53 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
 |
| 33. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 23, 2012, 04:54 |
Jerykk |
|
|
You can dislike used sales if you want, but you can't deny that people are allowed to transfer ownership of the product (first sale doctrine), and the person who takes possession of the product gains all the rights the original owner had.
Except now you're arguing semantics. Yes, used sales are legal and piracy is not. Nobody ever disputed that. However, if you look at the actual results of used sales, you see that they are pretty much the same as the results of piracy. You get to play the game without compensating the publisher or developer. People often use legality to justify otherwise dubious acts but I don't. I only care about the acts themselves and their end results.
But Jerykk was advancing the idea that a single game sale fuels multiple used copy sales, which looking at the numbers, falls apart.
You're forgetting that used sales don't just consist of GameStop selling copies to customers. Think of it like this:
Transaction 1: Customer buys new copy from GameStop.
Transaction 2: Customer sells used copy to GameStop.
Transaction 3: Customer buys used copy from GameStop.
That's three transactions for the same game, only one of which compensated the publisher and developer. And that's assuming that each used copy only sells once, after which the customer keeps it forever and never resells it on Amazon, Goozex, GameFly, Best Buy, GameStop, Ebay, etc.
This comment was edited on Apr 23, 2012, 05:07. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 32. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 23, 2012, 04:20 |
Bhruic |
|
|
If you buy a used game, you are not a customer of the publisher or developer that created it because you (the person buying the used copy, not the person who bought the new one) haven't paid them for their work. Same thing applies to piracy.
Sorry, but you are wrong. When you sell your game to someone else, you transfer all your rights to that person along with the game. That makes the "used" purchaser just as much a customer of the publisher/developer as the original purchaser was. With piracy, someone may have purchased the game originally (although that's often not the case), but they aren't transfering their rights to anyone else - they are keeping them, but making the game available to others. That's where the difference lies. You can dislike used sales if you want, but you can't deny that people are allowed to transfer ownership of the product (first sale doctrine), and the person who takes possession of the product gains all the rights the original owner had. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 31. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 23, 2012, 04:12 |
Bhruic |
|
|
30% of sales were used, but 55% of profits were from used.
How is that relevant? The issue isn't where Gamestop made their money, it's how much money consumers are spending on new vs used. Right now, they are outspending on new games by an 8:5 ratio.
If you want to argue that's still a bad thing, go ahead. But Jerykk was advancing the idea that a single game sale fuels multiple used copy sales, which looking at the numbers, falls apart. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 30. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 23, 2012, 03:35 |
Jerykk |
|
|
If you want to argue that used game sales hurt the industry as a whole, go ahead. I don't neccasarily agree, but the argument can certainly be made. But stretching that argument to say that pirating a game is the equivalent of buying used is absurd.
It's not absurd at all. You keep arguing that used sales originated from new sales. This is true (mostly). However, we're not talking about new sales. We're talking about used sales. And for every used sale, neither the publisher nor developer sees a penny. Yes, they saw money when the original, new copy was sold. But that was one transaction. Every transaction made afterwards? No compensation. That's why a sale of a used game and a sale of a pirated game are pretty much exactly the same; neither the publisher nor developer sees any compensation and all profit goes to a third-party that wasn't involved in the game's development.
If you buy a used game, you are not a customer of the publisher or developer that created it because you (the person buying the used copy, not the person who bought the new one) haven't paid them for their work. Same thing applies to piracy.
Developers have a fucking incentive to make good, long games to discourage people selling their game back after a week! I don't know what the fuck you look for in video games but I like to think that when I spend $60 on one I'm going to get more than a fucking weekend's worth of entertainment out of it.
I agree. Developers should make better games with more longevity. However, there's only so much they can do to prevent used sales. The typical RPG is about 40 hours long. Most people only do one playthrough. A 40 hour game can be beaten in about a week if you have a full-time job, less if you don't. So, what's to stop people from selling games like this back? Adding multiplayer? That's not really a good solution, as tacked on multiplayer tends to be half-assed or forgettable. DLC? Sure, except people tend to get bored of games long before the DLC is released. Of all the people who bought Skyrim, how many actually played through more than 30% of the game's content? How many of those people decided to keep the game in anticipation of future DLC? Most consumers have short attention spans. Most consumers are also cheap and will take any opportunity to save and/or make money. Used sales accommodate both of these traits.
There really isn't any way to stop used sales of single-player games, no matter how good or long those games may be. Well, you can use DRM to stop used sales (but not piracy, ironically), but that's not quite ideal.
How many times do you think the same box/disc is sold and resold? Do you think GameStop has one copy of every video game that gets resold an indefinite number of times? Do you think used game buyers patiently wait for their turn to play GameStop's single used copy of a video game? Do you think the entire continental United States' used game industry is supplied by a single used copy from GameStop???
Not really sure what you're trying to say. GameStop obviously isn't the only source for used games. Ebay, Amazon, Goozex, GameFly... there are many sources available. While not as easy as finding a pirated copy, finding a used copy of any given game isn't exactly difficult these days. Just ask Tumbler. In any case, the facts remain the same: neither publishers nor developers see any compensation from used sales.
Pirates don't wait in line, they don't pay a cent to anybody, they circumvent any and all DRM. Piracy is entirely destructive to the industry.
The street vendors selling pirated games in third-world countries prove that yes, pirates are willing to pay money. They pay money for pirated games because they either can't afford new games, they have no access to new games or they're simply cheap. Also, pirates often do wait in line when it comes to PC game piracy. Some games take a few days to crack so buying them new would actually allow you to play them sooner. As for piracy's actual impact on the industry, that's pretty debatable (and has been debated fairly recently on this site) so not much point in retreading old ground.
This comment was edited on Apr 23, 2012, 04:06. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 29. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 23, 2012, 03:07 |
PHJF |
|
|
How does your brain not comprehend this?
How many times do you think the same box/disc is sold and resold? Do you think GameStop has one copy of every video game that gets resold an indefinite number of times? Do you think used game buyers patiently wait for their turn to play GameStop's single used copy of a video game? Do you think the entire continental United States' used game industry is supplied by a single used copy from GameStop???
Let me fucking elaborate for you. If a game is popular, really popular, people are going to play it on release. In the case of a game with significant staying power (IE multiplayer games, sandbox games), people are going to be playing the game for a long time. See, what this means is there is going to be an unavailability of used copies because people aren't selling the game back right away! Developers have a fucking incentive to make good, long games to discourage people selling their game back after a week! I don't know what the fuck you look for in video games but I like to think that when I spend $60 on one I'm going to get more than a fucking weekend's worth of entertainment out of it.
And then we have piracy, where one copy of a game (a copy that is leaked from manufacturing as often as it is purchased legitimately) is unequivocally replicated by as many pirates download it.
Pirates don't wait in line, they don't pay a cent to anybody, they circumvent any and all DRM. Piracy is entirely destructive to the industry.
Get your fucking head out of your ass. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 28. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 23, 2012, 02:57 |
Kabuto |
|
|
Jerykk wrote on Apr 23, 2012, 01:49:
Again, you're assuming that all pirated copies originate from a copy that was obtained illegally. In truth, most pirated games originate from a new copy that was legally obtained. After all, that's the easiest way to obtain games before they are pirated. For that one new copy, the publisher received compensation. Same thing applies to games that are resold as a used copies. However, whether or not the publisher and/or developer received compensation for the original purchase is largely irrelevant. They did not receive any compensation for the transactions made after that original purchase, whether it be a used sale from GameStop or a pirated sale from some street vendor in Thailand.
What you really mean to say is that used copies are generally harder to obtain than pirated copies. This is true (provided you have access to the internet). However, it's a pretty trivial point and doesn't change the fact that neither a used sale nor a pirated sale offer compensation to either the publisher or developer of the game being traded.
While piracy is illegal and used sales are not, they both have the same end result when it comes to publishers and developers. Used sales are convenient because they let you be cheap without compromising your moral integrity unless you actually care about developers being rewarded for their work.
It doesn't matter if the original copy that is cracked and distributed was legally purchased or not. That single copy can now be downloaded an infinite number of times, making the origins of the original copy irrelevant. A single used copy may realistically be resold a handful of ttimes, but the most important distinction is that every used copy in distribution was orignally a legally sold copy.
If you want to argue that used game sales hurt the industry as a whole, go ahead. I don't neccasarily agree, but the argument can certainly be made. But stretching that argument to say that pirating a game is the equivalent of buying used is absurd. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 27. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 23, 2012, 01:49 |
Jerykk |
|
|
Your argument that a single copy can be resold countless times, while theoretically true, is extremely unlikely in most cases due to the short shelf life of most AAA games. Regardless though of how many times a used game is resold the fact remains that originally that copy was purchased new and the publisher of said title did receive compensation for it. For a pirated copy no compensation will ever be received.
Again, you're assuming that all pirated copies originate from a copy that was obtained illegally. In truth, most pirated games originate from a new copy that was legally obtained. After all, that's the easiest way to obtain games before they are pirated. For that one new copy, the publisher received compensation. Same thing applies to games that are resold as a used copies. However, whether or not the publisher and/or developer received compensation for the original purchase is largely irrelevant. They did not receive any compensation for the transactions made after that original purchase, whether it be a used sale from GameStop or a pirated sale from some street vendor in Thailand.
