[QUOTE=control-z]
Yeah then you wind up with the cheapest game in the world, Battlecruiser 3000AD or something. Then you go outside and play.
[/QUOTE]
I thought we decreed that game was not to be discussed, ever. (Though the real failing of that game was pretty much Derek Smart refusing to have help or relegate decisions to anyone but himself).
I guess I’m a pirate for buying my house used. After all, the company who built it was not compensated in any way through my purchase.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
I guess I’m a pirate for buying my house used. After all, the company who built it was not compensated in any way through my purchase.
[/QUOTE]
A car that gets sold and not bought used will eventually become obsolete and stripped and used for new cars. A game or book can be enjoyed years down the road as nostalgia. Houses sit on a lot dragging down property values and taking up space. It makes more sense to preserve the land and not take up extra space by buying a house in an existing lot, and the high initial costs of house construction make up for this logical necessity. Sure, I suppose you could tear it down and build a new one on the lot, but the nature of the business isn’t structured to handle that every single time someone buys a lot, but is logically structured to easily compensate in profit for the reality of used lots (not to mention used houses start to require maintenance so they get their money when they come to repair your breaking used home).
Also: I never said buying used WAS pirating, there are indeed differences, I said it’s similar in that the producer is out while you get a product.
Your rules strike me as very arbitrary; certainly convoluted. I imagine it must be hell for you to plan a garage sale.
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
Your rules strike me as very arbitrary; certainly convoluted. I imagine it must be hell for you to plan a garage sale.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve been accused of many things, avoidance of the arbitrary and rational simplicity are certainly not among them. 
So you’re admitting that you have a preference that completely goes against basically all of human history and economics? Because selling what you have is almoooost the essence of economics. Some people have only time, some have skill and time, and some have real assets.
[QUOTE=Cardinal]
So you’re admitting that you have a preference that completely goes against basically all of human history and economics? Because selling what you have is almoooost the essence of economics. Some people have only time, some have skill and time, and some have real assets.
[/QUOTE]
Pretty much.
Jragon, you’re joking, right? :eek:
If not, what you’re advocating is not just silly, it’s wasteful. Would you really prefer to see landfills packed with perfectly usable but no longer needed books, clothes, games, bicycles, televisions, et cetera, rather than have them sold to those who are willing to receive used merchandise at a reduced cost?
Once a person or business sells a physical object, they have no further right to any revenue from that particular object. They made it, they sold it, you bought it, it’s yours. If they want more revenue, they’ll have to sell another one. If they have a hard time selling more because everybody who bought one the first time wants to sell it, and nobody is willing to pay the full “new” price for it, too bad – they should have made a better product. 
Are you related to that guy who said that people who don’t pay attention to the commercials are stealing TV?
It’s post #13 that’s really the insane one. Like there’s something underhanded about simply borrowing books from the library to read for pleasure, with no intent to ever purchase them, the only exonerating circumstance being poverty.
But I suspect Jragon would rather just drop the topic now, as it’s near enough to horse-beating territory now and he’s clearly not getting any defenders, so, having gotten my last jab in, let’s move on. 
[QUOTE=Jragon]
Also: I never said buying used WAS pirating, there are indeed differences, I said it’s similar in that the producer is out while you get a product.
[/QUOTE]
The difference is substantial.
My view is that a game disc (or CD, DVD, book etc) represents the ability of one person to play the game or otherwise use the product at any one time. Who that person is doesn’t matter. Provided that once the game is sold to another person, the first person can no longer play it, the system is working. Game developers are not going to care much about second hand sales because by the time their product is being sold used they are putting out their new game and trying to make money off that. They make money off the new game by making it good enough that people would rather buy it new and play it now than buy it used and play it later. Also consider that a successful used market relies on a successful new market. If lots of people don’t buy the games new then there won’t be many used copies either.
Muldoonthief, aside from the possibility of a scratched disc, I see no reason not to buy used games. However I think you should be able to do better than 66% of the new value. Most used games I see are about half the price of new ones.
Eh, I’ve seen that some game developers do care about such things (didn’t Mark Rein of Epic Games make a statement complaining about used game sales, and then get raked over the coals for it by the gamer community?). I just don’t think we should accord such self-serving opinions much merit; they are clearly ridiculous, especially as seen in light of the way we treat all other products.
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
It’s post #13 that’s really the insane one. Like there’s something underhanded about simply borrowing books from the library to read for pleasure, with no intent to ever purchase them, unless one is too poor to afford them otherwise.
But I suspect Jragon would rather just drop the topic now, as it’s near enough to horse-beating territory now and he’s clearly not getting any defenders, so, having gotten my last jab in, let’s move on. 
[/QUOTE]
Some people never go insane, what truly horrible lives they must lead!
[QUOTE=Stealth Potato]
Jragon, you’re joking, right? :eek:
If not, what you’re advocating is not just silly, it’s wasteful. Would you really prefer to see landfills packed with perfectly usable but no longer needed books, clothes, games, bicycles, televisions, et cetera, rather than have them sold to those who are willing to receive used merchandise at a reduced cost?
Once a person or business sells a physical object, they have no further right to any revenue from that particular object. They made it, they sold it, you bought it, it’s yours. If they want more revenue, they’ll have to sell another one. If they have a hard time selling more because everybody who bought one the first time wants to sell it, and nobody is willing to pay the full “new” price for it, too bad – they should have made a better product.
