Why all the fuss? (Used games)

With the recent announcements from Microsoft and Sony about their respective consoles, the topic that has driven most gamers into a frenzy and seems to have united consumers and the media has not been a new game or next gen tech but the mention by Microsoft of regulation of the used games market. Seeing people from all walks banding together seemingly condemning Microsoft in fervent hatred and even going as far as relating them to Nazi Germany I was left stunned and confused.

 In a market where the consumers look to game companies and publishers to amaze them, to excite them and to wet their creative and entertainment appetites why then would people be so against some form of regulation in the used games market? The used games market is hurting the companies that make the incredible entertainment experiences we love. Do we not want to support these people and ensure they have the means to continue delivering this to us?

 When you purchase a new game a small percentage of the sale goes to the retail or online distributer that you have purchased it from, then the rest, the majority goes to the publisher and the company that actually created the product. This money is used to recoup the massive costs associated with the creation of a game, marketing and distribution (referring mostly to AA and AAA titles). Then of course there are costs for after purchase support such as tech support, maintenance patches and even the running of servers for multiplayer that the majority of games these days have. We have to bear in mind that these companies are businesses and want to make a profit so with all of this overhead they need massive sales to make these ventures profitable.

 When a used game is purchased none of that money, not one cent goes, back to the publisher. The retailer keeps all of it, and yet the customer still has access to the online services, maintenance and tech support of that game. Yes you can say that that person is only playing a game that someone else already paid for and no longer using so its not hurting the game creator, but its artificially increasing the use of a title where the resources for the maintenance of that title is needed longer and by more people but without the game creators receiving any more revenue to maintain it. Thats one of the reasons publishers like EA created the online pass that was universally hated by consumers. Yes it might hurt consumers making them pay more for a used game, but what also hurts consumers are game companies being closed down for not selling 4 million units in the first month.

Every time an avenue is explored, for the industry to generate more and continual revenue ( that wont be hurt by used games sales) it has been met with anger, resistance and disdain. DLCs are seen as money grabs for content that should be on disk, online passes are seen as evil and honestly not consumer friendly, premium passes ala Battlefiled 3 and Call of Duty are holding services hostage and now the proposed regulation of the used game market is being touted as the antichrist.

 But there is already a gaming market where this is the norm, and its been implemented without much complaint or nearly as much anger and in most cases people havent even notices it happened at all. The used market for PC gaming is all but dead. With digital distribution, games attached to account via publisher applications such as origin and uplay and steam there is no such debate raging related to the platform. You cant share your games, resell them or even give them away on steam yet none is declaring valve evil. What people do know about valve are their great sales. Sales that are made possible by the fact that there are no used games under cutting them and that the publishers/producers get a cut of each sale. Its a win-win, we get cheaper games and the companies that make them possible get money in return for their product/service.

 Currently retail outlets have such a hold on the gaming industry that they have the power to keep publishers from lowering their prices for digital distribution in the guise of fair market, but then in turn re-sell software from that publisher without giving them their fair share. How is this a just system? Its not supporting the creator, its driving to behavior that is less consumer friendly with the likes of online passes and its negative towards the industry as publishers close down production offices for not selling enough for example prototype 2.

 Would it be so bad to force the retailers of giving a cut of the money to the people that actually made the product? Would you not want to support them? It will also give publishers more confidence to allow for bigger sales and discounts because they would be getting their fair share with every sale. In the long run it is going to happen, it has to, with the ever increasing cost of game production for AA and AAA titles to survive they have to maximize their revenue streams. This is also why the free-to-play/microtransaction based model is being used more. As the people that use the service most pay more and there are no lost sales.

 I just like everyone else would like to spend less on games, get things cheaper and be able to sell the games I no longer use, but in doing so I dont want to hurt the people that made the game possible in the first place. If people could look at this objectively they might see that its not such a bad thing, certainly not the end of the world. 

how much is Micro$oft payin ya?

M$ leming....

Just read the title and saw how many post you have. tututututut

I see where you're coming from, however, this system is still too complicated and restrictive. I mean needing to be on somene's friend list for a certain number of days before we get permission to borrow a game. And only 1 allowed.

Also used game markets don't hurt them that much. They have lasted this long haven't they? Sony still isn't doing it. There are actually ways it help the publisher as well. If I borrow a game, and decide I like it, I'll buy it. If I buy a cheap, used game, and decide I like it, I will buy the sequal new, or maybe buy the games DLC. This is money I would not have given the publisher without the chance to play used games.

Corporate shill alert...

