It's not reasonable to hinder someone selling on their property in a perfectly legal manner. As to the bit in bold, the money went to them already, it has already been sold once. Why on earth should they get money from it being sold on again?
This shouldn't be an issue at all, there's no problem that needs a solution, the companies concerned about the second hand market just have to suck it up and live with it.
But without a second hand market the developer/publisher would get money from a second copy being sold rather than just one copy that is subsequently sold to three or four more people. These people obviously want to play the game otherwise they wouldn't have bought it second hand so they are not getting the money from these people which they would have without a second hand market.
I think the online pass is a perfect acceptable method at controlling the problem, and it is almost win/win for both parties.
It's not reasonable to hinder someone selling on their property in a perfectly legal manner. As to the bit in bold, the money went to them already, it has already been sold once. Why on earth should they get money from it being sold on again?
This shouldn't be an issue at all, there's no problem that needs a solution, the companies concerned about the second hand market just have to suck it up and live with it.
Fair point, my argument is more of an ethical point I guess, I would just like to see those who make games benefit from my purchase rather than a retailer selling it for marginally less than the original retail price.
But without a second hand market the developer/publisher would get money from a second copy being sold rather than just one copy that is subsequently sold to three or four more people. These people obviously want to play the game otherwise they wouldn't have bought it second hand so they are not getting the money from these people which they would have without a second hand market.
I think the online pass is a perfect acceptable method at controlling the problem, and it is almost win/win for both parties.
This is the same misconception that people have about pirated games, just because someone will buy it cheap doesn't mean they would buy it at a higher price if it wasn't available cheap.
A lot of the games I have bought used I would never buy at full price or even half price, but I will happily give it a go for a fiver.
The £38 used game sold in the same shop the new version is sold at £40 is bad for the industry, the £5 - £15 old used game which are possible not even available new any more is good for the industry. Balancing it to stop the quick turn around of new game is the problem and while online passes help they really screw up the used market further down the road as games get older. Cheap used games are a great way to jump into a franchise.
Having played the demo of Army of Two 3 last night I am interested in that for the co-op, normally I would go and pick up Army of Two 2 used to try it out and then possible jump into AoT3 new, but if AoT2 has an online pass it makes trying it out a lot more expensive so I would probably just give the lot a miss. (I dont actually know if AoT uses an online pass, I am just using it as an example as I played it last night.)
Fair point, my argument is more of an ethical point I guess, I would just like to see those who make games benefit from my purchase rather than a retailer selling it for marginally less than the original retail price.
Not a single car manufacturer has benefited from me owning 4 different cars, 4 used car dealers have though.
The £38 used game sold in the same shop the new version is sold at £40 is bad for the industry, the £5 - £15 old used game which are possible not even available new any more is good for the industry. Balancing it to stop the quick turn around of new game is the problem and while online passes help they really screw up the used market further down the road as games get older. Cheap used games are a great way to jump into a francise.
Not a single car manufacturer has benefited from me owning 4 different cars, 4 used car dealers have though.
On the first point I agree wholeheartedly.
on the second: Never had to buy OEM parts for any of those cars? Never sent them for a dealer service? Nice attempt at an analogy, but not quite there, for me at least.
This is the same misconception that people have about pirated games, just because someone will buy it cheap doesn't mean they would buy it at a higher price if it wasn't available cheap.
I would say that this argument is valid but I still think that 50% of those who buy 2nd hand would have bought new if the second hand market wasn't there. Even if they had to wait for the price to come down to half price, which will still result in developers getting something rather than nothing.
I just think it is fair and valid for developers and game makers to want to be paid for their work. And people who bemoan that the prices are too high and they should be able to get the games cheaper by other means as if it is their God given right irk me slightly.
I mean if you wait prices do go down so if you don't want to pay full price then wait and get it at a later date. I mean that Army of Two: 40th day you were talking about is only £9.99 from blockbuster new so with a little waiting you can get a game brand new for cheaper than used and everyone wins
I just think it is fair and valid for developers and game makers to want to be paid for their work. And people who bemoan that the prices are too high and they should be able to get the games cheaper by other means as if it is their God given right irk me slightly.
Its all the other things that you lose out on when shutting down the used market that I dont like. I am happy to pay full price for a new game I really want, I will buy new in sales for most games I buy and I do think the used market has grow too big. But when you tackle the used market with online codes ect as a side result you also stop people lending games to friends and people taking games to friends houses which often results in the sale more of games.
The used game also doesn't just take money away from developers, it gives gamers money to give back to developers for other games. Without the trade in systems gamers will spend £40 on a new game one week finish it in 2 weeks then have to save up another £40 for the next game, with trading that person can get £30 back on the game they bought then they only need to get £10 to buy a new £40 game, more developers get more money.
Its not as black and white as you make it out to be, its a balancing act between too much preowned market and not enough.
I mean if you wait prices do go down so if you don't want to pay full price then wait and get it at a later date. I mean that Army of Two: 40th day you were talking about is only £9.99 from blockbuster new so with a little waiting you can get a game brand new for cheaper than used and everyone wins
It was £6 in CEX last time I saw it, 40% less than new. On a game I think is going to be pretty shit but hopefully saved by some fun co-op the cheaper the better for a game that is a gamble.
Its all the other things that you lose out on when shutting down the used market that I dont like. I am happy to pay full price for a new game I really want, I will buy new in sales for most games I buy and I do think the used market has grow too big. But when you tackle the used market with online codes ect as a side result you also stop people lending games to friends and people taking games to friends houses which often results in the sale more of games.
The used game also doesn't just take money away from developers, it gives gamers money to give back to developers for other games. Without the trade in systems gamers will spend £40 on a new game one week finish it in 2 weeks then have to save up another £40 for the next game, with trading that person can get £30 back on the game they bought then they only need to get £10 to buy a new £40 game, more developers get more money.
Its not as black and white as you make it out to be, its a balancing act between too much preowned market and not enough.
It was £6 in CEX last time I saw it, 40% less than new. On a game I think is going to be pretty shit but hopefully saved by some fun co-op the cheaper the better for a game that is a gamble.
As I said I agree with your arguments to a point. I also never said they should remove the market altogether I just think that developers should be allowed to make certain adjustments to get some money from a market that is making a profit from others efforts. This doesn't mean the market should be completely removed just that people shouldn't moan about the evil game industry for trying to make a profit. So I agree there should be some balance but the only way a balance is going to be made is through ideas such as online passes.
I just did a quick search so I missed CEX - I don't often buy used so I don't know all the sites so I do apologise for getting it wrong and indeed CEX has it for £7 but I personally would go for the £3 extra and get new rather than something preowned and it would rule out any worries about online pass systems and the such
But anyway on the whole I understand and accept your point of view and I am not saying what I am saying to you personally, in fact my first comment you replied to was in response to someone saying there isn't a problem and they should suck it up which you don't seem to be on the same line.
you really believe they will pass the savings on if they stop the second hand market ?
Yes, on two counts:
1/ It's in retailers' best interest to keep the price of new games high in order to push people towards the used game market and keep the margins on those high.
HMV, by example, used to have quite good prices for games by comparison to Game. Then, they got into the second hand market.
2/ The price of anything- anything at all- is there because people can and will pay it.
A lot of people use the money from trading games in to subsidise buying a new game.
You take the used market away, people become unable to afford new titles and prices have to come down or they don't sell any games.
I would say that this argument is valid but I still think that 50% of those who buy 2nd hand would have bought new if the second hand market wasn't there.
This is quite a good point, as one thing that often gets lost in this discussion is how a lot of people don't get a choice.
If a given branch of a retailer knows there's ten people in their area that are interested in a title, rather than buy in ten copies and sell them, they'll usually buy in six, with for three of them to come back, sell those (so that's 9 copies out of the door), then wait for one more to come back and sell that (to make ten).
So the person unfortunate enough to come in seventh either has to have a used copy or no copy at all.
You have to wonder what would happen if there was a new copy there for Mr. Turned-Up-Seventh - would he choose to buy new or not? Would all the Mr Turned-Up-Sevenths around the country represent a large enough market to spread the cost of development further and be able to bring the price of new games down?
What about Mrs. Turned-Up-Eleventh, who in this story goes home empty-handed? She doesn't get to contribute to the industry, and might well lose interest in games (or not develop the same interest in games) because she couldn't get the title she wanted.
What about the fifteenth person in line, who doesn't know the game exists, but would probably take it to the counter if they saw it while idly browsing?
I honestly think that the used games market is keeping the price of games higher than they should. You only have to look at the PC games market with their codes and sometimes they are a third cheaper, sometimes even half price for exactly the same game as on the consoles.
If I have a lemonade stand charging 15p glass and every other customer shares their lemonade with a friend I've lost third of my customers. So I have to charge 20p for a glass of sweet, sweet lemonade thus covering my costs on the person who doesn't buy.
I agree though that often some of my games would not have been bought had it not have been for the trade in this game and get this new game for 99p. However I feel this benefits the retailer (it over inflates their sales figures) and not the customer.
Comments
But without a second hand market the developer/publisher would get money from a second copy being sold rather than just one copy that is subsequently sold to three or four more people. These people obviously want to play the game otherwise they wouldn't have bought it second hand so they are not getting the money from these people which they would have without a second hand market.
I think the online pass is a perfect acceptable method at controlling the problem, and it is almost win/win for both parties.
Fair point, my argument is more of an ethical point I guess, I would just like to see those who make games benefit from my purchase rather than a retailer selling it for marginally less than the original retail price.
This is the same misconception that people have about pirated games, just because someone will buy it cheap doesn't mean they would buy it at a higher price if it wasn't available cheap.
A lot of the games I have bought used I would never buy at full price or even half price, but I will happily give it a go for a fiver.
The £38 used game sold in the same shop the new version is sold at £40 is bad for the industry, the £5 - £15 old used game which are possible not even available new any more is good for the industry. Balancing it to stop the quick turn around of new game is the problem and while online passes help they really screw up the used market further down the road as games get older. Cheap used games are a great way to jump into a franchise.
Having played the demo of Army of Two 3 last night I am interested in that for the co-op, normally I would go and pick up Army of Two 2 used to try it out and then possible jump into AoT3 new, but if AoT2 has an online pass it makes trying it out a lot more expensive so I would probably just give the lot a miss. (I dont actually know if AoT uses an online pass, I am just using it as an example as I played it last night.)
Not a single car manufacturer has benefited from me owning 4 different cars, 4 used car dealers have though.
On the first point I agree wholeheartedly.
on the second: Never had to buy OEM parts for any of those cars? Never sent them for a dealer service? Nice attempt at an analogy, but not quite there, for me at least.
I would say that this argument is valid but I still think that 50% of those who buy 2nd hand would have bought new if the second hand market wasn't there. Even if they had to wait for the price to come down to half price, which will still result in developers getting something rather than nothing.
I just think it is fair and valid for developers and game makers to want to be paid for their work. And people who bemoan that the prices are too high and they should be able to get the games cheaper by other means as if it is their God given right irk me slightly.
I mean if you wait prices do go down so if you don't want to pay full price then wait and get it at a later date. I mean that Army of Two: 40th day you were talking about is only £9.99 from blockbuster new so with a little waiting you can get a game brand new for cheaper than used and everyone wins
Its all the other things that you lose out on when shutting down the used market that I dont like. I am happy to pay full price for a new game I really want, I will buy new in sales for most games I buy and I do think the used market has grow too big. But when you tackle the used market with online codes ect as a side result you also stop people lending games to friends and people taking games to friends houses which often results in the sale more of games.
The used game also doesn't just take money away from developers, it gives gamers money to give back to developers for other games. Without the trade in systems gamers will spend £40 on a new game one week finish it in 2 weeks then have to save up another £40 for the next game, with trading that person can get £30 back on the game they bought then they only need to get £10 to buy a new £40 game, more developers get more money.
Its not as black and white as you make it out to be, its a balancing act between too much preowned market and not enough.
It was £6 in CEX last time I saw it, 40% less than new. On a game I think is going to be pretty shit but hopefully saved by some fun co-op the cheaper the better for a game that is a gamble.
As I said I agree with your arguments to a point. I also never said they should remove the market altogether I just think that developers should be allowed to make certain adjustments to get some money from a market that is making a profit from others efforts. This doesn't mean the market should be completely removed just that people shouldn't moan about the evil game industry for trying to make a profit. So I agree there should be some balance but the only way a balance is going to be made is through ideas such as online passes.
I just did a quick search so I missed CEX - I don't often buy used so I don't know all the sites so I do apologise for getting it wrong and indeed CEX has it for £7 but I personally would go for the £3 extra and get new rather than something preowned and it would rule out any worries about online pass systems and the such
But anyway on the whole I understand and accept your point of view and I am not saying what I am saying to you personally, in fact my first comment you replied to was in response to someone saying there isn't a problem and they should suck it up which you don't seem to be on the same line.
Yes, on two counts:
1/ It's in retailers' best interest to keep the price of new games high in order to push people towards the used game market and keep the margins on those high.
HMV, by example, used to have quite good prices for games by comparison to Game. Then, they got into the second hand market.
2/ The price of anything- anything at all- is there because people can and will pay it.
A lot of people use the money from trading games in to subsidise buying a new game.
You take the used market away, people become unable to afford new titles and prices have to come down or they don't sell any games.
How was your journey?
This is quite a good point, as one thing that often gets lost in this discussion is how a lot of people don't get a choice.
If a given branch of a retailer knows there's ten people in their area that are interested in a title, rather than buy in ten copies and sell them, they'll usually buy in six, with for three of them to come back, sell those (so that's 9 copies out of the door), then wait for one more to come back and sell that (to make ten).
So the person unfortunate enough to come in seventh either has to have a used copy or no copy at all.
You have to wonder what would happen if there was a new copy there for Mr. Turned-Up-Seventh - would he choose to buy new or not? Would all the Mr Turned-Up-Sevenths around the country represent a large enough market to spread the cost of development further and be able to bring the price of new games down?
What about Mrs. Turned-Up-Eleventh, who in this story goes home empty-handed? She doesn't get to contribute to the industry, and might well lose interest in games (or not develop the same interest in games) because she couldn't get the title she wanted.
What about the fifteenth person in line, who doesn't know the game exists, but would probably take it to the counter if they saw it while idly browsing?
If I have a lemonade stand charging 15p glass and every other customer shares their lemonade with a friend I've lost third of my customers. So I have to charge 20p for a glass of sweet, sweet lemonade thus covering my costs on the person who doesn't buy.
I agree though that often some of my games would not have been bought had it not have been for the trade in this game and get this new game for 99p. However I feel this benefits the retailer (it over inflates their sales figures) and not the customer.
and super return of the jedi for £45 in hmv