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

The end of used console games!

#61TrugamerPosted 1/12/2013 9:13:56 AM
I will just go PC gaming or if I buy a console I will never pay full retail price for any game no matter how long it takes for the price to drop to half of MSRP.

How much is a product worth initially if it has no value after it has been opened as opposed to a product that retains it's value ? LESS
#62WinternovaPosted 1/12/2013 9:17:13 AM
Trugamer posted...
I will just go PC gaming or if I buy a console I will never pay full retail price for any game no matter how long it takes for the price to drop to half of MSRP.

How much is a product worth initially if it has no value after it has been opened as opposed to a product that retains it's value ? LESS


So, because of the lack of a secondary market for consoles you'll go to a platform with no secondary market to speak of? That seems counter-productive.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMKUUUvjjzo
Fan of: Steelers(6-time Champions), Red Wings(11-time Champions)
#63TheBlueStigPosted 1/12/2013 9:29:36 AM
Winternova posted...
It doesn't prove anything. It would if everyone had the same budget...and the exact same disposable income...and the exact same buying patterns, but they don't. Some people can be just as active in purchasing new games without ever trading games in. And some people can spend more money buying more used games without ever buying new. There's a fundamental flaw in your scenario - and that's the lack of insight as to the wide variety of human behaviours.


You could make the amount of money unlimited, it still doesn't change the fact that the gamer who trades will be able to buy twice as many new games FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY as the gamer who never trades.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
#64WinternovaPosted 1/12/2013 9:33:56 AM
TheBlueStig posted...
Winternova posted...
It doesn't prove anything. It would if everyone had the same budget...and the exact same disposable income...and the exact same buying patterns, but they don't. Some people can be just as active in purchasing new games without ever trading games in. And some people can spend more money buying more used games without ever buying new. There's a fundamental flaw in your scenario - and that's the lack of insight as to the wide variety of human behaviours.


You could make the amount of money unlimited, it still doesn't change the fact that the gamer who trades will be able to buy twice as many new games FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY as the gamer who never trades.


Twice as many? Maybe 1.5 as many.
And the gamer who trades enables someone else to buy the game without supporting the developer (there would be no trade if the game was never intended to be sold used), so that reduces the effect of a gamer who trades and buys only new (seriously, how often does THAT happen?). The effect on the new game market is minimal, at best, when you factor everything in. But, for a simplistic mind, I can see how you could come to your conclusion.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMKUUUvjjzo
Fan of: Steelers(6-time Champions), Red Wings(11-time Champions)
#65CammyApplePosted 1/12/2013 9:34:45 AM
TheBlueStig posted...
Winternova posted...
It doesn't prove anything. It would if everyone had the same budget...and the exact same disposable income...and the exact same buying patterns, but they don't. Some people can be just as active in purchasing new games without ever trading games in. And some people can spend more money buying more used games without ever buying new. There's a fundamental flaw in your scenario - and that's the lack of insight as to the wide variety of human behaviours.


You could make the amount of money unlimited, it still doesn't change the fact that the gamer who trades will be able to buy twice as many new games FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY as the gamer who never trades.


By that token one who only bought used and traded in would be able to buy even more. Your example states they can only buy new. If they can only buy new there is no used market and thus no trade ins.
---
Everything's shiny, Cap'n. Not to fret.
#66Gillian SeedPosted 1/12/2013 9:39:55 AM
TheBlueStig posted...
1. Two people are given the same amount of money to spend on games.

2. Both of them are only allowed to buy NEW games.

3. One person keeps their games and never trades them in.

4. One person is allowed to trade their games in towards other NEW games.

The person who trades will be able to buy twice as many games for the same amount of cash, which means they're the bigger supporter of the industry than any arrogant non-trader or digital buyer.

Yeah, the game trader in the that scenario can spend more money than the person who doesn't trade in games. You fixed it so that's the outcome. You give both gamers a certain amount of money, but you give only one of them a way to raise more money to buy more games. Trading in games isn't the only way people can raise money, so your scenario doesn't apply in the real world.

Plus, there aren't only two people in the gaming world. Let's look at what could happen with just one other person.

Person A spends $500.
Person B spends $500, gets 50% trade in credit, actually spends $750.

$1250 goes to developers so far.

Person C buys Person B's traded in games for 10% less than what they would cost new. So $450 spent on Person B's used games, and $50 left to spend on new games.

$1300 goes to developers.

If Person B hadn't been allowed to trade in games then Person C wouldn't have the option to buy used games. Person C would have bought his games new, so the developers would make $1500 instead of $1300.
#67TheBlueStigPosted 1/12/2013 9:48:44 AM
Gillian Seed posted...
Person C buys Person B's traded in games for 10% less than what they would cost new. So $450 spent on Person B's used games, and $50 left to spend on new games.

$1300 goes to developers.

If Person B hadn't been allowed to trade in games then Person C wouldn't have the option to buy used games. Person C would have bought his games new, so the developers would make $1500 instead of $1300.


The developers got paid once when the game was sold new, WHY THE F*** SHOULD THEY BE PAID MORE THAN ONCE ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Answer that f***ing question for once instead of deliberately avoiding it.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
#68vigorm0rtisPosted 1/12/2013 10:01:24 AM
TheBlueStig posted...

The developers got paid once when the game was sold new, WHY THE F*** SHOULD THEY BE PAID MORE THAN ONCE ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Answer that f***ing question for once instead of deliberately avoiding it.


Actually, why should GS be getting paid for it, is the better question. Or BB, or Meijer. Because you'd rather support unskilled labor than skilled labor? Because you'd rather the middle man get paid three times than the developer get paid twice?

Seriously, if used games aren't discounted at least 30%-- every time-- they don't profit the companies that put money at risk to make them. You a free market guy? I suspect you are.
Why don't you address questions a day old before you post new ones and make demands.
---
"'Grab the guns!' 'What about the troll?' 'Leave the troll.'"--ATHF
#69SheepinatorPosted 1/12/2013 10:03:25 AM
TheBlueStig posted...
You could make the amount of money unlimited, it still doesn't change the fact that the gamer who trades will be able to buy twice as many new games FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY as the gamer who never trades.

Are you stupid? That's not flaming, I'm genuinely curious. I already explained in what I thought were very simple terms how a 4% rise in total consumer spending yields a 33% rise in dev profits, at the expense of the used seller middleman. Do you not understand it?
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.
#70TheBlueStigPosted 1/12/2013 10:12:36 AM
vigorm0rtis posted...
TheBlueStig posted...

The developers got paid once when the game was sold new, WHY THE F*** SHOULD THEY BE PAID MORE THAN ONCE ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Answer that f***ing question for once instead of deliberately avoiding it.


Actually, why should GS be getting paid for it, is the better question. Or BB, or Meijer. Because you'd rather support unskilled labor than skilled labor? Because you'd rather the middle man get paid three times than the developer get paid twice?

Why shouldn't they? They had the idea to create a business, so they started up that business and are making money, they had the idea to do it before you did and you're jealous of it.

You never answered the question either, why should game developers get "special consideration" where used sales are concerned?

Name any item in your house right now, aside from food and personal hygiene products, it can ALL be sold used. Clothing, electronics, TV's, music, furniture, art, jewelry, antiques, cars, motorcycles, they ALL get sold used multiple times down the line, and not one penny ever goes back to the original creators of those items, and they're not plastering their bulls*** all over the internet whining about it. They accept it as the cost of business as it's been for CENTURIES.

But game developers, oh, they consider themselves to be some kind of special, some kind of Mafia kingpin, demanding "their cut" of all used sales like they run the f***ing show.....they're nothing more than arrogant whiney little entitled B****ES who need to be put back in their place.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin