surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
You know what would be nice?
Punishing people who say things like this take a mandatory course in economics for community service.
Punishing people who say things like this take a mandatory course in economics for community service.
If they were smart, they would make the discs free, and charge an activation fee for each time a game is exchanged. Then they would be the ones making all the money off used games, and would suddenly see things differently.
i wouldn't care, because i don't care who i give the money to when i buy a used game.
but it is better to flail around like an ass and complain.
i wouldn't care, because i don't care who i give the money to when i buy a used game.
but it is better to flail around like an ass and complain.
Yep,used games are bad for the market, just like bullshit spouting,lying development leads are bad for my temper......................tell your boss peter to lick my sac!!!
Jim, I don't think the headline was exactly what the gentleman was saying and I feel like you took him a little out of context there. Granted you pulled that headline from the source article and they're the one that overly sensationalized the comment first, but still.
The speaker goes on to say in the source article: "For us it's probably a no-lose even with piracy as it is," shrugged West. "But, as I say, second-hand sales cost us more in the long-run than piracy these days."
The way you come off here, Jim, it sounds like you're saying he's accusing second-hand consumers of being worse scumbags than pirates, and I don't think that was the meaning behind the statement. It was a simple analysis of financial impact, not a commentary on the sick sad nature of the times we live in. Seems like a non-story to me.
The speaker goes on to say in the source article: "For us it's probably a no-lose even with piracy as it is," shrugged West. "But, as I say, second-hand sales cost us more in the long-run than piracy these days."
The way you come off here, Jim, it sounds like you're saying he's accusing second-hand consumers of being worse scumbags than pirates, and I don't think that was the meaning behind the statement. It was a simple analysis of financial impact, not a commentary on the sick sad nature of the times we live in. Seems like a non-story to me.
"Aside from the fact that used games are legal, generally require the legitimate purchase of a copy in order for the games to be used, and generate trade-in credit for new games which make buying $60 products more financial viable for poorer gamers"
It piss off the greedy bastards because in their minds, they think they lost a sale because the price was cheaper. They don't understand that if there was no used games, the buyer wouldn't have bought it in the first place. Somehow they think that we don't buy games but rent them and all the money made with these games should go in their already deep and loaded pockets.
It piss off the greedy bastards because in their minds, they think they lost a sale because the price was cheaper. They don't understand that if there was no used games, the buyer wouldn't have bought it in the first place. Somehow they think that we don't buy games but rent them and all the money made with these games should go in their already deep and loaded pockets.
Personally, I wish the used game market would go away. It does just as much to drive the price of a new game up as does piracy, and unlike piracy on the PC, where most of the people pirating would NOT buy a particular game new, most of the people who buy a used game WOULD buy that title new.
Seriously, if a new title costs $60 and a used title costs $55, then the person buying the used copy is only looking to save five dollars, and would most likely have bought the game new if not for the existence of the used copy. That's a huge shift in where those dollars end up, and whether it fuels new game development or not. Considering the normal price point of used games, I think it's safe to say that used games do often steal sales from new games.
I don't think the idea that the gaming market would collapse without used copies floating around is supportable at all. You likely have a very significant number of people who rarely buy new games who might otherwise buy new games, and you have others who would likely buy more new games if things like the used games market wasn't driving the price up for new copies.
Hell, I don't even UNDERSTAND why the used game market keeps going as it is. I almost always end up buying NEW titles for LESS than used titles are being sold for. It's mind boggling.
Seriously, if a new title costs $60 and a used title costs $55, then the person buying the used copy is only looking to save five dollars, and would most likely have bought the game new if not for the existence of the used copy. That's a huge shift in where those dollars end up, and whether it fuels new game development or not. Considering the normal price point of used games, I think it's safe to say that used games do often steal sales from new games.
I don't think the idea that the gaming market would collapse without used copies floating around is supportable at all. You likely have a very significant number of people who rarely buy new games who might otherwise buy new games, and you have others who would likely buy more new games if things like the used games market wasn't driving the price up for new copies.