[/QUOTE]
I was thinking more like recycling the materials, but whatever. I know what you’re saying is technically correct, but I’ll be damned if I don’t feel the designers should get a cut when someone wants something they designed. The thing with games is a lot of them are linear and not replayable, they’re still amazing games, just with low replay value. Selling them can be justified without saying they made a bad product, but I feel since the designers did in fact make a good game they shouldn’t be penalized for the fact it’s a one-time affair, people may not buy the one-time game new and reward the great experience they get because of the sales, while a bad multiplayer game may be kept for vague promises of “improvements” knowing people will be online because it doesn’t have a definite one-shot replay value and the company making the crappy multiplayer game may sell more original copies than the one making the damn good one-shot game(I know it’s a lot more complex than this, but still). When the shelf-life is up that’s the time to distribute your personal copy to others who couldn’t afford it or missed out the first time around, because the experience is no longer deemed marketable by the company and the developers no longer get any return from sales. I’m not advocating never selling your used stuff, I’m simply advocating WAITING until the game has passed its shelf life (i.e. a bit longer than usual, instead of this selling two days after release stuff).
I’m not abject to selling during shortages however, sell your Wii if Nintendo isn’t bothering to meet demand. Now how’s THAT for arbitrary!?
[QUOTE=1920s Style “Death Ray”]
The difference is substantial.
My view is that a game disc (or CD, DVD, book etc) represents the ability of one person to play the game or otherwise use the product at any one time. Who that person is doesn’t matter. Provided that once the game is sold to another person, the first person can no longer play it, the system is working. Game developers are not going to care much about second hand sales because by the time their product is being sold used they are putting out their new game and trying to make money off that. They make money off the new game by making it good enough that people would rather buy it new and play it now than buy it used and play it later. Also consider that a successful used market relies on a successful new market. If lots of people don’t buy the games new then there won’t be many used copies either.
[/QUOTE]
Good points, I pretty much concede, I still maintain I’d prefer WAITING until later in the shelf life to sell, but these are very good arguments.
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
Eh, I’ve seen that some game developers do care about such things (didn’t Mark Rein of Epic Games make a statement complaining about used game sales, and then get raked over the coals for it by the gamer community?). I just don’t think we should accord such self-serving opinions much merit; they are clearly ridiculous, especially as seen in light of the way we treat all other products.
[/QUOTE]
See even though I’m going into game design at least I’m equally crazy and arbitrary about ALL creative distribution!
[QUOTE=Manduck]
Are you related to that guy who said that people who don’t pay attention to the commercials are stealing TV?
[/QUOTE]
Pfft. That guy? I ate his soul and absorbed his energy weeks ago.
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
Eh, I’ve seen that some game developers do care about such things (didn’t Mark Rein of Epic Games make a statement complaining about used game sales, and then get raked over the coals for it by the gamer community?). I just don’t think we should accord such self-serving opinions much merit; they are clearly ridiculous, especially as seen in light of the way we treat all other products.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah I guess some probably do, it’s understandable to feel you’re missing out on something.
[QUOTE=1920s Style “Death Ray”]
Yeah I guess some probably do, it’s understandable to feel you’re missing out on something.
[/QUOTE]
It’s Epic though, didn’t one of their designers also say they wouldn’t develop for the Wii because it was “moving backwards” and then get raked over the coals by gamers (was it Cliff B? I thought it was but in a gametrailers bonus round he practically fawned over the machine for the whole special so it left me wondering who it was)? They seem to have a knack for pissing people off.
[QUOTE=Jragon]
See even though I’m going into game design at least I’m equally crazy and arbitrary about ALL creative distribution!
[/QUOTE]
A real Renaissance man.
[QUOTE=1920s Style “Death Ray”]
Game developers are not going to care much about second hand sales because by the time their product is being sold used they are putting out their new game and trying to make money off that.
[/QUOTE]
Actually game developers accept the used market as an unavoidable side effect of how the business is structured. But we’d obviously prefer if people bought new games – that would mean more money for us and less for game retailers.
(Of course, what would really make us happy is if more people collected games like they collect comic books. Buy three of every title! One to play, one to save unopened, and one trade … . 
)
Now there’s nothing morally wrong with buying used games. I do it myself. But it does mean less money for the game makers. Some publishers have complained about the amount of shelf space that retailers devote to selling used games. It is kind of annoying when you walk into a store where there are more used games on the shelves than new ones. You can’t blame the stores for trying to maximize their profits though.
In the long run things will change. The industry is moving to on-line distribution. There won’t be any more used disks to sell. But it also means that old titles will remain on the virtual shelves at discount prices. With infinite shelf space you won’t have to worry about clearing out old games to make way for the new. You just stock everything all the time and keep dropping prices as titles age. For the consumer it will probably be a wash. You’ll still get old games cheaply. For the game makers it will be a windfall. We’ll get the downstream money, not the retailers. The storefront retailers will eventually go out of business.
[QUOTE=Stealth Potato]
They made it, they sold it, you bought it, it’s yours. If they want more revenue, they’ll have to sell another one. If they have a hard time selling more because everybody who bought one the first time wants to sell it, and nobody is willing to pay the full “new” price for it, too bad – they should have made a better product.
[/QUOTE]
Please see: Metallica, St. Anger in your reading for a descriptive case study.
Seriously, I head on this board, I think, that used CD stores were refusing St. Anger discs because there was a glut of disappointed fans trying to dump them.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
The industry is moving to on-line distribution. There won’t be any more used disks to sell.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a good point, and only encourages me to buy older games on ebay, not Steam, so I can sell or give them away later.