around the normal model.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Lendorien

[Atariboy]

I don't think I'll resort to piracy for retail games but I sure hope that their firmware is quickly cracked wide open so I can play single player Xbox One retail games offline without the restrictions.

 

I'll gladly give up the online component for that.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Atariboy

[+Random Terrain]

What about the people who could only afford to buy used games, but purchased a bunch of downloadable content with points cards they got for Christmas and birthdays? When used games are killed off, game companies can kiss that extra points card money goodbye.

[CGQuarterly]

From the standpoint of developers and publishers, the used game market is no different than piracy. And you can thank GameStop and their greedy ways for what's happening right now. I don't play modern games anyway, so I don't give a shit. So I'll just sit on the sidelines and watch GameStop get what's coming to them.

[Lendorien]

From the standpoint of developers and publishers, the used game market is no different than piracy. And you can thank GameStop and their greedy ways for what's happening right now. I don't play modern games anyway, so I don't give a shit. So I'll just sit on the sidelines and watch GameStop get what's coming to them.

 

Ah, so is buying a used book piracy? How about a used record or CD? What the heck makes software on a disk any different than any other form of media? People have been buying used books for centuries CENTURIES. No one has ever had a problem with it. Why is software suddenly due an exception?

[Atariboy]

I've argued this with him before. His claims for why it's tantamount to piracy and why a company like GameStop is a problem for the industry are summarized below.

 

-Game developers and publishers see nothing from secondary sales of games.

-As such, the entities that focus on used game sales are costing the industry money and furthering the problem.

-When you purchase a game, you aren't purchasing the physical item. You're paying for the rights to access the IP contained on the disc and shouldn't have the right to transfer those rights to anyone else.

-A used game plays exactly the same as a new game.

 

Yet he doesn't view something such as a public library as piracy. Used videogames and library books are two different forms of media being made available to additional people after the initial point of sale with no additional benefit to the original publisher for each subsequent individual that derives entertainment from that specific item. Nor is the experience degraded any in either example with subsequent users since the content pressed on a disc or the content printed on the pages of the book remain the same. So all of his reasons on why used games equate to piracy can also be applied to the public library system. And when pressed further, his argument is that they're two different completely different situations because public libraries aren't doing this with an eye towards profit.

 

Yet courts don't judge the value of the use of a product in order to deem it as piracy or not. That a college student on a shoestring budget downloaded the latest version of Office to assist his studies off a torrent site is meaningless to the courts. It's going to be viewed just as if he had downloaded the latest $60 videogame for strictly entertainment purposes. Nor do they make a distinction based on the intention of profiting or not profiting off something when an individual is tried in front of the court system for violating intellectual property rights.

 

There isn't anything illegal about the used videogame industry since it simply isn't piracy. And those that claim it is as a rule can't express why it should be viewed as such based off logic or comparisons with another type of product that could help those such as ourselves to better understand their thinking.

 

It essentially boils down to that it's tantamount to piracy because they say so.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Atariboy

[+Random Terrain]

If used book stores sold photocopies of books, that would be illegal. If GameStop copied games using PCs, then sold the copies, that would be illegal.

 

GameStop is similar to a used book store, except used book stores don't usually charge almost full price for used books. That's the main thing that sucks about GameStop. They'll sell you a scratched up, sticky used game for 5 dollars less than a new one if the game is still popular. Seems like you usually have to wait 3 to 5 years before the price of a used game will drop enough, but there's no guarantee that the price will actually drop.

[mbd30]

Why are the top video game companies suddenly crying about used game sales, piracy, etc. when sales are stronger than ever? I mean, look at the figures for "Black Ops II". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Black_Ops_II#Sales_and_revenue

 

At what point will they be happy?

Edited June 8, 2013 by mbd30

[CGQuarterly]

Lendorien, I never said that it was piracy. I said that from their perpective, it was tantamount to it. They don't care where you got the game from if you didn't buy it in such a way that they see something from it. And I totally understand what you're saying about books. The issue here is scale. There is WAY more money at stake in the video game market than there is in the book market. Books are a dying medium because people can't be bothered to read. The book industry (as well as the TV, movie, and music industries) is also proactively doing something about it by moving over to digital distribution, which seems to be working well for them. I don't hear anyone complaining that they can't re-sell the MP3 of "Thrift Shop" that they bought on iTunes for 0.99. But it's exactly what's happening to the games industry, and a lot of you guys are pissed. Why? Because games are more expensive. It's all about scale.

 

AtariBoy, I would have a lot more respect for your argument if you weren't pulling the straw man crap about the libraries. Point me to a source where a book publisher has complained about libraries hurting sales. Do you even go to libraries and see what kind of services they provide for the community? Who exactly DOES view the library as piracy, since apparently I'm weird because I don't?

 

My main problem with this whole argument is that people get all up in arms about supporting game developers and how we don't have the same great variety of games that we used to, etc., but then no one says peep about what GameStop does. It's hypocritical. And no, used game sales are not piracy and I never said they were. I said that from the perspective of those who make their living creating and publishing games, it is tantamount to piracy. GameStop's entire business model is based around convinvcing you NOT to support game developers by paying them marginally less money for the same game, so that they can pocket around 50% gross profit instead of 5%. I would have no problem with what they are doing, if they had to kick a few bucks back to the publishers when they sold a used game. But they don't so they don't. Do you think game companies give a shit that you sold a game on Craigslist, or that you lent your copy of whateverthefuck to your friend? No. But they care about a huge multinational corporation basing their entire business on stealing customers away from the very people that created the content that they are selling.

 

So since I am always the one defending this unpopular position, you tell me. How is it different if I go pay $55 for the latest Call of Duty used at GameStop, or if I burn a copy. Who am I hurting? Who is the one losing out in that scenario? Am I stealing from the publisher if I burn the game, but I'm not stealing from the publisher if I buy it used? How does that work? And why should game content creators be happy with the used market? How about instead of just telling me why I'm wrong by comparing GameStop to my local library, you explain to me why your position is right?

 

I guess this is my bottom line, so if anyone is going to address any of what I have to say, tell me where I am wrong here. Yes, under the distribution model that has been used from the origins of home gaming until now, you have the right and ability to buy and sell used games freely and there is nothing that anyone can or should do about it because it's your right based upon the nature of the current model. But game content creators also have a right to try and protect their property by distributing the games in such a way that anyone who wants a copy should not be able to get one while completely eliminating that content creator from the equation. To me, it comes down to entitlement. You guys seem to think that you are entitiled to buy and sell these games on your own terms, and you think that the content creators/owners should not be entitled to at least try and make sure that they are being compensated when someone wants to acquire a license to use their content.

 

Again, I have no horse in this race. I just think that some of you really have a hard time looking at this realistically and seeing any point of view but your own. I buy and sell used games all the time. But when it comes to developers/publishers, I see their point and understand why they are motivated to do what they do. Some of you guys just want to say "evil corporate greed" and dismiss them out-of-hand.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Jibbajaba

[Starscream]

awesome post

 

someone gets it

[mbd30]

"So since I am always the one defending this unpopular position, you tell me. How is it different if I go pay $55 for the latest Call of Duty used at GameStop, or if I burn a copy. Who am I hurting? Who is the one losing out in that scenario? Am I stealing from the publisher if I burn the game, but I'm not stealing from the publisher if I buy it used?"

 

The difference is that with software piracy, one person can buy the game and then upload it to the net for millions of other gamers to download, and burn copies for all their friends. The selling of used games is still limited to the original physical items, so it's not as bad as rampant piracy for the software companies.

[CGQuarterly]

That's still just a question of scale. Doesn't really address the root question. Plus, how many people do you really think have modded Xbox 360's, vs the number of people buying used 360 games from places like GameStop? Do you think that game companies lose more sales to piracy than to used game sales (especially console games, which are much more prevalent than PC)? Someone could make the argument that a lot of people who pirate games wouldn't have bought that particular game in the first place. Certainly not universally true, but it's at least partially true (and before anyone says anything, NO that does not justify piracy). If someone pays $55 for a used copy of whatever the latest game is, you can conclude that the majority of those purchases were done in lieu of buying a new copy of the game, because the person demonstrated intent to buy, and paid almost full retail. So if the used option were not there, the person most likely would have bought a new copy. So that $55 probably at least 90% of the time stole a sale from a game publisher. With a pirated game, I'm sure the number is far south of 50%.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Jibbajaba

[mbd30]

You mention modded XBOX's. If all these protections against piracy didn't exist, then it would certainly be much more harmful for sales than used games, because it involves practically unlimited distribution to anyone who wants it, as opposed to used games being restricted to the original physical media.

 

It seems like the #1 complaint with today's video games is the annoying DRM which only exists as a reaction to software piracy. Now that is some tangible harm caused by software piracy.

[+Random Terrain]

So since I am always the one defending this unpopular position, you tell me. How is it different if I go pay $55 for the latest Call of Duty used at GameStop, or if I burn a copy. Who am I hurting? Who is the one losing out in that scenario? Am I stealing from the publisher if I burn the game, but I'm not stealing from the publisher if I buy it used? How does that work? And why should game content creators be happy with the used market? How about instead of just telling me why I'm wrong by comparing GameStop to my local library, you explain to me why your position is right?

 

Unless GameStop is selling stolen games, the difference is that every game was purchased at full price. The game company got their money. It's different from one kid buying a game and letting 100 of his friends make a copy.

 

People who buy used games that are only 5 dollars less than the full price are idiots. I usually only buy a used game if it is half of the full price or lower. When I take it home and spend points card money on the extras, the game company is getting money from me that they never would otherwise. If I really, really, really love the game and would like to by the next one in the series, I might save up my money and buy it for full price instead of waiting 3 to 5 years for the used price to drop. The used game sale actually helped the game company.

 

If GameStop is wrong, used book stores are wrong. Stores that sell anything used are wrong. Flea markets are also wrong.

[CGQuarterly]

You mention modded XBOX's. If all these protections against piracy didn't exist, then it would certainly be much more harmful for sales than used games, because it involves practically unlimited distribution to anyone who wants it, as opposed to used games being restricted to the original physical media.

 

It seems like the #1 complaint with today's video games is the annoying DRM which only exists as a reaction to software piracy. Now that is some tangible harm caused by software piracy.

 

I agree. I didn't say that piracy wasn't bad. It is.

 

Unless GameStop is selling stolen games, the difference is that every game was purchased at full price. The game company got their money. It's different from one kid buying a game and letting 100 of his friends make a copy.

 

If GameStop is wrong, used book stores are wrong. Stores that sell anything used are wrong. Flea markets are also wrong.

 

I never said that they were wrong. I said that game companies have the right to try and protect themselves against it by altering their distribution model. Companies don't make decisions lightly. It isn't like the folks at Microsoft were sitting aroudn their conference table, smoking cigars wrapped by 10-year old cuban eunuchs, saying off the cuff, "You know what? We should make it so that the new Xbox can't play used games at all." These corporations hire outside companies to research the shit out of this stuff, and weigh the risk both ways. They're going to alienate customers by doing that they are going to do, thus losing sales. But by not doing so, they are losing sales to the secondary market, rentals, piracy, lending a game to a friend, etc. So they will have statistical models showing the 95% probability of what will happen both ways. Obviously, they think that they are better off going aggro with the DRM because the statistical models tell them so.

 

I don't know what to tell you guys. You're mad because these companies aren't doing what YOU want them to do. It's the same as people who get mad because the History Channel shows Pawn Starts all day, but you want to watch programs with actual historical significance. They're making more money doing what they're doing now, so what you personally want doesn't really matter because you've been out-voted by the unwashed masses. Same thing here. Most people evidently don't care about DRM. They just want to play Madden 2014 and Call of Duty Black Ops 3.

 

Edit: Typos from typing too fast.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Jibbajaba

[+Random Terrain]

I don't know what to tell you guys. You're mad because these companies aren't doing what YOU want them to do.

 

All I know is that if any other type of company sold a product and wanted a percentage of the used sale, people would get pissed off. You can buy or sell a used car, a used bicycle, a used banjo, or a used kazoo without paying the original company a dime. The people who will fall for this scam in the near future deserve to get it up the ass.

[Starscream]

All I know is that if any other type of company sold a product and wanted a percentage of the used sale, people would get pissed off. You can buy and sell a used car, a used bicycle, a used banjo, or a used kazoo without paying the original company a dime. The people who will fall for this scam in the near future deserve to get it up the ass.

 

Because, as usual, these examples are an epic fail. They have been since they started be used/overused in these arguments. Is the concept of business models so hard too grasp?

[CGQuarterly]

All I know is that if any other type of company sold a product and wanted a percentage of the used sale, people would get pissed off. You can buy and sell a used car, a used bicycle, a used banjo, or a used kazoo without paying the original company a dime. The people who will fall for this scam in the near future deserve to get it up the ass.

 

I agree with everything you're saying. The problem is that a banjo company has no practical way of stopping people from buying and selling banjos on the secondary market. Content creators, be it books, music, movies, games, or TV programming, DO have a practical way of stopping it and for their own best interests, would be ill-served by not doing so. They are only out to make sure that they get the best deal, which is how business works. We can vote with our dollars (I certainly won't be buying an Xbox One), but sadly I think we are in the minority. I cancelled my satellite subscription, but the History Channel still showed a Pawn Stars marathon on Thursday, which was of course the anniversary of D-Day. So I guess they didn't pick up on what I was trying to do.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Jibbajaba

[+Random Terrain]

Because, as usual, these examples are an epic fail. They have been since they started be used/overused in these arguments. Is the concept of business models so hard too grasp?

 

If the examples would sink in, they wouldn't have to be overused. A game on a disc is a physical thing. Once sold at full price, it should be able to be bought or sold used like any other physical thing that can be sold used. It's how the world works. Calling a scam a "business model" doesn't make the scam any less of a scam.

[Starscream]

If the examples would sink in, they wouldn't have to be overused. A game on a disc is a physical thing. Once sold at full price, I should be able to buy or sell it like any other physical thing. It's how the world works. Calling a scam a "business model" doesn't make the scam any less of a scam.

 

You are a very intelligent person and very creative. Since you joined here, you have always interested me with your website and your posts.

 

Does every single business, from Maria's Manure Farm all the way to Apple use the same identical business model?

[+Random Terrain]

Does every single business, from Maria's Manure Farm all the way to Apple use the same identical business model?

 

Seems like Apple products aren't worth shit after the next model comes out, so I'd say they have a lot in common with manure.

[CGQuarterly]

Does every single business, from Maria's Manure Farm all the way to Apple use the same identical business model?

 

EXACTLY. If these companies think that they can alter their business model and generate more profit by doing so, then of course they are going to do that. Maybe someone can explain this to me: Why WOULDN'T they do this?

[+Random Terrain]

Maybe someone can explain this to me: Why WOULDN'T they do this?

 

Companies with no ethics try to screw the public all of the time. If the majority will fall for it, the company will keep screwing, then screw even harder. Eventually gamers will have to pay by the hour.