Hell, I don't even UNDERSTAND why the used game market keeps going as it is. I almost always end up buying NEW titles for LESS than used titles are being sold for. It's mind boggling.
I'll be sure to make a note of this and try to buy all Lionhead games used in the future or just skip them all together since they're usually 90% hype.
Sounds like you're shopping for used games in the wrong places, pokota. They're typically about half the price of new after a couple of months where I buy them.
Anyway, the more I read the source article, the more I'm convinced that Mr. West was trying to diminish the concern of piracy regarding Fable 3, not bemoan the existence of a used game market. Used games were mentioned in an aside as a point of comparison, and somehow that fairly innocent comment became the whole story.
I don't think eurogamer, or our own beloved Mr. Sterling, are being fair to this guy here. Nothing but love, Jim, but I think you might have missed the point he was making.
Anyway, the more I read the source article, the more I'm convinced that Mr. West was trying to diminish the concern of piracy regarding Fable 3, not bemoan the existence of a used game market. Used games were mentioned in an aside as a point of comparison, and somehow that fairly innocent comment became the whole story.
I don't think eurogamer, or our own beloved Mr. Sterling, are being fair to this guy here. Nothing but love, Jim, but I think you might have missed the point he was making.
@Pokota, you don't understand because from the looks of your post you seem to think used sale only equals people buying games for $5 dollars off at Gamestop. Do a little research and you would see that buying used games off places like eBay actually save people 10-15 dollars off the retail price or places like Goozex where people just trade used games between each other for just the cost of postage practically.
I hate the legal vs. not legal argument. Piracy and used games sales are about equal in evil and good amounts. The law might dictate some of my actions, but it sure as hell doesn't dictate my code of ethics.
@pokota you touched on my issue with the used game market--they're undercutting by the thinnest of margins. It's not like they're charging half the MSRP--they're charging *almost* the MSRP and pretty much stealing the new sale in the process.
Of course, I don't know what the solution would be. Charging half price for used titles would still drive people to buy used over new...
I just think it's a douche move with that particular price point--it's pretty obvious what they're aiming to do--pocket the profit on work of the developers.
As it is, I'm pretty worried since a lot of major game companies have reported losses lately.
Of course, I don't know what the solution would be. Charging half price for used titles would still drive people to buy used over new...
I just think it's a douche move with that particular price point--it's pretty obvious what they're aiming to do--pocket the profit on work of the developers.
As it is, I'm pretty worried since a lot of major game companies have reported losses lately.
@dtomek
Yeah, because used movies and books, unlike games, clearly suffer from being second-hand as well!
Yeah, because used movies and books, unlike games, clearly suffer from being second-hand as well!
"It's just a depressing situation we're in that people don't think it's worth spending money on computer games."
How about charging 30$ per game instead of talking bull crap? I garantee A LOT MORE people would buy your fucking games.
How about charging 30$ per game instead of talking bull crap? I garantee A LOT MORE people would buy your fucking games.
@Frogboss & Tristrix:
I agree, there are much cheaper sources of used games out there, but from the context of the article, it seems like we're talking about the used game *industry*. That is to say, places like Gamestop, Amazon, etc., that make substantial profit on buying and reselling used titles.
I agree, there are much cheaper sources of used games out there, but from the context of the article, it seems like we're talking about the used game *industry*. That is to say, places like Gamestop, Amazon, etc., that make substantial profit on buying and reselling used titles.
@BalloonFighter
Perhaps my sarcasm detector is faulty today, but...
'If anything games should cost at least $100 a piece. So it could be like a financial investment . Then people wouldn't want to trade in their games. Or keep the prices the same and design the discs to stop working after a few uses. The video game industry won't last if they don't innovate.'
Perhaps my sarcasm detector is faulty today, but...
