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

The end of used console games!

#81TheBlueStigPosted 1/12/2013 10:47:56 AM
Winternova posted...
Gillian Seed posted...
I just think your 'two gamers with $500 each' scenario doesn't count for anything. It leaves out too many factors, and it adds one that unfairly gives game trading an edge.


That was my point, which he conveniently ignored and started arguing against other people.


So you admit to not being able to read?

I replied to you, look up, you could make the amount UNLIMITED for each gamer, it still doesn't change the fact that the gamer who trades will be able to buy more games FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY.

The elimination of used games means LOWER NEW SALES.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
#82WinternovaPosted 1/12/2013 10:56:20 AM
TheBlueStig posted...
Winternova posted...
Gillian Seed posted...
I just think your 'two gamers with $500 each' scenario doesn't count for anything. It leaves out too many factors, and it adds one that unfairly gives game trading an edge.


That was my point, which he conveniently ignored and started arguing against other people.


So you admit to not being able to read?

I replied to you, look up, you could make the amount UNLIMITED for each gamer, it still doesn't change the fact that the gamer who trades will be able to buy more games FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY.

The elimination of used games means LOWER NEW SALES.


And I replied to you and refuted your pathetically simplistic scenario in post #64 which you ignored while arguing with other people. You're ignoring effect of people buying used instead of buying new. Additionally, you're ignoring the effect of people who buy used with their trade-ins instead of new. Your argument doesn't reflect reality in the slightest, but, then again, your posts rarely do.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMKUUUvjjzo
Fan of: Steelers(6-time Champions), Red Wings(11-time Champions)
#83levyjl1988Posted 1/12/2013 11:03:57 AM
Well considering I rarely buy used games this won't affect me.
---
Comics and Gaming Magazine
http://www.cgmagazine.ca/
#84TheBlueStigPosted 1/12/2013 11:05:47 AM
Winternova posted...
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.

Nope, run the math down the line assuming a 50% trade in value. It actually works out to just over twice the number once the set amount has been spent.

I ran it down a long time ago when prices for new games were $50 for new titles. With a $500 starting point, the new-only-never-trade buyer would only get 10 games for his $500. The gamer who trades gets 21 games by the time the whole $500 is spent.

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.


The used games sold as new once already, why should the developer get a cut of used sales when they were paid once already?

That's just rich people whining about not getting even richer. I have no sympathy for that level of arrogance. IMHO rich people who whine about not getting richer should be completely broken so they can see just how lucky they really had it before they opened their big greedy mouths.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
#85Merc123Posted 1/12/2013 11:12:55 AM
It won't change my buying habits. I hardly buy used games since the prices at gamestop are usually never too good, and i can usually get the game cheaper new on Amazon than at Gamestop.

The only bad thing is sometimes i got rarer games used there, but then again, there is Amazon.
---
http://www.facebook.com/MEmarauder - Marauder Shields Facebook page.
#86WinternovaPosted 1/12/2013 11:44:48 AM(edited)
TheBlueStig posted...
Nope, run the math down the line assuming a 50% trade in value. It actually works out to just over twice the number once the set amount has been spent.

I ran it down a long time ago when prices for new games were $50 for new titles. With a $500 starting point, the new-only-never-trade buyer would only get 10 games for his $500. The gamer who trades gets 21 games by the time the whole $500 is spent.


And you're assuming a fast-turnover with the games and high trade-in prices. Some games don't get traded in right away and lose more value...again, you're being too simplistic in your analysis.

I came up (using $60 console games) with 8 for the new buyer and 13 for the used (assuming every game is traded in for a $25 credit). Just a bit over the 1.5 I mentioned and both purchasers have a bit of cash left over.

The used games sold as new once already, why should the developer get a cut of used sales when they were paid once already?

That's just rich people whining about not getting even richer. I have no sympathy for that level of arrogance. IMHO rich people who whine about not getting richer should be completely broken so they can see just how lucky they really had it before they opened their big greedy mouths.


No one is saying that the developer should get a cut of used sales, especially me. That's a complete non sequitur which has NOTHING to do with the discussion. Why do you keep bringing it up? The discussion is between buying used and buying new, NOT giving publishers (not developers, PUBLISHERS) a cut of used sales. Publishers have already found a way to monetized used sales through online passes and DLC.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMKUUUvjjzo
Fan of: Steelers(6-time Champions), Red Wings(11-time Champions)
#87SheepinatorPosted 1/12/2013 11:48:10 AM
TheBlueStig posted...
Sheepinator posted...
TheBlueStig posted...
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.

I have seen this claim on gamefaqs often that devs are demanding a cut of used sales, but I have never seen a publisher or developer make such a claim. I think making stuff up like that is a good sign of a weak argument.

It was proven to you a long time ago with direct links, but since you don't even remember what YOU post expecting you to remember what someone else posts is out of the question, especially when it proves you wrong.

Yeah, sure it was. I didn't expect you to back up your claim. Why start now?
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.
#88SheepinatorPosted 1/12/2013 11:53:56 AM
TheBlueStig posted...
Winternova posted...
Gillian Seed posted...
I just think your 'two gamers with $500 each' scenario doesn't count for anything. It leaves out too many factors, and it adds one that unfairly gives game trading an edge.


That was my point, which he conveniently ignored and started arguing against other people.


So you admit to not being able to read?

I replied to you, look up, you could make the amount UNLIMITED for each gamer, it still doesn't change the fact that the gamer who trades will be able to buy more games FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY.

The elimination of used games means LOWER NEW SALES.

So the guy who used to buy used games, which can be $55, would buy zero new games with his money instead? He'd just stop gaming cold turkey? Sounds like a fairly absurd requirement for your "logic". In the real world, total consumer spending on games new + used (if any) would be similar. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?
---
My mad face and my happy face are the same.
#89TheBlueStigPosted 1/12/2013 11:57:33 AM
Winternova posted...
No one is saying that the developer should get a cut of used sales, especially me.


Yet you ARE suggesting that they get paid more than once, and that means a cut of used sales.

Gotta love that double-speak hypocrisy.....
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
#90TheBlueStigPosted 1/12/2013 12:08:31 PM
Sheepinator posted...
So the guy who used to buy used games, which can be $55, would buy zero new games with his money instead? He'd just stop gaming cold turkey? Sounds like a fairly absurd requirement for your "logic". In the real world, total consumer spending on games new + used (if any) would be similar. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?


Do you read any of the other topics on this board at all?

Or do you just respond to the topics your masters tell you to?

People who can't rent before buying, or try a demo, or borrow a game BEFORE BUYING will buy fewer games to avoid getting stuck with the inevitable turkey of a game released just to make that quick buck before the people wake up and realize the game sucks.

Many MANY people on this board and many others have already stated many times that they won't buy anywhere near as many games if used games are eliminated.

Many MANY people on this board and many others have already stated many times that they won't buy anywhere near as many games if used games are eliminated.

Elimination of used games also eliminates renting and borrowing. Since the rental industry buys their games new, that's a few million copies that won't be getting sold for each game.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin