Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

GameStop Used Game Lawsuit

A lawsuit has been filed in the Northern District of California against GameStop, citing deceptive practices relating to used game sales. IGN has details on the suit, which stems from a customer buying a used copy of Dragon Age: Origins with the belief that additional DLC was available for free based on the cover blurb. Of course this DLC is part of the new trend intended to impede used-game sales, which the customer learned when they tried to get the DLC, which set them back an additional $15.00, making their final purchase price for the used game $10.00 more than the cost of a brand-new copy (that sound you hear is EA execs exchanging high-fives). IGN has a copy of the complaint in Adobe Acrobat-format, and an article on this on Gamasutra offers thoughts from an analyst saying that GameStop will probably be able to remedy this problem by affixing stickers to used games clarifying DLC availability.

View
117 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >

97. Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit Mar 27, 2010, 20:54 shponglefan
 
Jerykk wrote on Mar 27, 2010, 19:59:
Conversely, there is no good reason to buy and sell your games used.

People use money from selling used games to buy new games. Duh.

Of course, I already 'splained this to you before but you seem to have forgotten.

When you buy or sell used games, developers and publishers don't see any money. It's the same result as when people pirate games. Now, you can argue that someone did buy the game new at some point but again, that was one sale. If the game was resold 5 times after that, that's 5 sales where the developer and publisher didn't see a penny.

And I explain again: People selling used games often use the proceeds to buy new games. Go hang out at your local EB/Gamestop for a time and you'll see people trading in games and using those trade-ins to finance new games purchases. Happens all the time. The money they are effectively receiving selling their used copies is going to developers via new games sales. So in effect, the used market helps finance the new market.

It's a simple concept. Which you still don't get. Which makes me wonder...

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 2010, 20:59.
 
Avatar 54594
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
96. Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit Mar 27, 2010, 20:36 I've Got The News Blues
 
Jerykk wrote on Mar 27, 2010, 19:59:
It means someone else was willing to buy the game but because you offered it for $10 less, they bought it from you instead of buying it new.
Or buying it at all because the very reason they may have bought the game was because of the discounted price. You conveniently left out that possibility. These are the same consumers who don't buy other things until they are on sale or in the bargain bin. If developers and publishers wanted the money from that used sale, they should have offered that price. Period. Developers and publishers can't legitimately bitch about used game sales if they are not willing to compete on price with that option. If they want a piece of the used game market, they should take the risk and get in it by taking trade-ins.

The used video game market exists to the extent that it does because developers and publishers refuse to make themselves price competitive enough to eliminate it, and they refuse to enter it themselves. The used market is legal, and they refuse to put their money where their mouths are. Therefore, they have no legitimate right to complain about it.

I realize that the main point of your post is that the used game market hurts the video game industry more than piracy. However, even though a legitimate argument can be made that some used game sales do take money away from game developers and publishers, it's intellectually dishonest and flat out wrong to assume that every used game sale would have been a new game sale had the used game not been available given that the price of the new game is more especially when it is substantially so.

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 2010, 21:02.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
95. Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit Mar 27, 2010, 19:59 Jerykk
 
When you pirate a game without any money change, nobody gets any money. When you buy and sell used games, the makers and publishers of the games got money from the original sale.

But how many transactions have occurred since the original sale? How many times has the used game been bought and sold without the developers seeing any money?

One could just as easily argue that pirate groups buy the games they pirate. If that's the case, piracy is fine, amirite? After all, somebody paid for the game at some point so it doesn't matter how many people copy it.

I suppose we shouldn't buy or sell cars used either, and we should all demolish houses and build a new home every time we move. Oh but they degrade! Even if that was a valid point, the value of games decreases faster than houses or cars and many people prefer old houses to new ones.

That's a pretty terrible analogy. For one, cars and houses are very expensive and physically large things. Destroying and rebuilding them is costly and time-consuming process. Cars and houses also take up a lot of space. Games, on the other hand, are relatively cheap, easy to purchase and store. It is not unreasonable to expect someone to keep their games forever, whereas it is completely unreasonable to expect people to keep their old cars or homes forever. Houses and cars degrade over time and there are many unavoidable reasons why you would need to move or buy new ones. It makes no sense to keep your unused cars and houses forever because you'd have to continue paying for their insurance, maintenance, taxes and other miscellaneous fees. As such, selling your house or car is simply the most efficient and practical way of getting rid of it.

Conversely, there is no good reason to buy and sell your games used. Games are relatively cheap, they cost nothing to maintain, they don't degrade over time and are easy to store. If you buy and sell used games, it just means you're cheap and don't care about developers.

But since I won't pay you $60 if I get nothing of value in return then I guess I'll just start pirating?

So you don't consider the experience of playing the game to be worth anything? Is your definition of "value" limited to how much you can sell it for?

Buying games new is good, as developers are more likely to see that profit. However, if you turn around and sell your game, you're negating that benefit entirely. It means someone else was willing to buy the game but because you offered it for $10 less, they bought it from you instead of buying it new. You made money, the buyer saved money and the developer got screwed.

Because people who play your games and don't spend any money are a much better audience to target.

When you buy or sell used games, developers and publishers don't see any money. It's the same result as when people pirate games. Now, you can argue that someone did buy the game new at some point but again, that was one sale. If the game was resold 5 times after that, that's 5 sales where the developer and publisher didn't see a penny. Similarly, pirates often buy games before cracking and distributing them on the web. According to your logic, that one initial sale makes up for all the subsequent transactions where the devs didn't make any money.

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 2010, 20:06.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
94. Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit Mar 27, 2010, 18:39 Tumbler
 
Used game sales are worse than piracy? Well crap I guess I'll stop buying new ones then! I didn't realize buying new games then trading them, or reselling them was so bad. But since I won't pay you $60 if I get nothing of value in return then I guess I'll just start pirating?

How does someone sell themselves on this line of bullshit? Do they have TV's running with little fake 24 news above your desk? It works for fox, I guess it could work if they just repeated it enough around you guys all day.

You're attacking the people that buy your games...that is really smart. Go ahead and keep doing that. Because people who play your games and don't spend any money are a much better audience to target.
 
99gamers.com-Game trading site, PC digital trading!
Kickstarter "Game Developer"!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
93. Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit Mar 27, 2010, 15:00 DG
 
Ray Ban wrote on Mar 27, 2010, 14:56:
By that logic you could pirate every game you play, give a sum of money to the charity/business/person of your choice and say "Hey! Somebody got money for this game! There's no blood on my hands!"

Um, you might want to notice you quoted me saying "hen you buy and sell used games, the makers and publishers of the games got money from the original sale"

So yeah, if I pirated a game then paid the publishers and developers for it anyway then no I wouldn't feel bad about it.
 
Avatar 14793
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
92. Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit Mar 27, 2010, 14:56 Ray Ban
 
When you pirate a game without any money change, nobody gets any money. When you buy and sell used games, the makers and publishers of the games got money from the original sale.


By that logic you could pirate every game you play, give a sum of money to the charity/business/person of your choice and say "Hey! Somebody got money for this game! There's no blood on my hands!"


I guess there really is no point discussing this topic with people who can't tell apples from oranges or games from cars.
 
"The future's so bright I gotta wear shades!"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
91. Re: The used game market is just capitalism at work. Mar 27, 2010, 14:54 shponglefan
 
Jerykk wrote on Mar 27, 2010, 04:01:
To expect people to pay the same price for all games (regardless of quality) leads to mediocrity and the prioritizing of marketing and hype over quality.

Nobody is expected to pay the same price for all games. That's why games typically drop in price over time. Those who value the game more pay earlier and higher, those who don't pay later and pay less.
 
Avatar 54594
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
90. Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit Mar 27, 2010, 14:29 DG
 
Bludd wrote on Mar 26, 2010, 12:25:
I think selling and buying used games is worse than piracy where no money changes hands. When you buy and sell used games, the makers and publishers of the games don't get a dime, but someone else does thus profiting on someone else's labor. When you pirate a game without any money change, nobody gets any money.
So you're trolling or what?

When you pirate a game without any money change, nobody gets any money. When you buy and sell used games, the makers and publishers of the games got money from the original sale.

When you buy/sell a used game, you exercise a legal right. When you pirate a game, you break a legal right of others.

I suppose we shouldn't buy or sell cars used either, and we should all demolish houses and build a new home every time we move. Oh but they degrade! Even if that was a valid point, the value of games decreases faster than houses or cars and many people prefer old houses to new ones.

BTW I don't buy used games, for various reasons. I make a decision and that is my right.

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 2010, 14:58.
 
Avatar 14793
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
89. Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit Mar 27, 2010, 13:35 JohnnyRotten
 
No-one who has been advocating this position of "we're owed" (either through resale, or rental) has yet come forward to explain why the PC gaming industry deserves some special exemption from the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. ß 109 that could not be applied to the vast majority of other used products.

The closest I've heard is that bits don't degrade, although I think that's a bit of a red herring imho. Plenty of used products maintain their intrinsic and useful value over long periods of time. In fact some, for example books, can last in perfectly useful and valuable form for hundreds of years, while digital "undegradable" media becomes useless in periods measured in a few years due to obsolesce of the media and the equipment required to leverage the media. The undegradable argument seems to apply to these other products more then games.

Furthermore, the arguments I've seen for the banning of used sales here (it's just like piracy, it's not the same type of business - so the rules must be somehow different, etc) all use arguments that you can simply substitute out "game" and replace with commodity of your choice and it works just as well in defense of that product.

The market exists for used *anything* not because of the sellers, but because the buyers find value in that market. The discussions here generally avoid the fact that these used sellers of games, or other products are taking a risk that their product will not sell. Itís not some sort exploitation. Thereís the market, they take the risk, and they get the reward.

Certainly itís not past the ability of the game developers/distributors to build their own used game market (Transfer your game for $5 to another person, etc). It sounds like they want the profit without the risk.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
88. Re: The used game market is just capitalism at work. Mar 27, 2010, 04:01 Jerykk
 
I find the "used" game market to be more financially impactful of game sales and the business of games than outright piracy. That's a potential consumer who has money, is willing to spend it on a game they want to play, but are ignorant of where their money is actually going and what impact that has.

This. It actually offends me when someone has the audacity to criticize piracy while openly admitting to buying and/or selling most of their games used. When you buy or sell used games, it reeks of self-indulgent complacency. "Oh, I don't steal games, that would be wrong. I buy all my games! Sure, I buy them all used and sell them when I finish them but that's not illegal so it's okay. I'm such a moral person!" If you're more concerned about saving money than rewarding the creators of the games you enjoy, you might as well go all the way and just pirate them. Same end result (developers not seeing a penny), only you don't get the satisfaction of upholding your convenient "morality" by hiding behind the law.

But, on a personal level...I get it and I don't hold any animosity towards someone who buys "used". My animosity is towards the people who sell "used" games, because in reality what they're doing is re-distributing a game in a way that ensures no money is going back to the people who make that game.

Err, not so much this. What's the difference between someone who buys used games and someone who sells used games? Developers don't see a penny from either transaction and neither the seller nor the buyer care about the developer.

Someone who illegally distrubutes copies of a game or someone who freely downloads a game is much more personally insulting to me as a developer. It's the giant fat middle finger of "your game is good enough for me to want to play, but I'm too damn cheap to want to give you any money for it" that I find infuriating.

Problematic logic there. The minimal effort required to download a game for free does not provide an accurate measure of a game's quality, nor does it provide any meaningful measure of interest. If something is free (legally or not), people will take it, even if they have only the slightest interest in playing the game. There is no risk and no investment required so why wouldn't they? But again, a download alone does not mean they think your game is good or worth paying for.

Now, if someone downloads your game, plays it, loves it, beats it and still refuses to pay you, that's a good reason to be insulted.

As the creators of games, I feel it should be our unquestionable right to decide who does and who does not get to play what we've worked so hard to make.

Can't really agree with you there. Videogame development is about making products and as a business, you have very little control over who uses your products. People should not pay you for the "privilege" of playing your game. They should pay you only if you've crafted an experience that they've enjoyed. Games are not created equal and developers should be rewarded as such; good developers deserve more money than lousy developers. To expect people to pay the same price for all games (regardless of quality) leads to mediocrity and the prioritizing of marketing and hype over quality.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
87. Re: Your reasoning is flawed. Mar 27, 2010, 01:04 I've Got The News Blues
 
shponglefan wrote on Mar 27, 2010, 00:43:
On a per unit basis no. But it's variable with respect to the overall cost based on the number of units; hence the term "variable cost".
That's why I wrote "per unit" in my original post.

You're right, but you're using the terms backwards.
I wasn't using a term; I was using a description of the costs, and it is accurate.