Games should not be exempt from the secondhand market. It exists everywhere else, but for some reason publishers think that they should get money multiple times for selling one copy of a game. That's not how it should work, and just because the used games market on the PC is dead doesn't mean that should be the case on consoles. 

I would say it is debatable how much used game companies actually hurt the gaming market.  A used game sale doesn't necessarily mean a new sale was never made.  Someone who buys used games frequently probably doesn't buy new games often unless they're deeply discounted.  With the DLC of today, it's also possible that the company can still profit off a used game sale.  

As far as fixing a used game market, that's difficult.  Outright blocking or charging exhorbitant fees isn't the answer.  Perhaps a small portion of used game sales should be returned to the developer.  Or maybe some sort of licensing agreement similar to what rental companies are supposed to have to rent out movies, games, etc.  

Companies that are getting shuttered, well, yes, that's horrible.  Oftentimes this is done by large studios such as EA who try to maximize their bottom line for their shareholders by shutting down small studios they've gobbled up.  Usually right after a game is done.  That's a horrible practice.  There is also the problem of overblown budgets.  Some games these days are reaching budgets of over $100 million.  That's insane.  Especially considering some developers can produce a game just as good with a fraction of the budget.

The used gaming market is a over 2 billion dollar a year industry in the US alone so we arent talking small money here. The gaming industry is unique and cant really be related to other used markets. Music has royalties and pay for use services like Spotify, itunes, google music, ect Movies have cinema revenue, then rental, tv syndication and dvd sales. Books have physical wear to take into account and now are moving over to the digital realm as well. So gaming really is in a situation of its own.

If I bought all my games first hand I wouldn't have three quarters of the games I own. That would be the case if this restriction was implemented across the board next gen. It's not the case of, oh I'll just go and buy new release today, I simply don't have the money to support this hobby to that extent.

Sadly that's just the way it is for these companies. Sony aren't restricting me of that privilege so I'm jumping ship, it's as simple as that.

A bit TLDR, just get to the point. You make another argument that the used game market allows retailers like Gamestop to profit and leave the actual developers or publishers out of that.

Fair point.

What you seem to neglect is how preventing used games ultimately harms the consumer. You can't even lend a game to a friend to play for a bit.

Would you make the same argument that lending a game to a friend is bad because that's one less sale the developer or publisher would make off of the game?

I agree with your comment about DLC though. Yeah, it was crap at first, but DLC got better and better and gamers need to realize that if it couldn't be sold as DLC, it wouldn't exist at all. They only make it if they can make money off of it. Generally, if you enjoyed a game and wanted more from it the only way would be to pay for it through DLC.

Also, I don't like Gamestop; it's another scam for the gamer. Sell a new copy of COD for $60, a gamer returns it after a week for about $20 or $30, and they put it on the shelf as a used game at $55. Yet, look at average price of it on Ebay; it's not $55 even if it's new.

And how about Gamefly or Redbox? I think those services are a great deal for gamers, and I've played a number of games through such services.

Finally, you make a point of the movie business being different, but how would it work out if all Blu-rays were linked to your Blu-ray player and the disc becomes almost worthless. No, you can't give your friend a copy of a Blu-ray movie. It kind feels like Netflix streaming in that you have an online library of movies or television shows linked to your account that you can access anywhere (which actually sounds kind of good), but buyers are going to hate the idea of not being able to lend a friend a favorite movie to watch.

With the way things are going this could actually occur with movies, but people will still raise a fuss because in the end they probably lose if all physical media disappears or there isn't a point to purchase physical media anymore (it's just a disc that becomes useless after installation or linking to some account).

If I bought all my games first hand I wouldn't have three quarters of the games I own. That would be the case if this restriction was implemented across the board next gen. It's not the case of, oh I'll just go and buy new release today, I simply don't have the money to support this hobby to that extent.

Sadly that's just the way it is for these companies. Sony aren't restricting me of that privilege so I'm jumping ship, it's as simple as that.

ElectricEchoes

Exactly!

It almost seems like basic microeconomics. If Johnny has only $100 to spend every 6 months on a game, he can either buy 5 games for $20 each or a new release at $60 and spend the remaining $40 on something else (2 older games?).

The common sense prediction would be that without a used game market the price of games will go up a lot and stay up for longer periods of time. Gamers are limited by the number of games they can buy with the budget they have. So the outcome would be less games played for the same amount of revenue.

And one only needs to compare the price of games on Steam to downloaded games on Xbox Live and PSN to see that (for whatever reason) games are a lot more expensive on the console.