What you really mean to say is that used copies are generally harder to obtain than pirated copies. This is true (provided you have access to the internet). However, it's a pretty trivial point and doesn't change the fact that neither a used sale nor a pirated sale offer compensation to either the publisher or developer of the game being traded.
While piracy is illegal and used sales are not, they both have the same end result when it comes to publishers and developers. Used sales are convenient because they let you be cheap without compromising your moral integrity unless you actually care about developers being rewarded for their work. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 26. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 23, 2012, 01:28 |
Kabuto |
|
|
Jerykk wrote on Apr 23, 2012, 00:47:
One, usually. Same with used games. You buy a new game, then sell it, someone else buys it, then sells it, rinse and repeat forever. Pretty much the same as buying a game, then copying it and releasing it on the
Are you just being deliberately obtuse?
GameStop, and any used game retailer for that matter, requires a vast inventory of used games to operate. All of those copies were at one point purchased new.
Your argument that a single copy can be resold countless times, while theoretically true, is extremely unlikely in most cases due to the short shelf life of most AAA games. Regardless though of how many times a used game is resold the fact remains that originally that copy was purchased new and the publisher of said title did receive compensation for it. For a pirated copy no compensation will ever be received.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 25. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 23, 2012, 00:47 |
Jerykk |
|
|
How many copies need to be sold for a game to be pirated an infinite number of times?
One, usually. Same with used games. You buy a new game, then sell it, someone else buys it, then sells it, rinse and repeat forever. Pretty much the same as buying a game, then copying it and releasing it on the net.
Hell, you don't even have to buy a new copy. If you stole a copy of MW3 from Target and then tried to pawn it off at GameStop, they would gladly accept it. They'd be even happier to accept it if it was still sealed and had the price sticker on it.
Yes, but your position ignores the reality that that never actually happens. Theoretically, sure, but practically, large numbers of new games are sold - Gamestop sells more new games than used by their own sales numbers.
I never said that people don't buy new games. I just said that people who sell used games are more likely to buy used games instead of new ones. However, the majority of consumers still buy new stuff. This applies to any medium, whether it be books, movies, music or games. And as NKD mentioned, GameStop sees significantly higher profit margins from used games because those transactions give nothing to publishers or developers. All that money goes into GameStop's pockets.
This comment was edited on Apr 23, 2012, 00:52. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 24. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 23, 2012, 00:12 |
NKD |
|
|
Bhruic wrote on Apr 22, 2012, 22:40:
Your position ignores the fact that a used copy only requires a new purchase once, after which it can be resold again and again without the developer or publisher seeing any money.
Yes, but your position ignores the reality that that never actually happens. Theoretically, sure, but practically, large numbers of new games are sold - Gamestop sells more new games than used by their own sales numbers.
They pull more in from new game sales, but the profit margins are less. Read this.
30% of sales were used, but 55% of profits were from used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 23. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 22, 2012, 22:40 |
Bhruic |
|
|
Your position ignores the fact that a used copy only requires a new purchase once, after which it can be resold again and again without the developer or publisher seeing any money.
Yes, but your position ignores the reality that that never actually happens. Theoretically, sure, but practically, large numbers of new games are sold - Gamestop sells more new games than used by their own sales numbers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 22. |
impressive! |
Apr 22, 2012, 15:40 |
space captain |
|
|
psulli wrote on Apr 22, 2012, 09:24:
You're better off stealing the car than buying it used from a used ca dealer. Either way the manufacturer doesn't see a cent, and if you steal it you're not supporting used car lots vampiric business practices.
the way you equate video game software with a car makes you a GENIUS debater
its just so clever, and insightful |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 21. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 22, 2012, 12:14 |
NKD |
|
|
psulli wrote on Apr 22, 2012, 09:24:
NKD wrote on Apr 21, 2012, 20:06:
You're better off pirating the game than buying it used from GameStop. Either way the developer doesn't see a cent, and if you pirate, you're not supporting GameStop's vampiric business practices.
You're better off stealing the car than buying it used from a used ca dealer. Either way the manufacturer doesn't see a cent, and if you steal it you're not supporting used car lots vampiric business practices.
Look, a representative of the RIAA/MPAA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 20. |
Re: letter to control about the big brother |
Apr 22, 2012, 11:55 |
Parallax Abstraction |
|
|
Agent.X7 wrote on Apr 22, 2012, 00:44:
$15 retailer margin? Fuck me, someone get me the number of THAT distributor. I make $5 on a new game if I am lucky.
I've never understood where that retailer margin number comes from either. When I worked for Best Buy Canada a few years ago, employees were able to buy anything in the store at cost + 10% and using our POS system, we could actually see what the cost on an item was. I used to save a ton of money on many things using this program, except games. With my staff discount, I would usually save a couple of bucks at most and the actual store cost of new games listed in the system was usually around $5 less than the retail price. I used to know a guy who owned a MicroPlay franchise about 10 years ago and he said the same thing. Unless it was a hotly anticipated new release that he could move hundreds of on launch day, he said that he literally would be losing money if all he was selling was brand new products. From everything I've ever seen, the reasons these retailers push used stuff so heavily is not just because it makes a lot more money but because it's basically the only way to make any real money. Maybe GameStop commands much higher margins on new products but yeah, if Best Buy at their peak in 2006 had no margin, I don't see how their's is so much better. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 19. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 22, 2012, 11:46 |
StingingVelvet |
|
|
psulli wrote on Apr 22, 2012, 09:24:
NKD wrote on Apr 21, 2012, 20:06:
You're better off pirating the game than buying it used from GameStop. Either way the developer doesn't see a cent, and if you pirate, you're not supporting GameStop's vampiric business practices.
You're better off stealing the car than buying it used from a used ca dealer. Either way the manufacturer doesn't see a cent, and if you steal it you're not supporting used car lots vampiric business practices.
It's always fun when people think physical items compare at all to software. A 1980 Dodge Durango is quite a bit different from buying a new 2012 one, which is called incentive to buy new. Games? No such thing.
I support used game sales legally, but the fact of the matter is you're barely supporting devs, pubs and the industry if you purchase that way.
As someone else said though, used games and piracy have already changed business practices. Most people here tell publishers to just live with it or adapt, which IS what they will do. Games as a service... The Old Republic instead of KotOR 3. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 18. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 22, 2012, 09:24 |
psulli |
|
|
NKD wrote on Apr 21, 2012, 20:06:
You're better off pirating the game than buying it used from GameStop. Either way the developer doesn't see a cent, and if you pirate, you're not supporting GameStop's vampiric business practices.
You're better off stealing the car than buying it used from a used ca dealer. Either way the manufacturer doesn't see a cent, and if you steal it you're not supporting used car lots vampiric business practices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 17. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 22, 2012, 07:59 |
Kabuto |
|
|
I'm not going to rehash the entire used game debate, that has been done to death here. The point I take issue with, which I've seen you espouse, is that pirating a game is the equivalent of buying a used copy.
Jerykk wrote on Apr 22, 2012, 04:18:
Your position ignores the fact that a used copy only requires a new purchase once
How many copies need to be sold for a game to be pirated an infinite number of times?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 16. |
Re: letter to control about the big brother |
Apr 22, 2012, 06:27 |
Ruffiana |
|
|
space captain wrote on Apr 21, 2012, 23:51:
until its too late
It already is. The 'used game' market and piracy have set games on the path of a radically different business model that will ultimately fundmanateally change what games get made.
I've screamed about this for years, but at this point it's pretty much set in stone. Arguements about piracy and the evils of Gamestop will be moot in 5-10 years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 15. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 22, 2012, 05:15 |
Kajetan |
|
|
NKD wrote on Apr 21, 2012, 20:06:
If you want to support a developer in the mainstream market, you have to buy it new in the first couple weeks of release. It sucks that the industry is set up that way, but that's just the reality of it. Dont find it arkward when the customer has to support a flawed business model? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 14. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 22, 2012, 04:18 |
Jerykk |
|
|
This position ignores the fact that for GameStop to sell a used copy a new copy had to of first been bought and resold. No such requirement exists for pirated copies. It also ignores the likelihood that fewer new copies would be purchased if buyers were unable to trade or sell them at a later time.
Your position ignores the fact that a used copy only requires a new purchase once, after which it can be resold again and again without the developer or publisher seeing any money.
In addition, the whole "people sell used games so they can buy new games" logic has multiple flaws. For one, if people are selling used games, there's a pretty good chance that they're buying used games as well. They likely buy far more used games than new games. Secondly, publishers and developers are not part of some giant conglomerate. Buying/selling a used copy of Psychonauts so you can afford a new copy of CoD2012 still screws Double Fine. You're just screwing one developer in favor of another.
If you really want to support developers, you should buy games via digital distribution at full price within a month of release. Digital distribution offers a much higher profit margin, so publishers will recoup their costs more quickly and the developer is more likely to see royalties.
This comment was edited on Apr 22, 2012, 04:26. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
53 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