'If anything games should cost at least $100 a piece. So it could be like a financial investment . Then people wouldn't want to trade in their games. Or keep the prices the same and design the discs to stop working after a few uses. The video game industry won't last if they don't innovate.'
I don't get comments like this - I mean did this guy never play videogames as a kid or a teenager? I can remember buying a lot of games as a kid either on sales/platinum or second-hand/from car-boot sales cheap and then playing the hell out of them, and I'm sure my experiences mirror a lot of people's from my generation. Surely the more games people/kids play the more interested they'll be in the industry as a whole...?
Pirates generally aren't willing to spend money, so stopping people from pirating games doen't actually increase sales. Used games on the other hand are bought by people willing to spend money, but the developers don't see any of the profit.
Fable is a series that was made to be bought used. Give me a compelling reason, that isn't just blind hype like usual from Lionhead, and I'll get your game for full price. Or studios could have the guts to lower their prices in increments rather than just the usual $60 until it hits bargain bins.
Way to twist his words. You make it sound like he's comparing the crime.
He is suggesting that second hand game sales for consoles effects revenue more than the pirating of PC games, which might well be true. A second hand game sale is lost revenue as is piracy. When a person uses part exchange as a rental service, that's when it becomes a big problem.
Making the game worth $60 is a nice idea, but you will still get people buying a game day 1 then part exchanging it a few days down the line once they're done, no matter how good it was. They could cut the price, but what then? You'll still get people part exchanging games, only this time they've lost more money because they charge $40 instead.
He is suggesting that second hand game sales for consoles effects revenue more than the pirating of PC games, which might well be true. A second hand game sale is lost revenue as is piracy. When a person uses part exchange as a rental service, that's when it becomes a big problem.
Making the game worth $60 is a nice idea, but you will still get people buying a game day 1 then part exchanging it a few days down the line once they're done, no matter how good it was. They could cut the price, but what then? You'll still get people part exchanging games, only this time they've lost more money because they charge $40 instead.
What's funny is my local gamestop posted hand written signs on the cash register that said "sorry we are no longer accepting used copies of Fable 2 at this location" Same thing happened with Fable 3.
So see no harm done LH, the used market don't want your garbage games either.
So see no harm done LH, the used market don't want your garbage games either.
Well I'm gonna go close down the Gamestop site and fire up my torrents then. Good to know, this way I can save money.
@Pokota
That's backwards. The used games market is a symptom of the high prices of games, not the cause.
Also, who contributes more to the games industry in the following case?
NewPurchaser picks up a new game for $59.99. He plays it for a week or two, and then he trades it in for a $50 credit and gets the next new game for, essentially $9.99. He repeats this for a full year, and let's say he does it for 40 games to keep the math simple. The total amount of cash he's dumped into the industry is $449.60.
UsedPurchaser picks up a used game for $49.99. If it's good, he'll keep it and if it sucks, he'll trade it in for a $40 credit and grab another game. Let's say that he keeps 20 games over the course of the year and he trades in 20 games, so that he matches the same purchasing habits of NewPurchaser. The total amount of cash he's dumped into the industry is $1199.60. Or more than twice what the good, "new game only" purchaser did.
Now, the money for the profit has to come from somewhere. And strictly speaking by the math, more of it is coming from the used purchasers than the new purchasers who trade their games in.
That's backwards. The used games market is a symptom of the high prices of games, not the cause.
Also, who contributes more to the games industry in the following case?
NewPurchaser picks up a new game for $59.99. He plays it for a week or two, and then he trades it in for a $50 credit and gets the next new game for, essentially $9.99. He repeats this for a full year, and let's say he does it for 40 games to keep the math simple. The total amount of cash he's dumped into the industry is $449.60.
UsedPurchaser picks up a used game for $49.99. If it's good, he'll keep it and if it sucks, he'll trade it in for a $40 credit and grab another game. Let's say that he keeps 20 games over the course of the year and he trades in 20 games, so that he matches the same purchasing habits of NewPurchaser. The total amount of cash he's dumped into the industry is $1199.60. Or more than twice what the good, "new game only" purchaser did.
Now, the money for the profit has to come from somewhere. And strictly speaking by the math, more of it is coming from the used purchasers than the new purchasers who trade their games in.
Jim are you fucking retarded? How fucking stupid can you be?
If you cant figure out how used games are worse then piracy, how can you even think?
Used games: 1 copy is bought, this is traded in at a store, someone buys this copy, this someone trades in said game and gets very little money back, then someone else buys that copy.
This goes on and on, except no new copy is bought.
Are you sure you ain't mentally challenged?
If you cant figure out how used games are worse then piracy, how can you even think?
Used games: 1 copy is bought, this is traded in at a store, someone buys this copy, this someone trades in said game and gets very little money back, then someone else buys that copy.
This goes on and on, except no new copy is bought.
Are you sure you ain't mentally challenged?
I'd be managing investor expectations as well if I was releasing Fable III on PC at the same time as The Witcher 2.
This sounds like a 'hey remember when I said this' for some future earnings call.
This sounds like a 'hey remember when I said this' for some future earnings call.
@Meteorscrap I think you are off a bit in your statement there, while the guy with Gamestop credit only pays $9.99 Gamestop is still essentially paying the $50 towards the new game so the industry is still getting paid full price for those games even though he is only paying $9.99 out of his pocket.
@meteorscrap I'm not sure, but I think you're overlooking a critical point: used game sales and new game sales are not part of the same industry. The developers and publishers only get paid for new sales. Used sales are profit for the retailer only.
Also, by this logic, letting your friend borrow a game (free), must be like borderline grand theft, holy shit.
@Tristrix
Where do you buy used games, then, and does it accurately reflect what the average used game customer pays? This is a practical question, not a philosophical one. I could be mistaken, but I think GameStop does see the most used game revenue, and thus has the biggest effect on the industry.
@meteorscrap
Both your examples make use of the used game market. That doesn't make any sense when we're talking about the used game market existing or not.
Where do you buy used games, then, and does it accurately reflect what the average used game customer pays? This is a practical question, not a philosophical one. I could be mistaken, but I think GameStop does see the most used game revenue, and thus has the biggest effect on the industry.
@meteorscrap
Both your examples make use of the used game market. That doesn't make any sense when we're talking about the used game market existing or not.
Anyone who keeps bringing up places like eBay, yardsales, and craigslist should probably just step out of the room quietly. They arn't the problem, and honestly that isn't 10% as scummy as the crap stores like Gamestop pull. 5 bucks off a "new" used title means all 55 bucks goes straight to Gamestop, none to devs. Then when you go and trade that game in a week later they give you 25 bucks IN STORE CREDIT. and go and sell the game for 55 bucks again. I understnad that what they're doing is legal, and I understand consumers can save a margonal amount of money from it, and I understand this is how capitism can work. But to say that what they're doing is in any way FAIR to the people who worked on these games, IS A LOAD OF BULLSHIT.
Maybe Lionhead should make a game worth actually purchasing. Every time I play a fable game, I expect it to be better than the last, and I'm always wrong. It's always fix one thing, break two others.
I used to do both. Now, thanks to Steam and a job, I do neither.
I used to do both. Now, thanks to Steam and a job, I do neither.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with Lionhead, but I think you're just "chatting shit" when you don't take their view seriously at all.
Here's how it's different: piracy means someone gets something for free. However, it does not necessarily indicate a lost sale. As virtually everyone who knows anything about piracy has said time and time again based on ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE: pirated games should simply not be seen as lost sales. They likely impact sales, but it isn't a 1:1 ratio (and it's probably far, far smaller). Typical pirates pirate dozens of games a year, while most purchasers of games only purchase, at most, maybe something on the order of a half a dozen a year. Regardless, the takeaway here is that most piracy is done by a small group of young people who wouldn't buy most of the games they pirate.
Used game sales, however, directly represent a lost sale. Clearly, this is someone who was going to buy the game, but, now, they won't buy it new. Obviously, used game prices can help to turn someone who wouldn't buy a game into someone who would, but, typically, used game prices aren't even -that- much cheaper than new games. It's a relative value, which, honestly, probably doesn't correspond terribly well to our individual elasticities of gaming demand.
As for the argument that used games help to finance purchases of new games: this is true.. to a point. However, most of the money actually goes to supporting Gamestop. Let me put it this way: let's say you get 20 dollars for a trade in of a newish game you bought for 60. So you buy a new 60 dollar game with the 20 dollars you got from selling the old one.
What if we just, in one fell swoop, got rid of used games AND decreased the price of games by 20 dollars? Now, the person who paid 60, got 20 back, and used it to pay 40 for a new game... pays 40 then 40 again. Gamestop loses out, obviously, but the game developer itself gains considerably. A 60 dollar sale becomes two 40 dollar sales. Also, the initial purchaser gets to keep all their games.
How do we know that this model would work? Let me think, where can I find super cheap games which cannot be resold....
http://store.steampowered.com/
Here's how it's different: piracy means someone gets something for free. However, it does not necessarily indicate a lost sale. As virtually everyone who knows anything about piracy has said time and time again based on ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE: pirated games should simply not be seen as lost sales. They likely impact sales, but it isn't a 1:1 ratio (and it's probably far, far smaller). Typical pirates pirate dozens of games a year, while most purchasers of games only purchase, at most, maybe something on the order of a half a dozen a year. Regardless, the takeaway here is that most piracy is done by a small group of young people who wouldn't buy most of the games they pirate.
Used game sales, however, directly represent a lost sale. Clearly, this is someone who was going to buy the game, but, now, they won't buy it new. Obviously, used game prices can help to turn someone who wouldn't buy a game into someone who would, but, typically, used game prices aren't even -that- much cheaper than new games. It's a relative value, which, honestly, probably doesn't correspond terribly well to our individual elasticities of gaming demand.
As for the argument that used games help to finance purchases of new games: this is true.. to a point. However, most of the money actually goes to supporting Gamestop. Let me put it this way: let's say you get 20 dollars for a trade in of a newish game you bought for 60. So you buy a new 60 dollar game with the 20 dollars you got from selling the old one.
What if we just, in one fell swoop, got rid of used games AND decreased the price of games by 20 dollars? Now, the person who paid 60, got 20 back, and used it to pay 40 for a new game... pays 40 then 40 again. Gamestop loses out, obviously, but the game developer itself gains considerably. A 60 dollar sale becomes two 40 dollar sales. Also, the initial purchaser gets to keep all their games.
How do we know that this model would work? Let me think, where can I find super cheap games which cannot be resold....
http://store.steampowered.com/
Things went the way of the hoola hoop when Bullfrog was shut down. It's hard for me to even relate to Lionhead these days since they took the easier console path and basically left PC gamers in the cold with soggy console leftovers. We want Bullfrog quality titles, not plastic non-replayable console games.
Regarding piracy and used games; with gas at $4.20 locally, milk at $3.25 per gallon and food and everything else ready to skyrocket...used games are more important than ever to the consumer. The game has probably already been registered and used online and is generally useless...so, asking $5 isn't a crime in my book. However, charging $60 for a retail product with no meat that is buggy that we won't ever replay is asking a bit much, as well.
Regarding piracy and used games; with gas at $4.20 locally, milk at $3.25 per gallon and food and everything else ready to skyrocket...used games are more important than ever to the consumer. The game has probably already been registered and used online and is generally useless...so, asking $5 isn't a crime in my book. However, charging $60 for a retail product with no meat that is buggy that we won't ever replay is asking a bit much, as well.
I love how everyone is suddenly giving a shit about what a *combat designer* has to say! Who gives a shit?? He's the effing combat designer! He knows fuck all about ANYTHING ELSE that we should take seriously. (Granted, he still sounds smarter than most of Lionhead's mouthpieces, but how much is that really saying??)
@SephirothX
Movie studios fought that war decades ago, when they went against video rental chains. They even tried different tactics. I'll bet you don't remember when new VHS tapes would come out at around $100? Rental chains would pay those prices to get a movie at release (and buy multiple copies at that price). A few weeks later, the same movie would be released at the lower mass-market price. By the time Netflix and the like came around, movie studios had long hammered out most of the deals and procedures that would let them obtain money with a rental market.
Used movies were never as much of an issue as rentals. Plus, VHS tapes degraded with use and age, movies are cheaper than videogames, and movies tend to drop in price better than videogames.
Movie studios fought that war decades ago, when they went against video rental chains. They even tried different tactics. I'll bet you don't remember when new VHS tapes would come out at around $100? Rental chains would pay those prices to get a movie at release (and buy multiple copies at that price). A few weeks later, the same movie would be released at the lower mass-market price. By the time Netflix and the like came around, movie studios had long hammered out most of the deals and procedures that would let them obtain money with a rental market.
Used movies were never as much of an issue as rentals. Plus, VHS tapes degraded with use and age, movies are cheaper than videogames, and movies tend to drop in price better than videogames.
Really simple .... start charging (you might want to sit down for this) less for games.
$3-5 off the cost of a $60 game during its launch .... means nothing o me.
I'm more than happy to wait out a $60 until it drops significantly in price say to $20-30 (maybe less). If a used game sale can facilitate that sooner than waiting on the regular game to drop in price .... guess what I'm going to do.
And there are even a few games That I will break down and buy at full price ... they are few and far between (ProTip: Make better games)
Its part of that competitive market thing ... you know where there are a ton of game developers all vying for my dollar and I'm going to buy the best games first. If your games don't cut it ...... I'll wait for it to bargain bin. Price point also figures into that, If your game isn't quite all that and a bag of chips .... charge less than $60 for it and no I don't mean 59.99 or even 58.99, think more like $30-35.
Spouting off some entitlement bullshit about how used games are worse than piracy and you should be getting residual income from every game transaction from release to the end of the universe ......well I already said it, its bullshit.
we can live without your games .... you can't live without our dollars. By all means keep trying to screw your remaining customers over and see exactly how far that gets your asses.
$3-5 off the cost of a $60 game during its launch .... means nothing o me.
I'm more than happy to wait out a $60 until it drops significantly in price say to $20-30 (maybe less). If a used game sale can facilitate that sooner than waiting on the regular game to drop in price .... guess what I'm going to do.
And there are even a few games That I will break down and buy at full price ... they are few and far between (ProTip: Make better games)
Its part of that competitive market thing ... you know where there are a ton of game developers all vying for my dollar and I'm going to buy the best games first. If your games don't cut it ...... I'll wait for it to bargain bin. Price point also figures into that, If your game isn't quite all that and a bag of chips .... charge less than $60 for it and no I don't mean 59.99 or even 58.99, think more like $30-35.
Spouting off some entitlement bullshit about how used games are worse than piracy and you should be getting residual income from every game transaction from release to the end of the universe ......well I already said it, its bullshit.
we can live without your games .... you can't live without our dollars. By all means keep trying to screw your remaining customers over and see exactly how far that gets your asses.
I hate to sound like such a Valve fanboy, but it really looks like they have laid out the template to deal with BOTH piracy and used sales. As a former console gamer and a long time PC gamer (and occasional former pirate) the value they offer just can't be matched right now.
Sony and Microsoft must be thinking long and hard about going pure digital delivery for their next console cycle. I'm not sure how Walmart would feel about that... let alone Gamestop, but I can definitely see how developers like Lionhead would appreciate it.
Sony and Microsoft must be thinking long and hard about going pure digital delivery for their next console cycle. I'm not sure how Walmart would feel about that... let alone Gamestop, but I can definitely see how developers like Lionhead would appreciate it.
@Frogboss
Thing is, the money has to come from somewhere. The $59.99 represents the profit for the publisher, distributor, and retailer. That is the cost of the game, according to the initial profit demanded by the publisher. Gamestop needs the $59.99 because it cost $35 at the distributor. The distributor needs the $35 from GameStop because it cost THEM $20-$25 from the publisher.
So when my example guy purchases his second game from GameStop by trading in the first, the money doesn't come from the ether to pay for the extra $50 in credit. That credit simply doesn't exist for him without the used game market. If it doesn't exist, he doesn't buy a game for that week because his budget is $9.99, not $59.99.
@pokota
So your argument against the used game market existing is "If I wish really hard for fairies to make it so, everything will be okay if the used game market just ceases to exist!" That's your argument? Because you've provided no solid reasoning against the used game market as a whole except "Oh! But the poor, starving publishers!"
The used game market is an intrisic part of the games industry as it currently stands, at least as far as consoles go. Every used game obviously began as a new game, and people wouldn't trade in their games if they didn't have strong incentive to do so. That incentive, obviously, is the high prices the games industry charges for their games, a legacy of the time when the cartridges on which games were stored were expensive to produce. Games today literally cost pennies to make at the production level. There is obviously a very significant market for games at lower prices than publishers are demanding, and rather than take advantage of it publishers are stuffing cotton in their ears and refusing to listen to reason or sense and insisting that every game is worth $59.99 when that is clearly not the case.
The used game market is a symptom of the high prices of new games, not the cause of high prices.
Thing is, the money has to come from somewhere. The $59.99 represents the profit for the publisher, distributor, and retailer. That is the cost of the game, according to the initial profit demanded by the publisher. Gamestop needs the $59.99 because it cost $35 at the distributor. The distributor needs the $35 from GameStop because it cost THEM $20-$25 from the publisher.
So when my example guy purchases his second game from GameStop by trading in the first, the money doesn't come from the ether to pay for the extra $50 in credit. That credit simply doesn't exist for him without the used game market. If it doesn't exist, he doesn't buy a game for that week because his budget is $9.99, not $59.99.
@pokota
So your argument against the used game market existing is "If I wish really hard for fairies to make it so, everything will be okay if the used game market just ceases to exist!" That's your argument? Because you've provided no solid reasoning against the used game market as a whole except "Oh! But the poor, starving publishers!"
The used game market is an intrisic part of the games industry as it currently stands, at least as far as consoles go. Every used game obviously began as a new game, and people wouldn't trade in their games if they didn't have strong incentive to do so. That incentive, obviously, is the high prices the games industry charges for their games, a legacy of the time when the cartridges on which games were stored were expensive to produce. Games today literally cost pennies to make at the production level. There is obviously a very significant market for games at lower prices than publishers are demanding, and rather than take advantage of it publishers are stuffing cotton in their ears and refusing to listen to reason or sense and insisting that every game is worth $59.99 when that is clearly not the case.
The used game market is a symptom of the high prices of new games, not the cause of high prices.
You know, I don't think he intended to say that "used games are worse than piracy" if you actually read the article. He's not assigning a moral dimension to it. He's just saying it's a problem, i.e. Obviously pirates wouldn't have paid anything in the first place, but used game purchasers represent buyers that might potentially have bought a new copy, which translates to lost money.
It came out badly, and he should probably just have kept his mouth shut, but identifying a problem isn't the same as shitting on gamers. Ah, well. Continue to do what you do best, internet... read a headline, skip the article, and get ENRAGED. :)
It came out badly, and he should probably just have kept his mouth shut, but identifying a problem isn't the same as shitting on gamers. Ah, well. Continue to do what you do best, internet... read a headline, skip the article, and get ENRAGED. :)
follow