I'm not talking about restricting it here, that's microsoft and I don't agree with that at all. All I'm saying is that maybe if the industry as a whole would regulate the sale of used games, not to increase the price on the consumer, but to ensure that the publisher/producer of said game actually get their fair share of that re-sale. That to me doesn't seem like such a bad idea. 

Why should publishes get a cut of the second hand games market?

What makes them so special?

If I sell a book to someone when I'm donee with it does the new buyer have to pay the author before he can read it? Am I no longer able to read that book ever again because I sold it on?

Does a buyer of a second hand car have to pay the car company to use it?

Do I have to ring up Ford every day just to let them know that I'm still using my car and I am the licensed user of said vehicle?

No... so what makes software publishers think they deserve a cut of the second hand market.

The used game market can increase sales... I won't touch a game I only have a passing interest in for $60 but I would pick it up for $10-$15 used... if I like the game then I'm more likely to buy any sequel upon release, a sale they wouldn't have had if the used game market never existed.

[QUOTE="ElectricEchoes"]

If I bought all my games first hand I wouldn't have three quarters of the games I own. That would be the case if this restriction was implemented across the board next gen. It's not the case of, oh I'll just go and buy new release today, I simply don't have the money to support this hobby to that extent.

Sadly that's just the way it is for these companies. Sony aren't restricting me of that privilege so I'm jumping ship, it's as simple as that.

Gorf_basic

Exactly!

It almost seems like basic microeconomics. If Johnny has only $100 to spend every 6 months on a game, he can either buy 5 games for $20 each or a new release at $60 and spend the remaining $40 on something else (2 older games?).

The common sense prediction would be that without a used game market the price of games will go up a lot and stay up for longer periods of time. Gamers are limited by the number of games they can buy with the budget they have. So the outcome would be less games played for the same amount of revenue.

And one only needs to compare the price of games on Steam to downloaded games on Xbox Live and PSN to see that (for whatever reason) games are a lot more expensive on the console.

[QUOTE="Gorf_basic"]

[QUOTE="ElectricEchoes"]

If I bought all my games first hand I wouldn't have three quarters of the games I own. That would be the case if this restriction was implemented across the board next gen. It's not the case of, oh I'll just go and buy new release today, I simply don't have the money to support this hobby to that extent.

Sadly that's just the way it is for these companies. Sony aren't restricting me of that privilege so I'm jumping ship, it's as simple as that.

Ghost_702

Exactly!

It almost seems like basic microeconomics. If Johnny has only $100 to spend every 6 months on a game, he can either buy 5 games for $20 each or a new release at $60 and spend the remaining $40 on something else (2 older games?).

The common sense prediction would be that without a used game market the price of games will go up a lot and stay up for longer periods of time. Gamers are limited by the number of games they can buy with the budget they have. So the outcome would be less games played for the same amount of revenue.

And one only needs to compare the price of games on Steam to downloaded games on Xbox Live and PSN to see that (for whatever reason) games are a lot more expensive on the console.

I see where you're coming from, however, this system is still too complicated and restrictive. I mean needing to be on somene's friend list for a certain number of days before we get permission to borrow a game. And only 1 allowed.

Also used game markets don't hurt them that much. They have lasted this long haven't they? Sony still isn't doing it. There are actually ways it help the publisher as well. If I borrow a game, and decide I like it, I'll buy it. If I buy a cheap, used game, and decide I like it, I will buy the sequal new, or maybe buy the games DLC. This is money I would not have given the publisher without the chance to play used games.

lazyathew

Anyone remember how many people were banned from xbox live because the were using a illegal copy of a game? If I remember right is was a lot, this is what the license is suppose to try and stop. In doing so selling used gamee get a bad rap, but you can still sell them, the people saying they can't sell used Xbpx one games I guess can't read.

I'm all for it because i buy only new games and don't feel people should get to play the same game I do for free.

A next gen console is going to need a internet connection, one that doesn't IMO just isn't next gen.

The simple fact is people should be angry at the retailers that sell used games not the companies that make and produce them.

If you craft a beautiful handmade oak coffee table and sell it to me thats great. I get my table and you get your financial reward for producing it.

Now I have two options

I can keep the table because I love it dearly

Or I could take it to a shop that will give me however much money THEY beleive the table is worth in order for THEM to make a profit on seeling it to....

Person X who walks in and is just after a cheap coffee table.

So not only do you (the creater of this beautiful coffee table) see no money whatsoever for watching your table getting passed around like a joint you also have to watch these used coffee table merchants making a profit off of your creation.

