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

Why would people rather give their money to EB/Gamestop than to developers?

#221Bottler0cketPosted 1/7/2013 6:41:09 AM
calhoun1389 posted...
Godly_Goof posted...
You know when you trade in a game at GameStop you get store credit that can only be used on other games or hardware which in turn will 99% of the time result in another new game purchase

I'm sorry, where exactly did you get this statistic from, or are you just talking about what you do and equating it to what everyone does?

Though it's all beside the point as the issue isn't what people do with the money they get back, it's Gamestop's enabling people to buy current gen games without any money being kicked back. Sure, someone trades in GTA4 for CoD4 and Activision gets the money for that game. However, someone else comes in and buys GTA4 used which then takes money from Rockstar. That's lost revenue for Rockstar games that shouldn't have been lost in the first place.


Although he has pulled that percentage out of thin air, I can confirm that around 70% of income consumers make from trade in's is spent of new games. Source:- http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/08/02/what-happens-to-your-used-games

As for your second point, well, you kinda debunked it yourself. Rockstar get their income when people trade in their old games to purchase GTA IV brand new (people who might not of bought the game with out a trade in). In fact an argument could be made that developers would actually lose revenue as people would not be able to subsidize their brand new game purchases by trading in their old games.

This is how all industries work. The computer games industry need to realize they can not have their cake and eat it. No other industry moans about the used market like the games industry, frankly it's pathetic.
#222SinfullyvannilaPosted 1/7/2013 6:52:15 AM
Consumers don't support developers ever. They support retailers, who support publishers, who support developers.

Publishers pay developers most of their money before the games hit the shelves based on labor and sales expectations. They get incentives based on units shipped. That is, sold to the retailer. The only time more units get shipped is when retailers restock, which usually doesn't happen with videogames. Hence, consumers very rarely affect how much a developer gets paid.

I'm really sick of having to explain a consumer chain.
---
Polite conversation should never include Politics, Religion or what constitutes an RPG.
Playing a game for it's story is like watching porn for it's story.
#223calhoun1389Posted 1/7/2013 8:24:19 AM
Jinzo 111887 posted...
1.)Yes, but at least the company got some money from it, unlike when people pirate a game. If everyone pirated the game, they'd get jack squat. At least with used games, they get something the first time it's sold.
2.)A single game can only be in one place at a time, it's not like those 10 people can all be playing it at the same time from the same disc.
3.)Which is why they shouldn't go overboard with hype. Heck, maybe doing that can help with the games budget.
4.)True, but it's not like that stuff is getting easier to find. There are take down orders that result in videos being removed from youtube, rental companies aren't what they used to be thanks to online rental services and these lame anti-used game tricks, and let's not forget about people online can easily right a troll review just to damage a game's sales because they don't like a company.)
5.)Except you can't call unhappy customers "real sales." If they couldn't return the product, they'd probably decide to write bad reviews, which would hurt sales of future installments. Thing is, either way the company still got paid.

1) Some, but not all that they should have, and that's their issue. People are out there getting copies of their game without paying them. Also, there have been many cases of movie, music, and even game pirates who enjoyed what they downloaded and as a result, went to buy a legitimate copy. I don't remember ever hearing about someone who liked a game/movie/CD they got second hand and going out to buy a copy from a retailer.

2) It's not a matter of how many people are playing at once, it's how many people have payed the publisher to own the game against how many people have owned the game.

3) Users do just as much hyping on their own. Case in point, that GTA4 story I had just told. At no point in Rockstar's advertisement had they made it seem like any of that was possible, but it still happened. Activision does a bit of hyping for CoD, but they mainly reiterate that each installment is the blockbuster FPS of the year (and they're not wrong, it is the biggest budget, mass appeal FPS every year), but it's the users who go around talking about it as if CoD and Activision were the equivalent of fire and Prometheus.

4) It's still pretty easy to find reviews, gameplay and such. The internet solves all of those desires, and magazines still do reviews. (I remember when I was a kid, we didn't have the internet so we had to wait for Nintendo Power or whoever to review a game before we spent money). If anything, online rental services make it easier to rent games than back in the 90's. As for the anti-used practices, we (as a consumer base) really only have ourselves to blame, and most of the anti-used practices only bar online gameplay, leaving you with the Single Player to gauge the gameplay on.

5) For that one person, yes, they got payed, but for those 10 other people who buy it used, they're not. It's not a "One copy + one sale = everyone be happy" situation, it's more of a "1 used purchase = 1 less new purchase = something needs to change" situation.

The issue people seem to be having here is that they're looking at the practices from a consumer standpoint instead of accepting that video games are a business and that these publishers aren't out to make friends with everyone. The sole reason video games exist is because there's money to be made off them. You can't demonize a company for trying to maximize their profit from making a game, it's the sole reason they're making the games.
---
My first born, Jackson was born on Friday, May 11, 2012.
My Anime List: http://tinyurl.com/c6ylh9y (Updates regularly)
#224calhoun1389Posted 1/7/2013 8:24:27 AM
Bottler0cket posted...
<Although he has pulled that percentage out of thin air, I can confirm that around 70% of income consumers make from trade in's is spent of new games. Source:- http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/08/02/what-happens-to-your-used-games

Thank you for that link, however, that's still 30% using the money for either used games or to keep. They also went on to say that those "trade in" sales only make up for 17% of their total sales. That means that 83% of their total sales come from other sales and only 42% of that is new game sales.

As for your second point, well, you kinda debunked it yourself. Rockstar get their income when people trade in their old games to purchase GTA IV brand new (people who might not of bought the game with out a trade in). In fact an argument could be made that developers would actually lose revenue as people would not be able to subsidize their brand new game purchases by trading in their old games.

But again, the trade in purchases only account for 17% of Gamestop's yearly game sales. And I didn't debunk my own argument, I was pointing out how two people got to play the game while Rockstar was only payed for one person to play the game.


This is how all industries work. The computer games industry need to realize they can not have their cake and eat it. No other industry moans about the used market like the games industry, frankly it's pathetic.

The difference, as someone else already pointed out, is that games don't degrade over time. Sure, we have disc rot, but for blu-ray discs, it's rare as hell and takes years of constant use for the problem to occur. You're not saving that extra $5 by buying a copy of the game that doesn't work as well as a new copy, you're getting the exact same thing as the people who bought it new. When the publishers/developers started using online codes to ensure that your used game wasn't exactly the same as a new copy, people started crying about how they were being greedy and unreasonable.
---
My first born, Jackson was born on Friday, May 11, 2012.
My Anime List: http://tinyurl.com/c6ylh9y (Updates regularly)
#225methosagainPosted 1/7/2013 8:30:26 AM
interesting fact, but the devs receive money for every game sold due to the fact that every store out there pays for its allocated stock of said title, so that used game you just bought does little to no harm to devs at all
---
Law of the universe states the strong shall survive and the weak fall by the way, I don't give a damn what idealistic plan is cooked up, nothing changes that
#226Jinzo 111887Posted 1/7/2013 4:06:13 PM(edited)
From: calhoun1389 | #223
1) Some, but not all that they should have, and that's their issue. People are out there getting copies of their game without paying them. Also, there have been many cases of movie, music, and even game pirates who enjoyed what they downloaded and as a result, went to buy a legitimate copy. I don't remember ever hearing about someone who liked a game/movie/CD they got second hand and going out to buy a copy from a retailer.
2)It's not a matter of how many people are playing at once, it's how many people have payed the publisher to own the game against how many people have owned the game.
3) Users do just as much hyping on their own. Case in point, that GTA4 story I had just told. At no point in Rockstar's advertisement had they made it seem like any of that was possible, but it still happened. Activision does a bit of hyping for CoD, but they mainly reiterate that each installment is the blockbuster FPS of the year (and they're not wrong, it is the biggest budget, mass appeal FPS every year), but it's the users who go around talking about it as if CoD and Activision were the equivalent of fire and Prometheus.
4) It's still pretty easy to find reviews, gameplay and such. The internet solves all of those desires, and magazines still do reviews. (I remember when I was a kid, we didn't have the internet so we had to wait for Nintendo Power or whoever to review a game before we spent money). If anything, online rental services make it easier to rent games than back in the 90's. As for the anti-used practices, we (as a consumer base) really only have ourselves to blame, and most of the anti-used practices only bar online gameplay, leaving you with the Single Player to gauge the gameplay on.
5) For that one person, yes, they got payed, but for those 10 other people who buy it used, they're not. It's not a "One copy + one sale = everyone be happy" situation, it's more of a "1 used purchase = 1 less new purchase = something needs to change" situation.
6)The issue people seem to be having here is that they're looking at the practices from a consumer standpoint instead of accepting that video games are a business and that these publishers aren't out to make friends with everyone. The sole reason video games exist is because there's money to be made off them. You can't demonize a company for trying to maximize their profit from making a game, it's the sole reason they're making the games.