For example, say a game cost $1M to produce with a variable unit cost of $5/unit (i.e. packaging, materials, etc).
$5 is unreasonably high even for a generalized example.

Cut the price even further, say $10, and they now need to sell 200k copies, almost 9x as many copies. Etc.
Yes, but you have to look at the potential market. Video games sell today in a global market, and they are more mainstream than at any other time in the history of the industry. According to VGChartz there have been ~70 million Wii's, ~40 million XBOX360's, and ~35 million PS3's sold worldwide. There is a huge market for video games today, so the industry can certainly sustain a low price/high volume sales strategy and still be successful at least for the most popular game genres. Sure it was easy to justify a $50 price tag back when successful video games sold in the tens or even hundreds of thousands of copies. But, now that the most popular games sell fifteen or twenty million copies or more, $50 per game becomes a lot more excessive and stifling even when the games have eight figure development expenses.

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 2010, 11:24.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
86. Re: Your reasoning is flawed. Mar 27, 2010, 00:43 shponglefan
 
I've Got The News Blues wrote on Mar 27, 2010, 00:28:
The cost of the media and packaging per unit is fixed in the sense that it is a predictable cost which does not vary (much) regardless of the number of units sold.

On a per unit basis no. But it's variable with respect to the overall cost based on the number of units; hence the term "variable cost".

The rest of the cost of producing a video game does vary greatly per unit depending upon the final number of copies sold. That was my point. Arguing semantics doesn't change that.

You're right, but you're using the terms backwards. Semantics is important in debate.

I don't and didn't dispute that, but as I pointed out and you agreed, that price is very fluid (not firmly fixed upfront).

I don't think it's quite as fluid as you think. As price drops, the number of units needed to be sold to break even starts increasing exponentially. For example, say a game cost $1M to produce with a variable unit cost of $5/unit (i.e. packaging, materials, etc). If the game was sold for $50, the developers need to sell about 22k units to break even. Slash the price in half to $25 and they now need to sell 50k units to break even; more than double the number of copies. Cut the price even further, say $10, and they now need to sell 200k copies, almost 9x as many copies. Etc.

Ultimately it will come down to demand, but there is going to be a cut-off point.

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 2010, 00:50.
 
Avatar 54594
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
85. Re: Your reasoning is flawed. Mar 27, 2010, 00:28 I've Got The News Blues
 
I've Got The News Blues wrote on Mar 27, 2010, 00:01:
That's variable cost, not fixed cost.
The cost of the media and packaging per unit is fixed in the sense that it is a predictable cost which does not vary (much) regardless of the number of units sold. The rest of the cost of producing a video game does vary greatly per unit depending upon the final number of copies sold. That was my point. Arguing semantics doesn't change that.

In the case of software development, companies do need to sell units at a certain price to cover fixed/overhead costs. Otherwise, they will lose money.
I don't and didn't dispute that, but as I pointed out and you agreed, that price is very fluid (not firmly fixed upfront) unless the game is never reproduced after its initial printing.

And there are also additional variable costs with units sold (i.e. aftermarket support) and semi-variable costs (i.e. shipping) that should be taken into consideration as well.
Yes, but these relatively trivial costs don't change the fundamental point of my post. It wasn't intended to be a comprehensive or detailed description of the costs of game production, but rather to describe the broader point that the used video game market is the result of the game publishers own chosen pricing and sales strategy. Changing this strategy to a low price/high volume one would effectively eliminate or greatly reduce the used game market.

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 2010, 00:46.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
84. Re: The used game market is just capitalism at work. Mar 27, 2010, 00:27 Ruffiana
 
If I buy a book or DVD, I can resell it no problem, but in the case of this PC game, I am prevented from reselling by the publisher. Is there a right to resell something you buy?

From my perspective, there is no difference between "used" game and "used" movies. However, the movie industry has a primary market in movie theaters and a secondary market through licensing agreements with television. They're in a much better position to absorb missed sales from used DVD trade. By the time it gets to that point, it's all gravy. Does that make it okay? No, not in my book. But I don't think it's going to lead to any radical shifts in how movies get made. Games don't get that luxury. They've got one market for recovering the money required to make them. Can that change? Sure, but it's not likely to change without fundamentally changing how games are made now. And frankly, I like games now and really don't want to see their development change in response to the business of making money rather than change in ways to make better games.

