surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
"The problem with you're "developers are going out of business" statements is that you took a fact and disputed it..with I'm not even sure. The problem with the video game industry right now is that the Devs don't get enough of the money, while EA, Activision, etc eat it all up. Then close their studios. "
You act like these companies close development studios for no reason. In actuality, they close development studios which, in their view, are not likely to make a profit. So.. we are back to my world, where money actually serves a purpose. I know it sounds crazy, but that's sort of how capitalism works.
"The problem with you're "developers are going out of business" statements is that you took a fact and disputed it..with I'm not even sure. "
What fact did I dispute? That developers are going out of business? Please, make sure you have a point before you post. It saves us both time.
"And also technically, if you buy NEW at gamestop, all that $60 goes to them. They bought the game for like $50 and they keep the $10 profit. When they run out/low, then they'll buy more copies from the publisher, but it's still their money to spend. That's true for every retailer." - True, but it doesn't change the basic situation. If GameStop had more incentive to buy new games, then they would buy more new games. As is, they don't since new games would actually compete with their much more lucrative pirated--err I mean used games.
"and honestly, I'd rather spend $50 on a used copy of a game I can return from a store than $30 I can't from some guy online. I usually buy my games new, but I'll go used if it's a title I'm unsure about."
The sales I buy from usually involve Amazon, Best Buy, GameStop (I'm fine with buying new from GameStop, just not used), Wal-Mart, Target, etc. These are all companies that are relatively easy to return products to....
"And how do used games hurt? And how are video games different than books, movies, ANYTHING that also sells used merchandise. "
Let me ask you this: we're supposed to be talking about online passes, right? And how monstrous they are?
What's the equivalent for books and movies? How many books launch with online multiplayer gaming support? How many books keep that support across multiple resells?
Wait, what's that? There's no real analogue? Wow, it's almost like they are entirely different industries or something!
In any case, used games hurt because they meet a unit of demand without providing revenue to the producer. This actually isn't a problem when used games are sold directly from person to person, as they can work out a reasonable price and this price will be priced into the initial purchase. However, GameStop makes SHITLOADS of money off of used games. This means that the used game pricing market is all kinds of stupid.
Let me try to illustrate it like this:
Let's imagine a world with used games and without used games. Let's also assume that the universe of gamers have a set amount of money that they are willing to spend on games.
Scenario 1, with used games:
Gamer 1 purchases game for 60 bucks
G1 then sells game to Gamestop for 20 bucks
Gamestop resells it for 50 bucks
Total amount spent: 90 bucks. Total amount received by game developer: 60 bucks (let's ignore all the other people who see a cut of the retail pie, as it doesn't really matter to capture the full idea)
Scenario 2, without used games
Gamer 1 and 2 are unwilling to purchase the game immediately because of the high price. However, soon, it goes on sale for 45 because of the lower used-game-fueled demand.
Both gamers buy game for 45 bucks
Total amount spent: 90 bucks. Total amount that goes to game developers: 90 bucks.
Sure, G1 in the second world spends 5 more dollars.. but they get a permanent game. G2 spends 5 less, and they get a new game instead of a used game. Meanwhile, that's 50% more profit for the game developer, which PLAYS A GOD DAMN ROLE IN DEVELOPMENT
Obviously, this is meant to be an abstract generalization. But that's the basic idea.
You act like these companies close development studios for no reason. In actuality, they close development studios which, in their view, are not likely to make a profit. So.. we are back to my world, where money actually serves a purpose. I know it sounds crazy, but that's sort of how capitalism works.
"The problem with you're "developers are going out of business" statements is that you took a fact and disputed it..with I'm not even sure. "
What fact did I dispute? That developers are going out of business? Please, make sure you have a point before you post. It saves us both time.
"And also technically, if you buy NEW at gamestop, all that $60 goes to them. They bought the game for like $50 and they keep the $10 profit. When they run out/low, then they'll buy more copies from the publisher, but it's still their money to spend. That's true for every retailer." - True, but it doesn't change the basic situation. If GameStop had more incentive to buy new games, then they would buy more new games. As is, they don't since new games would actually compete with their much more lucrative pirated--err I mean used games.
"and honestly, I'd rather spend $50 on a used copy of a game I can return from a store than $30 I can't from some guy online. I usually buy my games new, but I'll go used if it's a title I'm unsure about."
The sales I buy from usually involve Amazon, Best Buy, GameStop (I'm fine with buying new from GameStop, just not used), Wal-Mart, Target, etc. These are all companies that are relatively easy to return products to....
"And how do used games hurt? And how are video games different than books, movies, ANYTHING that also sells used merchandise. "
Let me ask you this: we're supposed to be talking about online passes, right? And how monstrous they are?
What's the equivalent for books and movies? How many books launch with online multiplayer gaming support? How many books keep that support across multiple resells?
Wait, what's that? There's no real analogue? Wow, it's almost like they are entirely different industries or something!
In any case, used games hurt because they meet a unit of demand without providing revenue to the producer. This actually isn't a problem when used games are sold directly from person to person, as they can work out a reasonable price and this price will be priced into the initial purchase. However, GameStop makes SHITLOADS of money off of used games. This means that the used game pricing market is all kinds of stupid.
Let me try to illustrate it like this:
Let's imagine a world with used games and without used games. Let's also assume that the universe of gamers have a set amount of money that they are willing to spend on games.
Scenario 1, with used games:
Gamer 1 purchases game for 60 bucks
G1 then sells game to Gamestop for 20 bucks
Gamestop resells it for 50 bucks
Total amount spent: 90 bucks. Total amount received by game developer: 60 bucks (let's ignore all the other people who see a cut of the retail pie, as it doesn't really matter to capture the full idea)
Scenario 2, without used games
Gamer 1 and 2 are unwilling to purchase the game immediately because of the high price. However, soon, it goes on sale for 45 because of the lower used-game-fueled demand.
Both gamers buy game for 45 bucks
Total amount spent: 90 bucks. Total amount that goes to game developers: 90 bucks.
Sure, G1 in the second world spends 5 more dollars.. but they get a permanent game. G2 spends 5 less, and they get a new game instead of a used game. Meanwhile, that's 50% more profit for the game developer, which PLAYS A GOD DAMN ROLE IN DEVELOPMENT
Obviously, this is meant to be an abstract generalization. But that's the basic idea.
@MrSwishaTwista but this time its a pass for all the online part not just a part of the maps or a level restriction
@Jhom Smith
My point is that used sales = more server load on average fir every disk. There are costs associated with that. The snarky "goes against physics" comment is I'll-conceived at best and both ignorant and cocky at worst.
My point is that used sales = more server load on average fir every disk. There are costs associated with that. The snarky "goes against physics" comment is I'll-conceived at best and both ignorant and cocky at worst.
I'm just going to point out to those of you who keep mentioning about how this is supposed to benefit the developers: Only if those developers are self-publishing.
While you're thinking about that statement, I urge you to look up this term: work-for-hire.
Because that's the typical basis for compensation for the developers.
Not one cent of this is actually going to the developers, it's going to the publisher. The developers? Already got paid.
And I should point out that the used market, especially in the case of the games industry, actually helps drive the new market. Once trade-in value drops, people are generally going to be less inclined to purchase new, because they can no longer leverage trade-ins to offset the costs associated with buying the latest releases.
I roll my eyes when I hear calls of "support the developers" as though the games industry is a charity case. If they make a good game, there is no need to "rally support," is there? As long as the product has value, it will sell.
@ Killias2
I'd try correcting you, but you seem to enjoy being on your own personal high horse a little too much, and you don't strike me as one who is so much interested in the debate but as one who enjoys being "right" and with the majority.
While you're thinking about that statement, I urge you to look up this term: work-for-hire.
Because that's the typical basis for compensation for the developers.
Not one cent of this is actually going to the developers, it's going to the publisher. The developers? Already got paid.
And I should point out that the used market, especially in the case of the games industry, actually helps drive the new market. Once trade-in value drops, people are generally going to be less inclined to purchase new, because they can no longer leverage trade-ins to offset the costs associated with buying the latest releases.
I roll my eyes when I hear calls of "support the developers" as though the games industry is a charity case. If they make a good game, there is no need to "rally support," is there? As long as the product has value, it will sell.
@ Killias2
I'd try correcting you, but you seem to enjoy being on your own personal high horse a little too much, and you don't strike me as one who is so much interested in the debate but as one who enjoys being "right" and with the majority.
OneRed, please, go read some economics.
Then, when you're done, come back, and we'll talk. Chances are, you'll be on my side.
Then, when you're done, come back, and we'll talk. Chances are, you'll be on my side.
It's funny because all this could be remedied by having dedicated servers, then they couldn't bitch about server costs.
"I'd try correcting you, but you seem to enjoy being on your own personal high horse a little too much, and you don't strike me as one who is so much interested in the debate but as one who enjoys being "right" and with the majority."
I'm just sick and tired of all the God damn self-righteous bullshit emerging from the online pass issue. I was sick of it two months ago. Now, I'm just ready to start screwing with people.
In any case, I don't see how I'm enjoying being with the majority.. as I'm by myself. If I enjoy being right.. well.. is that so much of an issue?
"While you're thinking about that statement, I urge you to look up this term: work-for-hire.
Because that's the typical basis for compensation for the developers.
Not one cent of this is actually going to the developers, it's going to the publisher. The developers? Already got paid. "
You're not really thinking economically. Depending on the contract, the developers of the specific game might not get paid more after the fact. However, the fact that they were hired TO BEGIN WITH depends on PERCEPTIONS OF PROFITABILITY. If a publisher doesn't think a project will be profitable, then they won't hire developers to begin with.
Money matters people. All of you who act like money going to game companies just disappears into a black hole just do not understand the fundamentals of market economics.
I'm just sick and tired of all the God damn self-righteous bullshit emerging from the online pass issue. I was sick of it two months ago. Now, I'm just ready to start screwing with people.
In any case, I don't see how I'm enjoying being with the majority.. as I'm by myself. If I enjoy being right.. well.. is that so much of an issue?
"While you're thinking about that statement, I urge you to look up this term: work-for-hire.
Because that's the typical basis for compensation for the developers.
Not one cent of this is actually going to the developers, it's going to the publisher. The developers? Already got paid. "
You're not really thinking economically. Depending on the contract, the developers of the specific game might not get paid more after the fact. However, the fact that they were hired TO BEGIN WITH depends on PERCEPTIONS OF PROFITABILITY. If a publisher doesn't think a project will be profitable, then they won't hire developers to begin with.
Money matters people. All of you who act like money going to game companies just disappears into a black hole just do not understand the fundamentals of market economics.
"I also love the figures you toss out nonchalantly. From what I gather, the U.S. console market is around 8-10 billion dollars a year. GameStop's used game revenue, however, floats around 1-2 billion dollars a year." -- Again, if you want the numbers, I will pull them up. They are not at all hard to find."
Here are the numbers: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/07/05/pcgaming-trends-2011/ - Consoles are at 8 billion a year in the U.S.
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/23/gamestop-used-games-revenue-estimated-to-be-2-billion/ - Gamestop used game revenue was 2 billion in the U.S. in 2008.
Is that good enough for you? Or do you just want to find numbers that support your "argument"?
"You make zero sense in your arguments, but I'll humor you in the possibly vain hope you learn something"
Wow, you're an asshole.
"Your assessment that the industry would make more money without used games is conjecture at best. Again, there is no proof that used games hurt the industry, and there is plenty of anecdotal proof that they help. If you want the numbers, I'll provide them for you."
Proof is hard to come by with economics, especially when there is such little data available. That's why economists typically use models to predict economic behavior. If you have an issue with my argument, attack its assumptions (theoretically or empirically). That's pretty much how this process works.
""Used games are blatantly harmful for the industry". Again, if you want numbers, I would be more than happy to provide them. It is not like it is hard to find Gamestop's annual revenue reports."
I'd love to see your numbers here. Again, just attack my assumptions.
"
"The only argument that really stands about used games is that they somehow finance new game purchases. I highly question the impact of this, but, even if it is true, the world would be better off without used games. Why? Because, if used games really have that impact, it should lead to less new game sales." -- This goes against how a used market actually works, and I'll give you an example in a second. As far as your doubt as to whether or not this has an impact.... you guessed it! I'll provide actual numbers if you want them.
As for that example. In the last few years, the new car market tanked. When the new market became unhealthy, the price of a used car skyrocketed to the point where used vehicles became nearly as expensive as new ones as demand started outpacing supply. As a result, the used market tanked. Now that the new market is rebounding, the used market is becoming healthy again. The point is that you cannot have a strong used market without a strong new market, the used market lives and dies by the health of the new market."
Your argument rests on comparing the car market with the video game market?
Wow. You're really desperate. Pro-tip: the used car market is not, in any way, comparable to the used game market.
Why? Let me put it this way, why do people buy new cars instead of used cars? Hrmm, maybe because they're more reliable; they last a lot longer; and they work a lot better.
How about new games and used games? Well.. they both pretty much offer the exact same experience. Hrmm.... That seems like an awfully large difference right there.
Here are the numbers: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/07/05/pcgaming-trends-2011/ - Consoles are at 8 billion a year in the U.S.
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/01/23/gamestop-used-games-revenue-estimated-to-be-2-billion/ - Gamestop used game revenue was 2 billion in the U.S. in 2008.
Is that good enough for you? Or do you just want to find numbers that support your "argument"?
"You make zero sense in your arguments, but I'll humor you in the possibly vain hope you learn something"
Wow, you're an asshole.
"Your assessment that the industry would make more money without used games is conjecture at best. Again, there is no proof that used games hurt the industry, and there is plenty of anecdotal proof that they help. If you want the numbers, I'll provide them for you."
Proof is hard to come by with economics, especially when there is such little data available. That's why economists typically use models to predict economic behavior. If you have an issue with my argument, attack its assumptions (theoretically or empirically). That's pretty much how this process works.
""Used games are blatantly harmful for the industry". Again, if you want numbers, I would be more than happy to provide them. It is not like it is hard to find Gamestop's annual revenue reports."
I'd love to see your numbers here. Again, just attack my assumptions.
"
"The only argument that really stands about used games is that they somehow finance new game purchases. I highly question the impact of this, but, even if it is true, the world would be better off without used games. Why? Because, if used games really have that impact, it should lead to less new game sales." -- This goes against how a used market actually works, and I'll give you an example in a second. As far as your doubt as to whether or not this has an impact.... you guessed it! I'll provide actual numbers if you want them.
As for that example. In the last few years, the new car market tanked. When the new market became unhealthy, the price of a used car skyrocketed to the point where used vehicles became nearly as expensive as new ones as demand started outpacing supply. As a result, the used market tanked. Now that the new market is rebounding, the used market is becoming healthy again. The point is that you cannot have a strong used market without a strong new market, the used market lives and dies by the health of the new market."
Your argument rests on comparing the car market with the video game market?
Wow. You're really desperate. Pro-tip: the used car market is not, in any way, comparable to the used game market.
Why? Let me put it this way, why do people buy new cars instead of used cars? Hrmm, maybe because they're more reliable; they last a lot longer; and they work a lot better.
How about new games and used games? Well.. they both pretty much offer the exact same experience. Hrmm.... That seems like an awfully large difference right there.
That's just plain stupid. Most of the data is p2p anyways. They had to specifically design the game so it needs to use central servers, since most of the game data is p2p. Corporate run servers are generally a bad idea because get they shut down. It's about corporate control and limiting used games, not a technical decision. Don't be a glib and pretend that you need to recoup unnecessary costs.
@killias: Have you ever tried returned a new game because you played with it and didn't like it? You know why that doesn't work, right? it's because of the "economics" word you like. But until you come back with actual evidence to back up ANY of your claims, just stop and think who you're defending. And by defending, who you're battling.
The big issue is since gaming has been mainstream, so has used games. In fact, I'd say the game industry is where it is because of the used marketplace. Go to a Gamestop and ask how many used copies of Black Ops they have. Go back in a month, and I GUARANTEE you that number will be much bigger. Why? because people will trade it for MW3. I'd almost (ALMOST because it is close to release) bet that you'll see a lot of Battlefield 3 traded in for MW3. because of this, two developers see $60, and not just one. If you think the casual gamer would buy two FPS's so close to another and keep and play both, then you're mistaken.
Game developers and gamers are at war, and there's no reason for it. The ironic thing, is if they take the used pass out of the NEW cases, made people buy it anyway...but dropped the prices of new games $10..they'red be ALOT more people being forgiving about it.
See, I can ramble off facts without evidence too ;-)
The big issue is since gaming has been mainstream, so has used games. In fact, I'd say the game industry is where it is because of the used marketplace. Go to a Gamestop and ask how many used copies of Black Ops they have. Go back in a month, and I GUARANTEE you that number will be much bigger. Why? because people will trade it for MW3. I'd almost (ALMOST because it is close to release) bet that you'll see a lot of Battlefield 3 traded in for MW3. because of this, two developers see $60, and not just one. If you think the casual gamer would buy two FPS's so close to another and keep and play both, then you're mistaken.
Game developers and gamers are at war, and there's no reason for it. The ironic thing, is if they take the used pass out of the NEW cases, made people buy it anyway...but dropped the prices of new games $10..they'red be ALOT more people being forgiving about it.
See, I can ramble off facts without evidence too ;-)
"Have you ever tried returned a new game because you played with it and didn't like it? You know why that doesn't work, right? it's because of the "economics" word you like. But until you come back with actual evidence to back up ANY of your claims, just stop and think who you're defending. And by defending, who you're battling. "
If you're not sure if you'll like it, then try a demo or read reviews. I think too many people rush to go get games on release day. If anything, I think the used game market is helping to perpetuate 60 dollar opening day prices because developers want to make money before used games absorb all the sales and because initial buyers often turn around and resell the game.
"The big issue is since gaming has been mainstream, so has used games. In fact, I'd say the game industry is where it is because of the used marketplace. Go to a Gamestop and ask how many used copies of Black Ops they have. Go back in a month, and I GUARANTEE you that number will be much bigger. Why? because people will trade it for MW3. I'd almost (ALMOST because it is close to release) bet that you'll see a lot of Battlefield 3 traded in for MW3. because of this, two developers see $60, and not just one. If you think the casual gamer would buy two FPS's so close to another and keep and play both, then you're mistaken. "
You're giving me the "used games fuel new game purchases" argument.
This has been the main focus of my half of the argument.
Any money that goes to GameStop is money lost from the game development economy. As a result, we should prefer a system dependent on producers/developers/retailers using drops in prices to encourage purchases instead of used games.
Here is my abstract generalization of what that world looks like:
"Scenario 1, with used games:
Gamer 1 purchases game for 60 bucks
G1 then sells game to Gamestop for 20 bucks
Gamestop resells it for 50 bucks
Total amount spent: 90 bucks. Total amount received by game developer: 60 bucks (let's ignore all the other people who see a cut of the retail pie, as it doesn't really matter to capture the full idea)
Scenario 2, without used games
Gamer 1 and 2 are unwilling to purchase the game immediately because of the high price. However, soon, it goes on sale for 45 because of the lower used-game-fueled demand.
Both gamers buy game for 45 bucks
Total amount spent: 90 bucks. Total amount that goes to game developers: 90 bucks.
Sure, G1 in the second world spends 5 more dollars.. but they get a permanent game. G2 spends 5 less, and they get a new game instead of a used game. Meanwhile, that's 50% more profit for the game developer, which PLAYS A GOD DAMN ROLE IN DEVELOPMENT "
"Game developers and gamers are at war, and there's no reason for it. The ironic thing, is if they take the used pass out of the NEW cases, made people buy it anyway...but dropped the prices of new games $10..they'red be ALOT more people being forgiving about it. "
Game developers are gamers are at war? If you think so, then stop gaming. Obviously, the big bad game developers will just keep bleeding you dry, right?
"See, I can ramble off facts without evidence too ;-)"
Yep, you sure can. Just like everyone else on your side, ;-)
If you're not sure if you'll like it, then try a demo or read reviews. I think too many people rush to go get games on release day. If anything, I think the used game market is helping to perpetuate 60 dollar opening day prices because developers want to make money before used games absorb all the sales and because initial buyers often turn around and resell the game.
"The big issue is since gaming has been mainstream, so has used games. In fact, I'd say the game industry is where it is because of the used marketplace. Go to a Gamestop and ask how many used copies of Black Ops they have. Go back in a month, and I GUARANTEE you that number will be much bigger. Why? because people will trade it for MW3. I'd almost (ALMOST because it is close to release) bet that you'll see a lot of Battlefield 3 traded in for MW3. because of this, two developers see $60, and not just one. If you think the casual gamer would buy two FPS's so close to another and keep and play both, then you're mistaken. "
You're giving me the "used games fuel new game purchases" argument.
This has been the main focus of my half of the argument.
Any money that goes to GameStop is money lost from the game development economy. As a result, we should prefer a system dependent on producers/developers/retailers using drops in prices to encourage purchases instead of used games.
Here is my abstract generalization of what that world looks like:
"Scenario 1, with used games:
Gamer 1 purchases game for 60 bucks
G1 then sells game to Gamestop for 20 bucks
Gamestop resells it for 50 bucks
Total amount spent: 90 bucks. Total amount received by game developer: 60 bucks (let's ignore all the other people who see a cut of the retail pie, as it doesn't really matter to capture the full idea)
Scenario 2, without used games
Gamer 1 and 2 are unwilling to purchase the game immediately because of the high price. However, soon, it goes on sale for 45 because of the lower used-game-fueled demand.
Both gamers buy game for 45 bucks
Total amount spent: 90 bucks. Total amount that goes to game developers: 90 bucks.
Sure, G1 in the second world spends 5 more dollars.. but they get a permanent game. G2 spends 5 less, and they get a new game instead of a used game. Meanwhile, that's 50% more profit for the game developer, which PLAYS A GOD DAMN ROLE IN DEVELOPMENT "
"Game developers and gamers are at war, and there's no reason for it. The ironic thing, is if they take the used pass out of the NEW cases, made people buy it anyway...but dropped the prices of new games $10..they'red be ALOT more people being forgiving about it. "
Game developers are gamers are at war? If you think so, then stop gaming. Obviously, the big bad game developers will just keep bleeding you dry, right?
"See, I can ramble off facts without evidence too ;-)"
Yep, you sure can. Just like everyone else on your side, ;-)
@killias
You don't seem to understand how economics work at all, and you haven't responded with any evidence that supports your stance. Your "side" does not exist.
According to Gamestop's anual report for fiscal 2010, 60% of all money spent inside of the store is spent on new product (both games and hardware). Used sales (hardware+software) stands at 26.1%, with the last 13.9% coming from all the other things they sell.
Now as far as profits go, Gamestop makes 46.2% of their take home money on used sales, as opposed to 28% on new sales, despite very clearly selling more new product than used. The profit margin on new games is as pathetic as Gamestop's trade in values, but those are the numbers.
Here's where things get interesting. According to the annual report, Gamestop buys $1 billion+ worth of product from gamers. According to Gamestop, 70% of money paid to gamers go towards new product. That is $700 million directly, and who knows how much more indirectly, effecting the new market. To put that into context, it is ~12% of Gamestop's total new product sales. This is significant.
Now, do you have any numbers whatsoever that imply that 12% is actually a non factor? Or that Gamestop, who sold $5.6 billion in new product in 2010, caused more than that $700 million in direct damage to new sales... 12% of which are effected by the sale of a used game by a gamer?
The industry has not provided any numbers, and if they could, you can bet they would. Do you know something they do not?
You don't seem to understand how economics work at all, and you haven't responded with any evidence that supports your stance. Your "side" does not exist.
According to Gamestop's anual report for fiscal 2010, 60% of all money spent inside of the store is spent on new product (both games and hardware). Used sales (hardware+software) stands at 26.1%, with the last 13.9% coming from all the other things they sell.
Now as far as profits go, Gamestop makes 46.2% of their take home money on used sales, as opposed to 28% on new sales, despite very clearly selling more new product than used. The profit margin on new games is as pathetic as Gamestop's trade in values, but those are the numbers.
Here's where things get interesting. According to the annual report, Gamestop buys $1 billion+ worth of product from gamers. According to Gamestop, 70% of money paid to gamers go towards new product. That is $700 million directly, and who knows how much more indirectly, effecting the new market. To put that into context, it is ~12% of Gamestop's total new product sales. This is significant.
Now, do you have any numbers whatsoever that imply that 12% is actually a non factor? Or that Gamestop, who sold $5.6 billion in new product in 2010, caused more than that $700 million in direct damage to new sales... 12% of which are effected by the sale of a used game by a gamer?
The industry has not provided any numbers, and if they could, you can bet they would. Do you know something they do not?
These.comments are making my head hurt, but hey. If you have the money to buy every game you want new then fair play. I have £30 max a fortnight to spend on games if I'm lucky. I save my new purchases for companies not trying to dick over a system I rely on.
Just as you're not in any place to "prove" that a used game world is better than a new game world, I don't have any special evidence that shows the opposite. Both of us have to operate on an extremely small amount of information, which means that, like most economists, we need to depend more on models of the economy than actual evidence.
My MODEL is summed up here:
"Scenario 1, with used games:
Gamer 1 purchases game for 60 bucks
G1 then sells game to Gamestop for 20 bucks
Gamestop resells it for 50 bucks
Total amount spent: 90 bucks. Total amount received by game developer: 60 bucks (let's ignore all the other people who see a cut of the retail pie, as it doesn't really matter to capture the full idea)
Scenario 2, without used games
Gamer 1 and 2 are unwilling to purchase the game immediately because of the high price. However, soon, it goes on sale for 45 because of the lower used-game-fueled demand.
Both gamers buy game for 45 bucks
Total amount spent: 90 bucks. Total amount that goes to game developers: 90 bucks.
Sure, G1 in the second world spends 5 more dollars.. but they get a permanent game. G2 spends 5 less, and they get a new game instead of a used game. Meanwhile, that's 50% more profit for the game developer, which PLAYS A GOD DAMN ROLE IN DEVELOPMENT "
It suggests that, EVEN IF USED GAMES FUEL NEW GAME PURCHASES, there is a BETTER WAY to reach the same outcome: changes in new game prices.
Can you please show me why this wouldn't be true? Just attack my assumptions. Exactly why should we prefer used game fueled new game sales to lowered price new game sales?
I mean, used games, by your argument, essentially act as an external price-lowering mechanism, right? That's the whole argument? Why couldn't we do this better without used games?
My MODEL is summed up here:
"Scenario 1, with used games:
Gamer 1 purchases game for 60 bucks
G1 then sells game to Gamestop for 20 bucks
Gamestop resells it for 50 bucks
Total amount spent: 90 bucks. Total amount received by game developer: 60 bucks (let's ignore all the other people who see a cut of the retail pie, as it doesn't really matter to capture the full idea)
Scenario 2, without used games
Gamer 1 and 2 are unwilling to purchase the game immediately because of the high price. However, soon, it goes on sale for 45 because of the lower used-game-fueled demand.
Both gamers buy game for 45 bucks
Total amount spent: 90 bucks. Total amount that goes to game developers: 90 bucks.
Sure, G1 in the second world spends 5 more dollars.. but they get a permanent game. G2 spends 5 less, and they get a new game instead of a used game. Meanwhile, that's 50% more profit for the game developer, which PLAYS A GOD DAMN ROLE IN DEVELOPMENT "
It suggests that, EVEN IF USED GAMES FUEL NEW GAME PURCHASES, there is a BETTER WAY to reach the same outcome: changes in new game prices.
Can you please show me why this wouldn't be true? Just attack my assumptions. Exactly why should we prefer used game fueled new game sales to lowered price new game sales?
I mean, used games, by your argument, essentially act as an external price-lowering mechanism, right? That's the whole argument? Why couldn't we do this better without used games?
@killias:
One more thing then I gotta run:
You listed the Gamer 1 and 2 buy such and such a couple times already...but the important thing is...What does gamer 1 do with the $20 he gets from Gamestop? People don't just trade their games and horde Gamestop money for an apocalypse. They get something. And even if 66% of people put it towards new games, wouldn't that make it worth it? The way I see it, I trade in games that aren't worth keeping anymore. And yes, I probably should stop buying so many $60 games at launch (really regret only being like 2 hours into Rage with Batman and Battlefield right here), but it's not like Id will let me sell it to them. If gamestop will give me $30 for it towards Batman, and I'd much rather have batman...I only lose $30 on my mistake of buying it right away, instead of the $60 I'd lose. If I didn't have that option, I'd Definately not buy as many games as I do, which harms the game industry MUCH MORE than it does now.
One more thing then I gotta run:
You listed the Gamer 1 and 2 buy such and such a couple times already...but the important thing is...What does gamer 1 do with the $20 he gets from Gamestop? People don't just trade their games and horde Gamestop money for an apocalypse. They get something. And even if 66% of people put it towards new games, wouldn't that make it worth it? The way I see it, I trade in games that aren't worth keeping anymore. And yes, I probably should stop buying so many $60 games at launch (really regret only being like 2 hours into Rage with Batman and Battlefield right here), but it's not like Id will let me sell it to them. If gamestop will give me $30 for it towards Batman, and I'd much rather have batman...I only lose $30 on my mistake of buying it right away, instead of the $60 I'd lose. If I didn't have that option, I'd Definately not buy as many games as I do, which harms the game industry MUCH MORE than it does now.
@OneRed
Stop throwing EVIDENCE and LOGIC at Killias2. He is obviously the Online Pass Ambassador, and you're making his very important job difficult! Please cease this barrage of effective arguments at once!
Stop throwing EVIDENCE and LOGIC at Killias2. He is obviously the Online Pass Ambassador, and you're making his very important job difficult! Please cease this barrage of effective arguments at once!
They are right that servers cost money. The question is how much and is that cost included in the games price.
Sure we can say it is, but is it actually?
Maybe if they were games would be 80 dollars new.
The other way they could do it is a monthly plan that's like 1-2 bucks while you play.
Either way, if you don't agree with it, don't buy the game. It's not like you're missing anything. Another better game will come along and there's lots of cheap games out there that are amazing and take up your time.
Sure we can say it is, but is it actually?
Maybe if they were games would be 80 dollars new.
The other way they could do it is a monthly plan that's like 1-2 bucks while you play.
Either way, if you don't agree with it, don't buy the game. It's not like you're missing anything. Another better game will come along and there's lots of cheap games out there that are amazing and take up your time.
@killias
"Can you please show me why this wouldn't be true? Just attack my assumptions. Exactly why should we prefer used game fueled new game sales to lowered price new game sales?"
For one, the concepts are not mutually exclusive. You cannot simply assume a somewhat lowered price will do anything to "quell" the used market. Just a generation ago, games were ten dollars cheaper, and the industry was making far less money. The used industry was still strong then. If you want to argue that publishers should lower the price of new games, you'll get no argument here, but right now, the truth on the ground is games are expensive, and there is no plans on making them any less so.
You are also assuming that used games sales are actually helping publishers by allowing them to keep game prices high. So... now you're saying used games help publishers? Huh?
And you are still operating under the assumption that used markets are a bad thing, which is ludicrous. So, in the end, the very foundation of what you are saying is not particularly solid.
"Can you please show me why this wouldn't be true? Just attack my assumptions. Exactly why should we prefer used game fueled new game sales to lowered price new game sales?"
For one, the concepts are not mutually exclusive. You cannot simply assume a somewhat lowered price will do anything to "quell" the used market. Just a generation ago, games were ten dollars cheaper, and the industry was making far less money. The used industry was still strong then. If you want to argue that publishers should lower the price of new games, you'll get no argument here, but right now, the truth on the ground is games are expensive, and there is no plans on making them any less so.
You are also assuming that used games sales are actually helping publishers by allowing them to keep game prices high. So... now you're saying used games help publishers? Huh?
And you are still operating under the assumption that used markets are a bad thing, which is ludicrous. So, in the end, the very foundation of what you are saying is not particularly solid.
If I buy a used car, I don't have to pay Honda to get it running. (Unless I buy a broken car).
Replace car with lamp, rug, furniture, music cd, DVD/Blu ray, tv, or any other thing you can find on Craigslist, at a swap meet, or pawn shop.
Enough said.
Replace car with lamp, rug, furniture, music cd, DVD/Blu ray, tv, or any other thing you can find on Craigslist, at a swap meet, or pawn shop.
Enough said.
I hope that every game in the future would have an online pass just so people would stop complaining about it.
"If you're not sure if you'll like it, then try a demo or read reviews. I think too many people rush to go get games on release day. If anything, I think the used game market is helping to perpetuate 60 dollar opening day prices because developers want to make money before used games absorb all the sales and because initial buyers often turn around and resell the game. "
This statement made me laugh.
Without strong new sales there wouldn't be any used copies to absorb the sales.
This statement made me laugh.
Without strong new sales there wouldn't be any used copies to absorb the sales.
They *do* need to keep the data of the old person, but that's trivial and nit-picky.
They should just own up and admit that they're doing it because it's The Cool Thing To Do*.
(*Cool Things To Do may not actually be cool.)
They should just own up and admit that they're doing it because it's The Cool Thing To Do*.
(*Cool Things To Do may not actually be cool.)
"You listed the Gamer 1 and 2 buy such and such a couple times already...but the important thing is...What does gamer 1 do with the $20 he gets from Gamestop? People don't just trade their games and horde Gamestop money for an apocalypse. They get something. And even if 66% of people put it towards new games, wouldn't that make it worth it? The way I see it, I trade in games that aren't worth keeping anymore. And yes, I probably should stop buying so many $60 games at launch (really regret only being like 2 hours into Rage with Batman and Battlefield right here), but it's not like Id will let me sell it to them. If gamestop will give me $30 for it towards Batman, and I'd much rather have batman...I only lose $30 on my mistake of buying it right away, instead of the $60 I'd lose. If I didn't have that option, I'd Definately not buy as many games as I do, which harms the game industry MUCH MORE than it does now."
I already priced in the 20 dollars. I subtracted it from the total spent, as I basically treated it as fueling the initial 60 dollar purchase.
"Stop throwing EVIDENCE and LOGIC at Killias2. He is obviously the Online Pass Ambassador, and you're making his very important job difficult! Please cease this barrage of effective arguments at once!"
You're either from another galaxy where everything is upside down, or you just have no idea what is going on in this comment thread. Either way, I hope you stick around and learn something about how -this- galaxy works.
"You are also assuming that used games sales are actually helping publishers by allowing them to keep game prices high. So... now you're saying used games help publishers? Huh? "
I never said they were helping publishers. However, I think used games are certainly central to the 60 dollar release date pricing scheme. I can go on about this, but I don't consider it the central debate. Maybe I can touch on this later.
"And you are still operating under the assumption that used markets are a bad thing, which is ludicrous. So, in the end, the very foundation of what you are saying is not particularly solid."
It's not an assumption. I'm making assumptions about how market actors work. If these assumptions are true, then used games are bad.
Your job is to attack these basic assumptions.
Here, OneRed, I'll show you how to make an argument.
You argue that used games fuel new game sales. As such, they operate as an external price deflator, of sorts. Am I right, so far?
In your model of the way the world works, used games are necessary to supporting the new games market. Why? Because new games are too expensive, so you need this external price deflator to bring the market to a better steady state equilibrium.
My counter-argument is that we already have a price deflating mechanism: demand. When demand is low, game companies and retailers lower prices. When it's high, they maintain high prices.
I not only allow the possibility.. but I actually ASSUME that used games help fuel new game prices. I agree with you that used games act as an external price deflator. However, in my view, they are an expensive and/or inefficient price-setting mechanism? Why? Because GameStop essentially sets a huge fee for coordinating this price mechanism. In other words, used games play the role you speak of, but they are not the best way to do so. In my view, the actual market of demand and supply is a more efficient way of accomplishing the same goal: bringing prices in line with demand.
Now, I'm going to go out on a limb, and try to give you a counter-argument to me. You still haven't actually provided a counter-argument, but I'm guessing it would look like this:
Used games are necessary because game companies and retailers are not very good at setting prices. They will not quickly and naturally respond to changes in demand with suitable pricing. As a result, used games are necessary (even if they are inefficient) as pricing mechanisms. Without used games, games will be, on average, more expensive and less successful. This leaves the world with a worse set of games AND higher prices for the games that are available.
See that? See how I attacked one of my main assumptions? See how that is part of the argumentative process?
So, now, we aren't just two idiots screaming about used games. We are two people with different MODELS of the way the gaming economy works. In "your" world, used games are necessary because gaming companies are not good at setting prices. In my world, gaming companies are good enough at setting prices to make the inefficient used game price mechanism a negative rather than a positive.
Because we now have models we can actually start testing the different arguments! We both have strong implications of our model! If "your" view(I use parentheses because it is actually the argument I have created for you) is right, we should see game companies and retailers rarely adjusting prices in response to demand. If my view is right, we should see it all the time. In my view, we see the latter, which is evidence for my argument.
Alternatively, let's imagine a gaming platform that doesn't allow used game sales. This would be a great place to test our different models! If such a thing existed, then "you" would expect to see high prices, low demand, and, overall, a badly structured market. I would expect to see low prices, high demand, and a very healthy market.
Ladies and gentlemen.. I present.. Steam. A platform where used games do not exist, but where prices are adjusted naturally, through responses to demand. In my view, this is GREAT evidence that I am right and you are wrong. However, maybe you'll disagree, and you can make arguments about why Steam isn't a great example.
Of course, this is all dependent on the argument I've given you. Maybe I'm wrong about the big difference between us. Maybe your model of the gaming economy has nuances I haven't captured. If so, feel free to state the differences in our assumptions. Make an actual argument. Then we can test the implications of our argument and make some progress here.
Otherwise, we'll just circle jerk for eternity.
I already priced in the 20 dollars. I subtracted it from the total spent, as I basically treated it as fueling the initial 60 dollar purchase.
"Stop throwing EVIDENCE and LOGIC at Killias2. He is obviously the Online Pass Ambassador, and you're making his very important job difficult! Please cease this barrage of effective arguments at once!"
You're either from another galaxy where everything is upside down, or you just have no idea what is going on in this comment thread. Either way, I hope you stick around and learn something about how -this- galaxy works.
"You are also assuming that used games sales are actually helping publishers by allowing them to keep game prices high. So... now you're saying used games help publishers? Huh? "
I never said they were helping publishers. However, I think used games are certainly central to the 60 dollar release date pricing scheme. I can go on about this, but I don't consider it the central debate. Maybe I can touch on this later.
"And you are still operating under the assumption that used markets are a bad thing, which is ludicrous. So, in the end, the very foundation of what you are saying is not particularly solid."
It's not an assumption. I'm making assumptions about how market actors work. If these assumptions are true, then used games are bad.
Your job is to attack these basic assumptions.
Here, OneRed, I'll show you how to make an argument.
You argue that used games fuel new game sales. As such, they operate as an external price deflator, of sorts. Am I right, so far?
In your model of the way the world works, used games are necessary to supporting the new games market. Why? Because new games are too expensive, so you need this external price deflator to bring the market to a better steady state equilibrium.
My counter-argument is that we already have a price deflating mechanism: demand. When demand is low, game companies and retailers lower prices. When it's high, they maintain high prices.
I not only allow the possibility.. but I actually ASSUME that used games help fuel new game prices. I agree with you that used games act as an external price deflator. However, in my view, they are an expensive and/or inefficient price-setting mechanism? Why? Because GameStop essentially sets a huge fee for coordinating this price mechanism. In other words, used games play the role you speak of, but they are not the best way to do so. In my view, the actual market of demand and supply is a more efficient way of accomplishing the same goal: bringing prices in line with demand.
Now, I'm going to go out on a limb, and try to give you a counter-argument to me. You still haven't actually provided a counter-argument, but I'm guessing it would look like this:
Used games are necessary because game companies and retailers are not very good at setting prices. They will not quickly and naturally respond to changes in demand with suitable pricing. As a result, used games are necessary (even if they are inefficient) as pricing mechanisms. Without used games, games will be, on average, more expensive and less successful. This leaves the world with a worse set of games AND higher prices for the games that are available.
See that? See how I attacked one of my main assumptions? See how that is part of the argumentative process?
So, now, we aren't just two idiots screaming about used games. We are two people with different MODELS of the way the gaming economy works. In "your" world, used games are necessary because gaming companies are not good at setting prices. In my world, gaming companies are good enough at setting prices to make the inefficient used game price mechanism a negative rather than a positive.
Because we now have models we can actually start testing the different arguments! We both have strong implications of our model! If "your" view(I use parentheses because it is actually the argument I have created for you) is right, we should see game companies and retailers rarely adjusting prices in response to demand. If my view is right, we should see it all the time. In my view, we see the latter, which is evidence for my argument.
Alternatively, let's imagine a gaming platform that doesn't allow used game sales. This would be a great place to test our different models! If such a thing existed, then "you" would expect to see high prices, low demand, and, overall, a badly structured market. I would expect to see low prices, high demand, and a very healthy market.
Ladies and gentlemen.. I present.. Steam. A platform where used games do not exist, but where prices are adjusted naturally, through responses to demand. In my view, this is GREAT evidence that I am right and you are wrong. However, maybe you'll disagree, and you can make arguments about why Steam isn't a great example.
Of course, this is all dependent on the argument I've given you. Maybe I'm wrong about the big difference between us. Maybe your model of the gaming economy has nuances I haven't captured. If so, feel free to state the differences in our assumptions. Make an actual argument. Then we can test the implications of our argument and make some progress here.
Otherwise, we'll just circle jerk for eternity.
"This statement made me laugh.
Without strong new sales there wouldn't be any used copies to absorb the sales."
It's always nice to see someone disparage my argument without taking any time to figure out what my argument is. Yay for trolls!
Without strong new sales there wouldn't be any used copies to absorb the sales."
It's always nice to see someone disparage my argument without taking any time to figure out what my argument is. Yay for trolls!
Well I guess MW3 has nothing to worry about with EA doing something stupid to make people not want to buy their games. Here's hoping GameStop adds this pass with the used copies like they say their doing for Batman.
@OneRed
"The industry is worth $60 billion (est.) this year, and according to current growth models"
Why do you keep saying this? Gross means nothing. If the US auto industry is worth $500 billion, does that make it healthy? That is not an argument, but a misdirection.
"A strong used market is a sign of a strong new market, they are inherently tied to the exact same market forces"
This has been addressed so many times. No other industry has a used market that functions the same way as the used videogame market, so using examples from other markets is meaningless. The markets you are talking about rarely, if ever, offer a buyer the EXACT SAME PRODUCT, with ZERO degradation of quality, sold SIDE BY SIDE with the new product, and often pushed over the new product by the staff. This happens no where else. In most cases, for most industries, a used product sold does NOT continue to access manufacturer resources, and does NOT represent a lost sale on such a significant basis, as it does at GameStop. The video game used market is unique, and using other used markets as a comparison is an exercise in futility.
I'm not trying to change your mind, or the mind of anyone else, but some of your arguments seem off-base, kind of in the way a politician "muddies the water" by arguing around the question rather than directly at it.
"The industry is worth $60 billion (est.) this year, and according to current growth models"
Why do you keep saying this? Gross means nothing. If the US auto industry is worth $500 billion, does that make it healthy? That is not an argument, but a misdirection.
"A strong used market is a sign of a strong new market, they are inherently tied to the exact same market forces"
This has been addressed so many times. No other industry has a used market that functions the same way as the used videogame market, so using examples from other markets is meaningless. The markets you are talking about rarely, if ever, offer a buyer the EXACT SAME PRODUCT, with ZERO degradation of quality, sold SIDE BY SIDE with the new product, and often pushed over the new product by the staff. This happens no where else. In most cases, for most industries, a used product sold does NOT continue to access manufacturer resources, and does NOT represent a lost sale on such a significant basis, as it does at GameStop. The video game used market is unique, and using other used markets as a comparison is an exercise in futility.
I'm not trying to change your mind, or the mind of anyone else, but some of your arguments seem off-base, kind of in the way a politician "muddies the water" by arguing around the question rather than directly at it.
Even if Gamestop stopped doing used sales one day, people would still sell games to eachother. It might not be quite as widespread, but it's not like Gamestop is the beginning and end of preowned sales...
Also I can tell you for a fact that developers do not see any of that extra money. Most developers don't even get paid overtime, and work 60-70 hour weeks.
Also I can tell you for a fact that developers do not see any of that extra money. Most developers don't even get paid overtime, and work 60-70 hour weeks.
Well if game companies try and justify online passes to support server costs, then I really hope that the savings from the resources that are saved from gamers who don't play online much, or who sell their game, are passed on to the consumer.
(they're not.)
(they're not.)
"Also I can tell you for a fact that developers do not see any of that extra money. Most developers don't even get paid overtime, and work 60-70 hour weeks."
As I've already argued, they don't get hired unless publishers think that a game will be profitable to begin with. Money matters people. It's sort of disturbing that I even have to argue it.
"Even if Gamestop stopped doing used sales one day, people would still sell games to eachother. It might not be quite as widespread, but it's not like Gamestop is the beginning and end of preowned sales..."
Honestly, if it wasn't for GameStop, I would be fine with used game sales. Hell, I'm sure you wouldn't be seeing online passes or anything either.
Let's take my really simple toy model:
Scenario 1, with used games:
Gamer 1 purchases game for 60 bucks
G1 then sells game to Gamestop for 20 bucks
Gamestop resells it for 50 bucks
Total amount spent: 90 bucks. Total amount received by game developer: 60 bucks (let's ignore all the other people who see a cut of the retail pie, as it doesn't really matter to capture the full idea)
Scenario 2, without used games
Gamer 1 and 2 are unwilling to purchase the game immediately because of the high price. However, soon, it goes on sale for 45 because of the lower used-game-fueled demand.
Both gamers buy game for 45 bucks
Total amount spent: 90 bucks. Total amount that goes to game developers: 90 bucks.
Sure, G1 in the second world spends 5 more dollars.. but they get a permanent game. G2 spends 5 less, and they get a new game instead of a used game. Meanwhile, that's 50% more profit for the game developer, which PLAYS A GOD DAMN ROLE IN DEVELOPMENT
Now, let's add a third variant:
Scenario 3, with only "local" used games
Gamer 1 purchases game for 60 bucks
G1 then sells game to other gamer for 40 bucks
Total amount spent: 60 bucks. Total amount received by game developer: 60 bucks.
No problems here. Unfortunately, this isn't how the used game market works at all. GameStop eats some of the total gaming economy and doesn't produce games at all.
As I've already argued, they don't get hired unless publishers think that a game will be profitable to begin with. Money matters people. It's sort of disturbing that I even have to argue it.
"Even if Gamestop stopped doing used sales one day, people would still sell games to eachother. It might not be quite as widespread, but it's not like Gamestop is the beginning and end of preowned sales..."
Honestly, if it wasn't for GameStop, I would be fine with used game sales. Hell, I'm sure you wouldn't be seeing online passes or anything either.
Let's take my really simple toy model:
Scenario 1, with used games:
Gamer 1 purchases game for 60 bucks
G1 then sells game to Gamestop for 20 bucks
Gamestop resells it for 50 bucks
Total amount spent: 90 bucks. Total amount received by game developer: 60 bucks (let's ignore all the other people who see a cut of the retail pie, as it doesn't really matter to capture the full idea)
Scenario 2, without used games
Gamer 1 and 2 are unwilling to purchase the game immediately because of the high price. However, soon, it goes on sale for 45 because of the lower used-game-fueled demand.
Both gamers buy game for 45 bucks
Total amount spent: 90 bucks. Total amount that goes to game developers: 90 bucks.
Sure, G1 in the second world spends 5 more dollars.. but they get a permanent game. G2 spends 5 less, and they get a new game instead of a used game. Meanwhile, that's 50% more profit for the game developer, which PLAYS A GOD DAMN ROLE IN DEVELOPMENT
Now, let's add a third variant:
Scenario 3, with only "local" used games
Gamer 1 purchases game for 60 bucks
G1 then sells game to other gamer for 40 bucks
Total amount spent: 60 bucks. Total amount received by game developer: 60 bucks.
No problems here. Unfortunately, this isn't how the used game market works at all. GameStop eats some of the total gaming economy and doesn't produce games at all.
more people "claim" to not buy the game the more the game will be in stock for me to buy. Oh no buying the game new i must be a corporate fool
"Well if game companies try and justify online passes to support server costs, then I really hope that the savings from the resources that are saved from gamers who don't play online much, or who sell their game, are passed on to the consumer.
(they're not.)"
It's more likely to be used to develop future games. In fact, the higher expected profitability resulting from online passes may lead to some games being greenlit which wouldn't even be developed otherwise.
For example, let's say I'm considering greenlighting a risky 5 million dollar game budget. I don't expect it to sell well, and I expect to get something like 5 million dollars back on the investment.
However, with online passes and less used game purchases, you might see, say, a 10% higher income. You might be expect 5.5 million dollars coming in rather than 5 million. That might be the difference between a project being greenlit, between developers getting money to stay open and pay their employees, between gamers having access to a game that otherwise wouldn't be around and none of this happening.
(they're not.)"
It's more likely to be used to develop future games. In fact, the higher expected profitability resulting from online passes may lead to some games being greenlit which wouldn't even be developed otherwise.
For example, let's say I'm considering greenlighting a risky 5 million dollar game budget. I don't expect it to sell well, and I expect to get something like 5 million dollars back on the investment.
However, with online passes and less used game purchases, you might see, say, a 10% higher income. You might be expect 5.5 million dollars coming in rather than 5 million. That might be the difference between a project being greenlit, between developers getting money to stay open and pay their employees, between gamers having access to a game that otherwise wouldn't be around and none of this happening.
I don't mind the online pass so much if they at least allow people a trial or demo period... to see if the online portion of the game is even worth the $10.00 pass. I like games that allow unlimited play up to a certain level, and you have to buy the pass only to progress past that level - it just seems a lot more fair.
oh well I enjoyed the game enough and to excited to play it again to really care that it has an online pass....still getting it
See more on Know Your Meme
also your getting it on pc so why should you worry its not like you could just get it digital lol
See more on Know Your Meme
also your getting it on pc so why should you worry its not like you could just get it digital lol
used games are just as bad as piracy for pubs, even somewhat worse because it is a sale without any revenue. Were piracy is zero sum and is pretty much deterred on the PC version due to the multiplayer centricity of the title.
Not you again pokota!
Used games fund the purchases of first hand games. It is not stealing. Used games exist because not everyone has $60 to drop down on a game as well as the costs of a console, etc contollers, online subsrciption fees etc.
Used games are depreciated in value FOR A REASON! Do not pretend for a moment that the used games industry is something completely alien from selling any used items which end up depreciating in value.
These moves for the online pass are totally unacceptable and if its one things gamers hate then it is getting screwed over.
Used games fund the purchases of first hand games. It is not stealing. Used games exist because not everyone has $60 to drop down on a game as well as the costs of a console, etc contollers, online subsrciption fees etc.
Used games are depreciated in value FOR A REASON! Do not pretend for a moment that the used games industry is something completely alien from selling any used items which end up depreciating in value.
These moves for the online pass are totally unacceptable and if its one things gamers hate then it is getting screwed over.
I wouldn't mind if it was a small company who was having trouble keeping the sever up like the demon's/dark souls guys but cmon ea
Man, these argument threads are like an episode of Dragon Ball Z. Goku used Hypothetical beam! Vegeta used Circular Logic strike! It takes up a lot of space and all looks really flashy, but at the end of an episode nothing's changed and in the grand scheme of things, nobody cares. This isn't a war of the Principled versus the Evil Empire, nothing is so cut and dry as that, and trying to make it sound that way makes you and everyone you're arguing with look like a cartoon.
@Elsa
I agree with you. I don't think the online pass is yet where it needs to be. At least 12 hours of multi-player should be included on a trial period. I like a lot of things Sony did with their pass, where it's system wide, and you can download it on fiver other systems, but a trial definitely needs to be added.
When it comes to the online pass, there is a bottom line for me; Where do I want my money to go? Straight to GameStop, to directly into the video-game production industry? My reasoning is that I'd rather that money be used to develop new games than anything else.
I agree with you. I don't think the online pass is yet where it needs to be. At least 12 hours of multi-player should be included on a trial period. I like a lot of things Sony did with their pass, where it's system wide, and you can download it on fiver other systems, but a trial definitely needs to be added.
When it comes to the online pass, there is a bottom line for me; Where do I want my money to go? Straight to GameStop, to directly into the video-game production industry? My reasoning is that I'd rather that money be used to develop new games than anything else.
Also, do these games with online passes prominently advertise that online multiplayer requires a pass. Some casual gamers are going to be disappointed when they decide to buy this game a year after release and Gamestop used game section is the only place they can find it. Then they pay the 10 dollar fee only to find out the online community has been nearly killed BECAUSE nobody wanted to buy the online passes
@pokota
You, of all people, shouldn't lecture on gross v net. In this case, we are talking about net sales, not net revenue, because this is what the industry pulls in every year. This proves the only one main thing that needs to be proven in regards to used games: the industry is well supported by consumers, and that support is growing. Net sales have grown quite well year over year, and yes, this does in fact prove that the industry is healthy. Expanding consumer support + more sales = a healthy industry. Tell me how this is incorrect, so that I can tell economists all over the world just how wrong they've been.
Feel free to ignore that little tidbit of common sense, you do it quite often.
Again, your ideas about what the used game market is is ridiculous. The nature of games themselves bares no significance (no degradation in quality in the game itself, but what about the shape the disc is in, or the case, or the book?), because at the end of the day, the used market is the used market is the used market. I can't believe this even needs to be explained, if the used market is healthy, it can only be because the new market is healthy. Regardless of how the used product is sold, the success of the used market hinges entirely on the new market.
This isn't conjecture, it is as simple a fact as they come. If the new market is unhealthy, there is less product in the used market, and the used market becomes unhealthy. If the new market is strong, then there is more product and potential for revenue, which drives a healthy second hand market. If the used market harms the new market, it harms itself as a result. A used market, by very nature, can't exist without a new market, they are inherently tied to the exact same market forces, as they are the same products being offered to the same consumers.
For all your scenarios and conjecture, I still don't see anything but scenarios and conjecture.
You, of all people, shouldn't lecture on gross v net. In this case, we are talking about net sales, not net revenue, because this is what the industry pulls in every year. This proves the only one main thing that needs to be proven in regards to used games: the industry is well supported by consumers, and that support is growing. Net sales have grown quite well year over year, and yes, this does in fact prove that the industry is healthy. Expanding consumer support + more sales = a healthy industry. Tell me how this is incorrect, so that I can tell economists all over the world just how wrong they've been.
Feel free to ignore that little tidbit of common sense, you do it quite often.
Again, your ideas about what the used game market is is ridiculous. The nature of games themselves bares no significance (no degradation in quality in the game itself, but what about the shape the disc is in, or the case, or the book?), because at the end of the day, the used market is the used market is the used market. I can't believe this even needs to be explained, if the used market is healthy, it can only be because the new market is healthy. Regardless of how the used product is sold, the success of the used market hinges entirely on the new market.
This isn't conjecture, it is as simple a fact as they come. If the new market is unhealthy, there is less product in the used market, and the used market becomes unhealthy. If the new market is strong, then there is more product and potential for revenue, which drives a healthy second hand market. If the used market harms the new market, it harms itself as a result. A used market, by very nature, can't exist without a new market, they are inherently tied to the exact same market forces, as they are the same products being offered to the same consumers.
For all your scenarios and conjecture, I still don't see anything but scenarios and conjecture.
Instead of two people coughing up a total of $120 for the game, EA only gets $60 from both if one buys used. The money goes purely to the store and none to the company. Not defending them, but I can see why they want a pass.
killias2 yer funny bro. I made one comment stating an actual fact, you've commented on just about every post here "arguing" your point.
Yay for trolls indeed
This topic really doesn't event effect me as I very rarely buy used games. I just don't see any value in waiting 2+ weeks for a used copy to become available over buying day one new only to save $5
Yay for trolls indeed
This topic really doesn't event effect me as I very rarely buy used games. I just don't see any value in waiting 2+ weeks for a used copy to become available over buying day one new only to save $5
follow