1.)I've rebought retail titles on virtual console, even though I could have hacked my Wii and ran them on emulators via USB cartridge reader instead. Those sales didn't happen immediately, but they did happen later on.
2.)That's what they want you to think... If that were really the case, everyone on a console would have to buy the pass to if they wanted to play online, and that would mean gamesharing would be useless. Anyway, I don't see how several people who play a game they bought used online occasionally put more stress on servers than one person who bought the game new and plays it online frequently.
3.)Then keep details secret or better yet, pull a Mother 3 and claim the game's been canceled and then surprise release it.
4.)Most of them block online play right now, but it's only matter of time before they become even more shortsighted and break the entire game while continuing their childish behavior.
5)And there's no guarantee they would have purchased it anyway. I mean, some people get used games as gifts. However, that doesn't mean they won't get future installments new if they liked the game, which provides potential sales they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
6.)Do you remember Enron? There are ethics for accountants because of them, why shouldn't businesses be held to a standard of ethics, too? Besides, games are supposed to be about fun. Thing is, companies are trying to remove it.
---
Secure... Contain... Protect... Containment Breach?
http://www.scpcbgame.com/
#227Fear the MONKEYPosted 1/7/2013 4:09:52 PM
i let my friend borrow my games. for free. not a single dollar of his goes to sony or developers.

he and i must be the scum of the (gaming) world.
---
psn id: FearTheMonkey
#228RampantBlattPosted 1/7/2013 4:11:45 PM
Sinfullyvannila posted...
Consumers don't support developers ever. They support retailers, who support publishers, who support developers.

Publishers pay developers most of their money before the games hit the shelves based on labor and sales expectations. They get incentives based on units shipped. That is, sold to the retailer. The only time more units get shipped is when retailers restock, which usually doesn't happen with videogames. Hence, consumers very rarely affect how much a developer gets paid.

I'm really sick of having to explain a consumer chain.


THIS.

Sweet CHRIST. If you bought a new game, maybe a percentile of what you purchased gets seen by the developers.

And the thing of it is, that percentile isn't from YOUR purchase. It is just a trickle-down through the Chain.
#229Jinzo 111887Posted 1/7/2013 4:19:46 PM
From: RampantBlatt | #228
Sinfullyvannila posted...
Consumers don't support developers ever. They support retailers, who support publishers, who support developers.

Publishers pay developers most of their money before the games hit the shelves based on labor and sales expectations. They get incentives based on units shipped. That is, sold to the retailer. The only time more units get shipped is when retailers restock, which usually doesn't happen with videogames. Hence, consumers very rarely affect how much a developer gets paid.

I'm really sick of having to explain a consumer chain.


THIS.

Sweet CHRIST. If you bought a new game, maybe a percentile of what you purchased gets seen by the developers.

And the thing of it is, that percentile isn't from YOUR purchase. It is just a trickle-down through the Chain.

This is one thing I've been trying to say. It doesn't matter if you buy new or used, your money doesn't go directly to the company. It goes a middle man. If it went directly to a company, I would buy an Ace Attorney game and pay with all $1 bills with the message "Get back to work on Mega Man Legends 3!" on each one to sent them a message to Capcom while I enjoy their game.
---
Secure... Contain... Protect... Containment Breach?
http://www.scpcbgame.com/
#230jessica73Posted 1/7/2013 4:28:39 PM
From: -Damien- | #001
If you buy used, not a single cent goes to the developers or Sony.


I don't give a s*** about sony (vita, psp, psp, all used) or most devs. The ones I do, Ill buy it new, can't really avoid that anyway when I am mostly buying on steam or other pc DD. tbqh, i'll go out of my way to buy an EA game used. >_>

also it's called not buying from/selling to GS, You can get better deals on amazon/ebay for buying and selling your used games, though GS is good withe the Powerup card if it's not a super new game or it's a BOGO/B2G1 sale going on.
---
http://raptr.com/badge/thebotqueen/fs.png