This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The end of used console games!

#21AkaimizuPosted 1/11/2013 12:07:02 PM
turborecon posted...
If the next generation consoles lock out used games how will your buying habits change?


Won't happen all of this next generation. At least with Nintendo, that is.
---
"because 'Clerks' is NINJA in itself." - Ninja Mask lessons by Vern Reid (http://houseofninja.com/tutorial.php)
#22vigorm0rtisPosted 1/11/2013 12:08:40 PM
TheBlueStig posted...


Name ONE LOGICAL REASON why game developers should be allowed to act like the Mafia demanding "their cut" of all used sales.....just one logical reason, something you've never been able to do in the past because you run away from the question and refuse to answer it every single time.

No other "creator" of ANY item capable of being sold used has ever gotten a cut of used sales, so once AGAIN, why should game developers be any different?
.


Simple: in all other areas of resale, the original producer either makes a profit through licensing, services, parts, maintenance, or alternatively, used goods are discounted enough to contribute enough to further sales. Used games do neither, thus do not support the industry, they're just parasites that take from it. I'd support used game sales if the main purveyor offered a 30% discount instead of 5 to 10%, so that you'd be looking at $20 toward another title instead of $3 you'll stick in your wallet.

No one in the auto industry, book publishing, etc, is any less 'greedy' and they don't object to the resale market. They benefit from it. GS's model, which is the dominant one, benefits no one but GS.

Want less value in your games? Keep buying used from a parasite to save $3. It'll all pan out. Honest. Enjoy buying your next online pass.
---
"'Grab the guns!' 'What about the troll?' 'Leave the troll.'"--ATHF
#23SheepinatorPosted 1/11/2013 12:11:34 PM
TheBlueStig posted...
Sheepinator posted...
TheBlueStig posted...
A gamer who buys new, then trades in their games to buy more new games is actually the FAR bigger supporter of the developers than people who only buy new and never trade.

Give 2 gamers $500 each, restrict one of them to never trading any games in, and the gamer who trades games will be able to buy more than TWICE the amount of games as the non-trader.

OK, let's play that game. Let's say people can buy $60 new games, $55 used games, and trade in for $30.

Used games:

New gamer buys 3 games for $180, trades in 2 for $60 credit, net cost to him is $120. Used gamer buys the 2 traded in games for $110. In this scenario the new buyer has spent $120, the used buyer has spent $110, so consumers in total have spent $230. Sony/MS have got 3 royalty fees for 3 new discs sold, the publisher has got 3 sales, and GameStop has $50 profit.

New games only:

New gamer buys 2 games for $120. Formerly used gamer buys 2 new games for $120 instead of $110. In this scenario consumers have spent $240. Sony/MS have got 4 royalty fees for 4 discs sold, the publishers have got 4 sales instead of 3, and GameStop is the big loser.


What I said was for both gamers buying ONLY NEW GAMES, then one is allowed to trade them in towards other new games while the other is forced to keep them.

The gamer who is allowed to trade games can buy twice as many games before the $500 is completely spent (assuming a 50% trade in value). The math doesn't lie.

I know the math doesn't lie. I gave you the math. You apparently didn't understand it. In my scenario I presented both options with near identical amounts of total consumer spending, because being realistic the amount of money in the economy would be similar before and after such a change. That clearly shows a big net loss for GameStop.
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.
#24TheBlueStigPosted 1/11/2013 12:13:35 PM
CammyApple posted...
If you spend a day reading all these kinds of threads you come to one conclusion. People think that games should not have online passes. All DLC should be free or part of the core game. Used game sales are fine. And if a company does or is against any of that it makes them "greedy".

Is this really what gamers are now?


You look at the most popular games out right now and the prices of their DLC, and tell me they're not being greedy.....

Black Ops 2 + Season Pass = $110

Halo 4 + DLC = $95

Rock Band 3 + all DLC = high 4 digit range.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
#25TheBlueStigPosted 1/11/2013 12:27:09 PM
vigorm0rtis posted...
TheBlueStig posted...


Name ONE LOGICAL REASON why game developers should be allowed to act like the Mafia demanding "their cut" of all used sales.....just one logical reason, something you've never been able to do in the past because you run away from the question and refuse to answer it every single time.

No other "creator" of ANY item capable of being sold used has ever gotten a cut of used sales, so once AGAIN, why should game developers be any different?
.


Simple: in all other areas of resale, the original producer either makes a profit through licensing, services, parts, maintenance, or alternatively, used goods are discounted enough to contribute enough to further sales. Used games do neither, thus do not support the industry, they're just parasites that take from it. I'd support used game sales if the main purveyor offered a 30% discount instead of 5 to 10%, so that you'd be looking at $20 toward another title instead of $3 you'll stick in your wallet.

No one in the auto industry, book publishing, etc, is any less 'greedy' and they don't object to the resale market. They benefit from it. GS's model, which is the dominant one, benefits no one but GS.

Want less value in your games? Keep buying used from a parasite to save $3. It'll all pan out. Honest. Enjoy buying your next online pass.


The bolded part is bulls*** and you know it.

As for the first part, where is the "parts and maintenance" in used clothing, furniture, jewelry, art, etc etc etc ? ? ?

Without the ability to sell used games, new game orders would drop off drastically.

Without the ability to sell the games at all, the retailers would refuse to sell the systems because they don't make any f***ing money on the hardware.

Profit on new games only ranges from $5 each to $10 each. Profit on gaming accessories is small and finite, people only buy so many accessories per person.

Once you figure in day to day costs of running a game store ALL THAT PROFIT IS GONE. Store rent per month for the location, day to day cost of electricity, employee payroll and health insurance, covering losses from theft and returns, advertising, etc etc etc. Once all those costs are figured in, all the profit from selling JUST new games is gone. That's why the big box stores have been selling used games for a couple years already.

That means, since you and sheep both need it explained to you like you're children.....that the sales of used games keeps money flowing in to keep ordering new games and new hardware.

Eliminate used games on just one system and you kill that system.

Eliminate used games on all systems and you kill the entire f***ing industry.

Do you get it yet?

Will you EVER get it?
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
#26SheepinatorPosted 1/11/2013 12:27:57 PM(edited)
TheBlueStig posted...
You look at the most popular games out right now and the prices of their DLC, and tell me they're not being greedy.....

Black Ops 2 + Season Pass = $110

Halo 4 + DLC = $95

Rock Band 3 + all DLC = high 4 digit range.

People put hundreds of hours into the MP heavy games. That can work out to 25 cents per hour for their entertainment. Tell me that's expensive compared to... oh, anything really. You could enjoy your game for 16 hours for the same price it takes to enjoy a Starbucks. Or going to the movie theater, $5 per hour. Re Rock Band, when you buy an iPod do you expect all the music on iTunes for free?
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.
#27AkaimizuPosted 1/11/2013 12:30:27 PM(edited)
I can't speak for Black Ops 2, but at least Halo 4 and Rockband 3 give you a pretty full game for just the game itself.

Even better for Rockband 3 since most of the DLC is released afterwards and has a justified price given the music industry does take a cut of it. They also expect hardly anyone to buy all of their DLC since they expect people to only buy the music they like.

I certainly didn't buy any extra stuff for them and I don't feel short-changed at all. Heck, when we played multiplayer, not once have we gone into DLC territory for either game.
---
"because 'Clerks' is NINJA in itself." - Ninja Mask lessons by Vern Reid (http://houseofninja.com/tutorial.php)
#28vigorm0rtisPosted 1/11/2013 12:30:41 PM
TheBlueStig posted...




The bolded part is bulls*** and you know it.

As for the first part, where is the "parts and maintenance" in used clothing, furniture, jewelry, art, etc etc etc ? ? ?




Did you miss the second half, about items being discounted enough to promote further sales?

And no, I don't "know' that the dominant resale outlet is not GS. Maybe you'd like to enlighten me on who sells more used games than the biggest game retailer in the world. Oh, and how the industry survived before there was a used game market. Because I'm old enough to remember that.
---
"'Grab the guns!' 'What about the troll?' 'Leave the troll.'"--ATHF
#29vigorm0rtisPosted 1/11/2013 12:34:53 PM
TheBlueStig posted...


Profit on new games only ranges from $5 each to $10 each. Profit on gaming accessories is small and finite, people only buy so many accessories per person.

Once you figure in day to day costs of running a game store ALL THAT PROFIT IS GONE. Store rent per month for the location, day to day cost of electricity, employee payroll and health insurance, covering losses from theft and returns, advertising, etc etc etc. Once all those costs are figured in, all the profit from selling JUST new games is gone. That's why the big box stores have been selling used games for a couple years already.
.


That's the risk of running a boutique store. If you can't make a profit, you go out of business. GS is taking huge losses already, and I won't be sad to see them go. I don't think most gamers will, either. I successfully ran a comic book shop, but I didn't mark up back issues or used books to shore up profits when we were running thin, I just ran a smarter business, and kept my customer's loyalty in the bargain. Almost 20 years later, the store I handed off is still the only game in my hometown. Who built the formula for that place? I did.
---
"'Grab the guns!' 'What about the troll?' 'Leave the troll.'"--ATHF
#30SheepinatorPosted 1/11/2013 12:35:09 PM
TheBlueStig posted...
Once you figure in day to day costs of running a game store ALL THAT PROFIT IS GONE. Store rent per month for the location, day to day cost of electricity, employee payroll and health insurance, covering losses from theft and returns, advertising, etc etc etc. Once all those costs are figured in, all the profit from selling JUST new games is gone. That's why the big box stores have been selling used games for a couple years already. That means, since you and sheep both need it explained to you like you're children

How come GameStop has been seeing its profits rise this whole cycle, and you call it good business sense that they find ways to profit more. (and then some, gouging gamers with trade in prices and screwing publishers at the same time). Yet with the publishers which have been seeing their profits decline this whole cycle, you call them greedy if they attempt to find ways to boost profits. So you support retailers for being greedy and attack publishers for being greedy. Such lack of consistency would be expected from a child. Just saying.
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.