Books are a bit different. It doesn't require hundreds of people and millions of dollars to write a book like it does for a movie or video game. However, it does require quite a bit of money to print a book. Proportionally, it's more expensive to create and distribute the physical book than it is to conceive and create the narrative word. So there is an inherit value in owning a physical book. Even when a book is available for free, on the internet, there is a market for having that written word in a physical format. Books degrade over time. They get torn or dropped in the bath tub. There's a reason to want a new book over a used book, especially of the difference in price is nominal and that used book is really used.

I find the "used" game market to be more financially impactful of game sales and the business of games than outright piracy. That's a potential consumer who has money, is willing to spend it on a game they want to play, but are ignorant of where their money is actually going and what impact that has. But, on a personal level...I get it and I don't hold any animosity towards someone who buys "used". My animosity is towards the people who sell "used" games, because in reality what they're doing is re-distributing a game in a way that ensures no money is going back to the people who make that game.

Someone who illegally distrubutes copies of a game or someone who freely downloads a game is much more personally insulting to me as a developer. It's the giant fat middle finger of "your game is good enough for me to want to play, but I'm too damn cheap to want to give you any money for it" that I find infuriating. The insinuation that whatever you do to earn money, your $50 is more valuable than the years of hundreds of people's lives, hard work, sweat, and tears that went into making it. As the creators of games, I feel it should be our unquestionable right to decide who does and who does not get to play what we've worked so hard to make. And the requirements for it are pretty simple and straightforward. Pay us. Pay us so that we can justify doing what we do and can continue to make games for people to play.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
83. Steam forbids resale of games. Mar 27, 2010, 00:12 I've Got The News Blues
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 26, 2010, 23:12:
My friend recently gave me his copy of COD MW2 for PC. It's tied to his Steam account and there's no way for him to gift it to me. I had to use his steam account to install it, unless I wanted to crack it, which I did not. Luckily, that was the only game in his Steam account, he doesn't use Steam otherwise, and he didn't care if I used it. But by not making the game resaleable, I wonder if that is breaking some kind of law? If I buy a book or DVD, I can resell it no problem, but in the case of this PC game, I am prevented from reselling by the publisher. Is there a right to resell something you buy?
Yes, there is such a right to resell a legitimate copy of a copyrighted work. It's called the first sale doctrine. However, game publishers like Valve use licensing agreements to have customers give up this right. The Steam Subscriber Agreement is such a licensing agreement, and it expressly forbids the resale, transfer, and sharing of Steam accounts. You must consent to this agreement when you create an account on Steam. According to the agreement and to Valve's other policies for Steam, if Valve discovers that you used your friend's Steam account or that he sold or transferred his account to you, Valve will permanently disable the account so that it can no longer be used and the games in it can no longer be played. Valve actively enforces this policy so take this as a warning.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
82. Re: Your reasoning is flawed. Mar 27, 2010, 00:05 shponglefan
 
I've Got The News Blues wrote on Mar 27, 2010, 00:01:
Your reasoning is flawed. The only fixed unit cost of a video game is the minimal cost of its packaging and media.

That's variable cost, not fixed cost.

Some definitions may be in order:

direct variable cost = costs associated with producing/distributing each individual unit (i.e. packaging)
direct fixed costs = costs associated with producing/distributing all number of units (i.e. leasing machines/factory)
overhead costs = additional costs not directly associated with production of units (i.e. head office administration)

In the case of software development, companies do need to sell units at a certain price to cover fixed/overhead costs. Otherwise, they will lose money. As they lower price, obviously sales go up, but the key is finding a balance between price and cost, so that profit is maximized.

And there are also additional variable costs with units sold (i.e. aftermarket support) and semi-variable costs (i.e. shipping) that should be taken into consideration as well.

* edited to fix definitions

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 2010, 00:13.
 
Avatar 54594
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
81. Your reasoning is flawed. Mar 27, 2010, 00:01 I've Got The News Blues
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 26, 2010, 23:26:
This reasoning is false. There's a certain fixed cost that the developer cannot go below before it starts to cost more to produce the game then they can sell it for.
Your reasoning is flawed. The only fixed unit cost of a video game is the minimal cost of its packaging and media. The rest of the cost of creating a video game isn't fixed per unit because it gets spread over the number of copies sold. Substantially or even dramatically lowering the price of video games is certainly possible without hurting profitability because the dramatic increase in sales volume will at least compensate and typically exceed the lost revenue per unit.

Gamestop can essentially buy back the game for whatever they like, and sell it for whatever they like.
No, Gamestop cannot. Supply and demand and other market forces determine the price at which Gamestop can purchase used copies of games and sell them.

They have an infinite ability to undercut the price of a new game because they have no production costs and very little overhead in buying and selling used games.
No, they don't have infinite ability for two reasons: First, the supply of used games is finite/limited so Gamestop will not always have used copies to sell to undercut a new copy. Second, there is a point at which most consumers won't purchase a used product if the cost of the new product reaches a certain acceptable threshold because the perceived value of a new product overcomes the minor difference in price. As with my example below, the movie industry has used this fact in its pricing strategy to successfully suppress a broad market for used DVD's. The game industry could do this as well, but instead it insists on propping up game prices to levels where many game consumers turn to buying and selling used games.

If EA decided to lower the price of a new game to $55 to match GS's used price, GS would simply lower the price to $50 and so on.
Yes, but if EA sliced that price to $20 or less, few consumers would bother buying the used copy or with selling their used games back to the store because it wouldn't be worth the hassle to them.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
80. Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit Mar 26, 2010, 23:33 Ruffiana
 
Let's say I have a perfect copy of <insert the name of a game you bought and finished a couple months ago>, up to the last byte. Would you pay me the original price for that today ? No ? Why not ? It's identical to a brand new copy collecting dust in some shelf elsewhere!

No, because I'd rather that money go to the publishers and developers who made the game that we both want to play.

To counter your arguement, lets say that I have a brand new, never been opened, still sealed in the original shrink wrap copy of Half-Life 2. Would you give me $50 for it?

I also have a brand new, pricstine condition, never been driven, stored in a hermetically sealed garage 1965 Shelby Ford Mustang. Would you care to buy it off of me for what my grandfather paid for it...the original retail price?

How about this used, 2009 car I have with 250,000 miles on it. It's a really awesome car. I've driven the shit out of, but now I'd like to get a 2011 model. I'll let you have it for 5% off of the MSRP I paid.

I also have a "copy" of Battlefield 2: Bad Company. By copy I mean I have the box, manuals, the little DVD with it's fancy printed label. It doesn't actually work because there isn't anything on the DVD, but actually playing the game doesn't really have any value. It's the plastic and paper that we buy and own. All yours for $59.95.

Okay, maybe there is some value to being able to actually play the game, so I'll make a deal with you. I'll sell it to you for $20. That's what Gamestop would give me for the plastic and paper once I'm done playing the game, ergo that's the fair market value.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
79. Re: The used game market is just capitalism at work. Mar 26, 2010, 23:26 jdreyer
 
I've Got The News Blues wrote on Mar 26, 2010, 22:28:
Bludd wrote on Mar 26, 2010, 22:05:
I think that piracy where no money changes hands doesn't equate to a lost sale, but sale of a used game does.
I agree with you that the sale of a used game is a lost sale to the publisher, but it isn't lost due to some inequity by the seller of the used game. It is the game publisher's own fault that it lost the sale because its asking price for a new copy of the game was too high to the buyer of the used copy. This is simply capitalism at work. If publishers don't try to compete for this business by lowering their prices to what potential these customers are willing to pay, then they will continue to miss out on these sales and deservedly so.

@ I've Got The News Blues
This reasoning is false. There's a certain fixed cost that the developer cannot go below before it starts to cost more to produce the game then they can sell it for. Gamestop can essentially buy back the game for whatever they like, and sell it for whatever they like. They have an infinite ability to undercut the price of a new game because they have no production costs and very little overhead in buying and selling used games. If EA decided to lower the price of a new game to $55 to match GS's used price, GS would simply lower the price to $50 and so on.

I'm not arguing against used game sales here, just pointing out a flaw in your logic. Personally, I think you should be able to do whatever you like with your game once you buy it: keep it, enshrine it, sell it, archive it for personal use, smash it, whatever. It's yours.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
78. Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit Mar 26, 2010, 23:18 shponglefan
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 26, 2010, 19:36:
A used video game is identical to a new one.

Except they're not. I know people who refuse to buy used because they enjoy collecting and keeping pristine copies of games.
 
Avatar 54594
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
117 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo