Buying used games? Developers, publishers don't care about you


Recommended Posts

I think you're missing the point of his statement, he is saying that the GAME hasn't degraded. It is still the same code that was written all those years ago. Yes the media it is stored on can and most likely will have degraded. But the game you play is exactly the same game as when it was originally released.

I'm not missing the point.. my point is; the game will change if even a bit of the hardware is missing.

In order to play the original Oregon Trail now, we have to use emulators because we don't have an original machine to play it on.

As soon as the servers for say, our mmo's go down, we have no way how to play or interact with the mmo.

It will have degraded!

Some reading for you guys:

http://www.arcade-museum.com/vaps/

http://wiki.igda.org/Game_Preservation_SIG

There is a podcast (I can't remember which episode though) about preservation of games because they're degrading over time because no one is playing them, on the podcast called A Life Well Wasted: http://alifewellwasted.com/podcast/ I HIGHLY recommend listening to it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Code can not degrade, thats definative.

However the perception of the game changes over time..i.e. looking dated. But a game isn't any different 20yrs from now, it'll just look "old"

The main issue is the price of games, thats the only reason people buy used. The majority of games are not worth the ?50 to spend on them. Now for some poeple ?35-50 is a rare thing to have in your pocket to buy a game on release day. So they have to wait for either prices to drop, or buy used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supply and demand. People won't price something high when it's low in demand, demand is defined by many factors, including replay value, online capabilities, game quality, whether or not the system it was made for or the hardware it runs on is still current, etc etc.

Games do degrade in that sense, but not in the sense of cars degrading. And when one store drops the price of a game, all the other stores have to drop their prices to stay competitive. There is nothing about this that doesn't make sense, it's natural market law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For pete's sake...I have to wonder if some people here read the article at all.

The game itself does not degrade over time. The media (floppy disk, CD, DVD etc.) might degrade and become unreadable, but the game itself does not change. Saying that Oregon Trail or the original Need for Speed have degraded over time is silly. They look the same now as when they were first released. What you're doing is comparing the latest Need for Speed with the first game and saying that, because the graphics aren't the same in both games, the original game has degraded. It hasn't, the fact of the matter is that it hasn't changed.

Looking at the online point of degradation over time, it happens with all games. Less people play a game when newer games become available. Again though, the game itself has not degraded. You can log in to a game 5 years after it's been released and it will look and play the exact same way as when it was new. The difference is that there aren't as many people that played it as when it was first released. Is that the fault of the developer? Should they lose out on a sale for that? Of course not, they need to be paid for the work that they did (creating the game and maintaining the servers). They have no say in how many people will be still playing the game. That's something you should research before paying for a $10 licence to play online, because the moment that you've logged in and realised that there is no one else there you've already used their service, something that they should be paid for.

I wasn't necessarily for this at the beginning, but the more I've thought about it the more it makes sense. Developers deserve to be paid for the work they do just the same as anyone else. If you're too tight to pay $10 to the devs then a remark from this article is quite right, why should they care about you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For pete's sake...I have to wonder if some people here read the article at all.

The game itself does not degrade over time. The media (floppy disk, CD, DVD etc.) might degrade and become unreadable, but the game itself does not change. Saying that Oregon Trail or the original Need for Speed have degraded over time is silly. They look the same now as when they were first released. What you're doing is comparing the latest Need for Speed with the first game and saying that, because the graphics aren't the same in both games, the original game has degraded. It hasn't, the fact of the matter is that it hasn't changed.

Looking at the online point of degradation over time, it happens with all games. Less people play a game when newer games become available. Again though, the game itself has not degraded. You can log in to a game 5 years after it's been released and it will look and play the exact same way as when it was new. The difference is that there aren't as many people that played it as when it was first released. Is that the fault of the developer? Should they lose out on a sale for that? Of course not, they need to be paid for the work that they did (creating the game and maintaining the servers). They have no say in how many people will be still playing the game. That's something you should research before paying for a $10 licence to play online, because the moment that you've logged in and realised that there is no one else there you've already used their service, something that they should be paid for.

I wasn't necessarily for this at the beginning, but the more I've thought about it the more it makes sense. Developers deserve to be paid for the work they do just the same as anyone else. If you're too tight to pay $10 to the devs then a remark from this article is quite right, why should they care about you?

Like I said.....supply and demand, specifically demand. If the demand for a game is low, then a store will sell it for less. That's......it. And there's many factors that define gaming, including online, and if you're to use the reasoning that you should pay them for the online usage, why should you pay over again for a poor/non-existent online system?

Yeah, Need for Speed was amazing when it came out. But now, Need for Speed is so much more powerful, detailed, well designed, etc etc. Hard work only gets translated to money by the current generation standards of the generation said product was released in. When someone else raises the bar, you either change and adapt, or you get left behind, which is what happens to older games, hence why people won't be willing to pay the same $50 for the first Medal of Honor as they would be willing to pay for the most recent MoH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are missing the point, games do come down in price after 6 months, as demand drops. The price of used games during the first 6 months of its life isn't that drastic maybe £5-10 off the new retail price. This is where the shop gets a crap load of profit. Even after 6 months the prices between new and used aren't that great, e.g. new £24.99 user £17.99, so the consumer isn't getting that much of a great deal buying used, bue heh £5+ in my pocket is better than someone elses.

Used games only help one person, the shop! Not the customer, yet the customer gets punished by having to pay an extra chage to the developer!

Edited by Pablo2008jedi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are missing the point, games do come down in price after 6 months, as demand drops. The price of used games during the first 6 months of its life isn't that drastic maybe ?5-10 off the new retail price. This is where the shop gets a crap load of profit. Even after 6 months the prices between new and used aren't that great, e.g. new ?24.99 user ?19.99, so the consumer isn't getting that much of a great deal buying used, bue heh ?5 in my pocket is better than someone elses.

Used games only help one person, the shop! Not the customer, yet the customer gets punished by having to pay an extra chage to the developer!

Right, and then add in the online gameplay licence for a used game and it ends up being the same, if not more, than buying it new. So what will end up happening is either the shops sell the used games cheaper, or the second hand market for games dies out.

You've got to boil this down to a simple train of thought: Do you enjoy your games? Do you want developers to continue developing games that you enjoy? If the answer is yes, then you have to support them for their work. At the moment, buying second hand doesn't support them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, and then add in the online gameplay licence for a used game and it ends up being the same, if not more, than buying it new. So what will end up happening is either the shops sell the used games cheaper, or the second hand market for games dies out.

You've got to boil this down to a simple train of thought: Do you enjoy your games? Do you want developers to continue developing games that you enjoy? If the answer is yes, then you have to support them for their work. At the moment, buying second hand doesn't support them.

May I ask what you think people should do with their games once they are finished with them? Because you seem to think it a bad idea to buy used games, but have no solution for that scenario. What am I supposed to do, ship it back to Ubisoft for nothing and have them sell it over again with no return on my investment at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I ask what you think people should do with their games once they are finished with them? Because you seem to think it a bad idea to buy used games, but have no solution for that scenario. What am I supposed to do, ship it back to Ubisoft for nothing and have them sell it over again with no return on my investment at all?

Sell the game? Like I've said before the price of a used game + the $10 online code thingy (if you want one) is still cheaper than buying a new game.

And you're getting the exact same game.

Or you know, keep it. I don't see a point in selling my old games tbh, and well most of them are on Steam so I can't anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay a question I have here: What do developers and publishers actually loose when a game is bought used?

My logical (in my point of view) answer:

Nothing! Because the full retail price was already payed for exact this copy and as the original buyer also can't play online anymore no additional stress is created for the online servers, if there are any.

EDIT:

When I think about it, it's in a way the same as the piracy discussion.

The publishers think, if the game is not available used it WILL get bought new which is simply a vague assumption.

People can also go: "Oh the game isn't available for cheap used, too bad I will pass on it"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay a question I have here: What do developers and publishers actually loose when a game is bought used?

My logical (in my point of view) answer:

Nothing! Because the full retail price was already payed for exact this copy and as the original buyer also can't play online anymore no additional stress is created for the online servers, if they are any.

They lose a potential sale I guess. If no used games exist, people would be forced to buy new (of course there is no guarantee of them actually buying it). Therefore, the devs get money.

With used games (even the ones that come out like a month after release), the guy is still getting the game but the devs / publishers aren't getting anything. The only company that benefits is the one selling the used game, ie Gamestop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay a question I have here: What do developers and publishers actually loose when a game is bought used?

My logical (in my point of view) answer:

Nothing! Because the full retail price was already payed for exact this copy and as the original buyer also can't play online anymore no additional stress is created for the online servers, if they are any.

If the publishers and devs start to take issue with this it's going to be a bigger problem for consumers.

The concept of greed is being put on steroids since the economic crises 0f 08.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sell the game? Like I've said before the price of a used game + the $10 online code thingy (if you want one) is still cheaper than buying a new game.

So then now, we're arguing that we should only pay for the online portion and not the rest of the game, which isn't what I was arguing for. That's a different matter. I get it, servers take money to run and keep running. But Intrinsica is saying that buying games secondhand (with no explicit mention of online or not) is bad for games in general.

And you're getting the exact same game.

Assuming you're interested in online play, but again, that's a different point, as stated above.

Or you know, keep it. I don't see a point in selling my used games tbh, and well most of them are on Steam so.

Because, you know, Steam is the only way to buy games and physical media/console games don't exist. :rolleyes:

Hypothetically speaking, when I'm off to go somewhere else in life and I don't need/want/have the time/ability to play my old games anymore, why should I bother keeping them? And why shouldn't I try and get back the money from them that I paid so that I can use that cash for something more useful? The money has been paid to the Dev. The single copy that I bought from them has been paid for in full. It is now my game, and what I do with it is entirely up to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that buying used games is bad, I've done it myself. However, there is no ignoring the fact that buying second hand doesn't help the developers, nor does it pay for the maintenance of online play. If you want to have a second hand market that still allows you to go online, you're going to have to deal with supporting the developers via this $10 online licence fee. No one is forcing you to pay it, but you'll have to expect reduced functionality with the game that you've bought.

Or do what I do, and keep hold of the game instead of trading it in. I still break out my original playstation games now and again for a bit of nostalgia :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They lose a potential sale I guess. If no used games exist, people would be forced to buy new (of course there is no guarantee of them actually buying it). Therefore, the devs get money.

With used games (even the ones that come out like a month after release), the guy is still getting the game but the devs / publishers aren't getting anything. The only company that benefits is the one selling the used game, ie Gamestop.

The devs and publishers don't get anything because if they didn't create a game that appealed enough to a person to buy it new, that is their problem, not the user's. Although I don't have statistics, I highly doubt that A) the majority of gamers buy used and B) that these companies are even losing out as much as they claim to be. I mean come on, Ubisoft? The company that spits out decent games at the rate of an Uzi?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then now, we're arguing that we should only pay for the online portion and not the rest of the game, which isn't what I was arguing for. That's a different matter. I get it, servers take money to run and keep running. But Intrinsica is saying that buying games secondhand (with no explicit mention of online or not) is bad for games in general.

The code, as far as I understand, is only valid for online play. So you can just buy a used and get the full single player game.

If you want to play it online, or you feel like actually supporting the devs, then buy it used and pay the $10 or buy it new.

Because, you know, Steam is the only way to buy games and physical media/console games don't exist.

I didn't say that did I? I just said most of MY games are on steam, so I can't.

The devs and publishers don't get anything because if they didn't create a game that appealed enough to a person to buy it new, that is their problem, not the user's. Although I don't have statistics, I highly doubt that A) the majority of gamers buy used and B) that these companies are even losing out as much as they claim to be.

Well I think its only an American thing, with Gamespot, but it's probably a decently sized market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They lose a potential sale I guess. If no used games exist, people would be forced to buy new (of course there is no guarantee of them actually buying it). Therefore, the devs get money.

With used games (even the ones that come out like a month after release), the guy is still getting the game but the devs / publishers aren't getting anything. The only company that benefits is the one selling the used game, ie Gamestop.

That! I hate it that businesses always cry about lost profit when it's no way near sure that the profit would really have been made.

And for that used copy the guy who bought it at GameStop the devs and publishers still got there money once. And in my eyes requesting money for exact the same physical copy more than once is just greed and nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that buying used games is bad, I've done it myself. However, there is no ignoring the fact that buying second hand doesn't help the developers, nor does it pay for the maintenance of online play. If you want to have a second hand market that still allows you to go online, you're going to have to deal with supporting the developers via this $10 online licence fee. No one is forcing you to pay it, but you'll have to expect reduced functionality with the game that you've bought.

Or do what I do, and keep hold of the game instead of trading it in. I still break out my original playstation games now and again for a bit of nostalgia :laugh:

The cost of maintaining an online server is something for the planning department of a game studio to figure out before shipping a game out, not after. That's like deactivating your Photoshop license, selling it to someone else, and then having Adobe complain that you need to pay them extra to recieve updates. @_@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that buying used games is bad, I've done it myself. However, there is no ignoring the fact that buying second hand doesn't help the developers, nor does it pay for the maintenance of online play. If you want to have a second hand market that still allows you to go online, you're going to have to deal with supporting the developers via this $10 online licence fee. No one is forcing you to pay it, but you'll have to expect reduced functionality with the game that you've bought.

Or do what I do, and keep hold of the game instead of trading it in. I still break out my original playstation games now and again for a bit of nostalgia :laugh:

It doesn't cost EA much to keep those servers running, they're just trying to capitalize on "used game" segments.

The way I look at it, you don't buy a used game to use it's MP but mainly for the campaign. You'd want a game that's populated on a daily basis (like Halo) that's a fairly new game and has a currently supported online platform (live in this case)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People don't want to pay ?40 for a game which is why they buy it then sell it when their finished, if they can't sell the game afterwards why buy it why pay money for a game you're going to complete once have no interest in playing again and can no longer sell at a reasonable price? now rather than buy the game you might as well just rent it. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That! I hate it that businesses always cry about lost profit when it's no way near sure that the profit would really have been made.

And for that used copy the guy who bought it at GameStop the devs and publishers still got there money once. And in my eyes requesting money for exact the same physical copy more than once is just greed and nothing else.

Well the devs / publishers can just as easily say that what Gamestop does is greedy, because it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The code, as far as I understand, is only valid for online play. So you can just buy a used and get the full single player game.

Like I said, the argument for online play is different, and isn't related to the idea that one shouldn't buy secondhand. Like I said before, if a game studio doesn't have teh financial backing to keep a server going, they shouldn't launch a game with online play.

If you want to play it online, or you feel like actually supporting the devs, then buy it used and pay the $10 or buy it new.

Or, rather than that, the person I buy it from should deactivate ID somehow so that I can use it, because the money he paid towards using the game online has already been (theoretically) used, and there is no reason I should have to pay them over again, if (assuming standard copyright systems work here) he no longer has the game, and by extension, is no longer playing it, I am simply filling the hole in the online world that he left, I'm not going to pay for a brand new spot.

I didn't say that did I? I just said most of MY games are on steam, so I can't.

Then that's probably why you wouldn't understand why someone wouldn't want to keep all their old games around. It's not an insult, it's just a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the devs / publishers can just as easily say that what Gamestop does is greedy, because it is.

They'd be upset for the very fact they live in a free market then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the devs / publishers can just as easily say that what Gamestop does is greedy, because it is.

But what does that matter? Gamestop is doing something that the game devs obviously aren't: offering the game at a lower price. Which means consumers will purchase from there. Unless of course, the dev does something to make it more appealing to buy a game new rather than a cheap tactic of an online code, which forces the hand of teh consumer, which they generally don't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.