You can say its anti consumer to restrict used games but its theres only one winner in the used game market and its that company stuck in the middle that makes a profit on your desire to pick something up on the cheap.

You can say its anti consumer to restrict used games always_explicit

Yes we like the fact that we get these new and creative systems, we are willing to shell out alot to put them in our homes, but if i have to pay full price for every game that i buy, i am unable to buy as many games, which in turn means the consol is not as fun, which in turn means i dished out a bunch of money for something that I cant get the full benifit from because a company wants to make more $ for themselves even though it already is making more then most........ see were the problem lies....

[QUOTE="always_explicit"]You can say its anti consumer to restrict used games Randolph

People are poor and work at mcdonalds and dont have a engineering job. Its mostly the welfare kids and the kids that smoke weed

this the mentality of the elitist like always_explicit and kingofasia, feel like because they made it everyone else can. GTFO ppl have families bad luck and hard times and work just as hard as ur asses Enfamous_Mr_BHC

I don't agree with your table argument either; once you "sell" something (whether you're the creator or not) it's done. Should the person decide to resell it, you're not entitled to the money.

I agree that my previous example just proves that retailers like Gamestop profit most from the used game market and not the consumer. If you want proof, just look the prices of most used games at Gamestop versus Ebay or some other site. As a matter of fact, I'm fairly certain that most of Gamestop's profits come from used trades and used game sales! That's pure profit for them.

However, if a gamer has $100 to spend on games every 3 months, they can just as well purchase 5 older NEW games for $20. Games that have been on the market for about a year and are purchased new at a discount. Revenue is based on buyers budgets and Microsoft probably doesn't care just as long as they get your $100 regardless of whether the gamer has to buy 5 older games or 1 new game and some combination of the remaining $40.

So the consumer/gamer just loses in the end. They can't rent games anymore, and there's no discounted used game market for them to go to which equals game prices are going to stay up for longer periods of time (i.e. no more $40 games that were released at $60 just 2-3 months before).

[QUOTE="Enfamous_Mr_BHC"]this the mentality of the elitist like always_explicit and kingofasia, feel like because they made it everyone else can. GTFO ppl have families bad luck and hard times and work just as hard as ur asses always_explicit

I don't agree with your table argument either; once you "sell" something (whether you're the creator or not) it's done. Should the person decide to resell it, you're not entitled to the money.

I agree that my previous example just proves that retailers like Gamestop profit most from the used game market and not the consumer. If you want proof, just look the prices of most used games at Gamestop versus Ebay or some other site. As a matter of fact, I'm fairly certain that most of Gamestop's profits come from used trades and used game sales! That's pure profit for them.

However, if a gamer has $100 to spend on games every 3 months, they can just as well purchase 5 older NEW games for $20. Games that have been on the market for about a year and are purchased new at a discount. Revenue is based on buyers budgets and Microsoft probably doesn't care just as long as they get your $100 regardless of whether the gamer has to buy 5 older games or 1 new game and some combination of the remaining $40.

So the consumer/gamer just loses in the end. They can't rent games anymore, and there's no discounted used game market for them to go to which equals game prices are going to stay up for longer periods of time (i.e. no more $40 games that were released at $60 just 2-3 months before).

Gorf_basic

imagin buyin a blu ray, and a friend wants to borrow it, but he can't play it or has to pay a fee? or can only borrow one blu ray at a time???

thats stupid, or same example with cd's or anything else,, its ludacris,

they should have a renting system online, like rent the game for a week for this much or whatever, but once u pay for ownership of the product, then its mine, and if xbox wants to regulate this, then i'm not buying one

imagin buyin a blu ray, and a friend wants to borrow it, but he can't play it or has to pay a fee? or can only borrow one blu ray at a time???

thats stupid, or same example with cd's or anything else,, its ludacris,

they should have a renting system online, like rent the game for a week for this much or whatever, but once u pay for ownership of the product, then its mine, and if xbox wants to regulate this, then i'm not buying one

profanityVP

[Well sorry you didnt like my example but I am self employed and frankly the thought of a middleman making money off something I have produced and sold makes me feel more uneasy than someone place restrictions in place that stop that from happening.always_explicit

[QUOTE="always_explicit"][Well sorry you didnt like my example but I am self employed and frankly the thought of a middleman making money off something I have produced and sold makes me feel more uneasy than someone place restrictions in place that stop that from happening.Randolph

I never said I wanted games to sit on the shelf at $60 dollars to help the industry, I am all for competitive pricing which is why I support MS shift towards digital only downloads. What I dont agree with is people using gamestop.