3 simple reasons why game companies should stop whining about used game sales.

Sarcastic Gamer smacks video game companies around with economics as they explain three reasons why used game sales are good for them.

"The title says it all. Where else in, well, in life, have there ever been people who sell you stuff, who will do everything in their power to keep you from selling it to someone else. You own it. You’ve purchased it. The thing you paid money for? It’s yours. To keep, to destroy, to sell.

Video game developers can’t stand it. Recently a rep from THQ went out of their way to spit on gamers that buy used games. To paraphrase, he said “(THQ) doesn’t care about gamers that buy used.” This is not healthy. It’s not healthy for developers to fixate on this and it’s not healthy to use their considerable power to attempt to stop us from doing whatever we want with the things we own."

[DasBunker]

lol'd at ducktales pic..

i rarely buy used.. but when i do is mostly when devs/publishers are a-holes and dont deserve my money.

Just make an excellent game and you dont have to worry about sales, they will speak for themselves for the most part.

[deadreckoning666]

His 3rd point is a very good one. If you buy a used game you like, then ull likely pay full price to buy the sequel brand new. I agree 100%. I bought Uncharted 2 used a couple months ago and I'm ready to pre-order Uncharted 3.

[Baka-akaB]

What's even the basis for such a statement ?
It's every bit as likely than the customer might just buy the sequel used , again .

[AC130-Gunship]

Publishers are screwing everyone

Activision made 1 billion dollars on MW2

1 BILLION!!!

The Infinity Ward leads peeped, and got fired.

You do the math.

[RedDead]

The first point is absolutly correct for me, i've only ever traded in games to get a new game. Never for cash.

[avengers1978]

I only buy used games when the game doesn't seem like it's worth 60 bucks to me. I have no problem paying for games that I want, but games I'm unsure of I get used.
If I choose to not trade in any of my games, I would probably just give them to friends, and then no one makes any money off that old game. I only keep the games that I really, really enjoyed, and even then I sometimes trade them in to get cash for new games that are coming out.
Plus there are a ton of games I never would have played if I didn't buy them for a used copy price(20-30$)...Then if there better then I thought that Dev may get me to shell out money for there next game...because now I'm a fan of theres.
Really they should stop complaining about it, and focus on stopping pirates, used games have been around along time, and now it's a problem(I DON'T THINK SO!)

[ico92]

i only buy used games if the game is published by activison, you have no idea how much i hate that company

[KratosGirI]

I usually buy my games used.

[Genesis5]

I get the previously played ones from my local video store alot. If it's a game I have been waiting for I will usually get it day 1. If I'm just out looking for deals I can get some new games for around $20-$25 off the previously played shelf. With BR disc they have the special coating so once you wipe the finger prints off them they look brand new.

[PandemicPrawn0]

I have been buying nearly all my games used this gen.

Should I feel bad about that? I don’t think so. I have a mortgage to pay and a wife and two children to support, so cash is tight in my household.
I have been buying games brand new since the 16 bit (SNES / Mega drive) era. So I feel I have done my part for the industry as a consumer.

I will buy new games again when I can justify doing so, but right now my money is better spent elsewhere.

At least I’m not pirating games. I cannot see how anyone can justify doing that.

[RememberThe357]

Nice to see you have your priorities in the right place. Family first.

[Zinc]

You obviously need to take care of your family and living obligations first. There is nothing wrong with buying used games. The only thing I would add is, most developers/publishers see pirating and buying used games as the same thing. This is because they don't see any money from it directly. There have been people in the industry that have actually said they are no different.

Personally, I think that the game industry has really become a legitimate industry, that produces sales in the 10's of billions and is overtaking the film industry. This means that all these companies are becoming larger and larger, and they are starting to adopt more aggressive corporate stances on things.

While many still get into the games industry because it is a passion, they are being shouted down and controlled by the corporate structure. That rigidity of thinking is going to hurt them more than help.

Just look at the backlash from DLC and the practices they are using to get rid of used games.

Here's a truth for everybody. If you make a good game, it will be pirated, rented, bought used and bought new. But, no matter what, you are going to make money, because it was a good game and people want to play it.

[darkdoom3000]

Actually.... in a developer's eye... Pirating is probably just as bad as buying used.

in both cases you got to play their game, and they got no money.

[zero_gamer]

Except with used games, someone already paid the publishers for that copy as opposed to piracy, the copies are counterfeits and exist without bringing in a dime of revenue to the publishers. Legit copies of games are no different than any piece of personal property that has monetary value and can be sold to the second hand market or given to someone as a hand-me-down, such as a father giving his old games to his kids.

And if the companies don't like it, they can bake cake instead...at least you cannot sell your cake and eat it too.

[Sarick]

They won't stop there. The next step will be selling game licenses. You see how Software companies sell software. Most software is limited to one computer per license or one installed session at a time.

That's why developers are pushing for download only markets. When you purchase that software it's linked to your account and you can't really trade it. If they start selling disc like one user PC software it could impact the used game market.

You know those disc seals that have a little sticker on it saying. "By opening this product you adhere to the these terms and a agree to this license" "You can't buy sell resale or trade under these terms." "If you do not agree to these terms return this product to the retailer you purchased it or destroy all media."

It's all just a big way to make trading or reselling (SOFTWARE) products as another form of piracy.

[ACEMANWISE]

But why are they taking ownership away from honest paying consumers? Why haven't they offered a service to backup your games? To me, I agree that the developer should get paid for used games. But they don't because legally places like GameStop can rob them and not pay. However the countermeasures seem to be doing two things, not one. First they are fighting piracy and second they are not offering ownership to honest paying consumers. It's like they are taking away from everybody.

[Jallen]

Nice to see a well thought out argument on the other side but of course this glosses over the whole "intellectual rights" thing devs often throw around at this point.

Course I rent games now so everybody hates me.

[zagibu]

Yeah, the sad fact is, they don't sell you a game, but a license to use it. They will try everything to enforce that this license can't be resold.

[evilbart]

I think the majority of people who trade in games use the money/credit towards the purchase of another game,sometimes one they may not have bought outright,so it also helps the game industry but this goes unnoticed

[Unicron]

I love how all of these articles only look at tiny, compartmentalized portions of this situation instead of the big picture. THQ's statement may have been poor, but the current market setup is not sustainable, period.

[ACEMANWISE]

There are other reasons why the game industry isn't sustainable now. For one, these games still cost the same as they did in the 80's. Consoles still cost about the same too. They aren't accounting for inflation which increases about 3.75% every year (consumer pricing index). That means games should at least cost 105.00 today and consoles should be about 500.00. Yet they haven't and 105 today is the same value as 50 twenty years ago and people bought them. So I can't understand how these developers are saying that everything is more high cost because of higher technology. Why? Technology always drops in price over time.

I can understand a recession plays a role but just look at Sony's 600.00 launch PS3 back in 2006. Everyone was complaining and the recession hadn't even started yet. While the price may seem high it wasn't much higher than the value of a launch console back in the day.

The only thing I see here is the game industry has failed to properly bring the prices up to the same value as yesterday. It's the only explanation for all this developer complaining.

[zero_gamer]

When the media goes digital distribution in the future I hope for a law passed to respect first sale doctrine enforcing the company to give the gamer rights to resell the license to a downloaded title. With DD the company can charge royalties when selling DD games. Otherwise I am not convinced I have any ownership of digital distributed media, even if I actually like the DD media. If I cannot sell my games, then I don't own them at all... The company does.

[Shaymin]

I am not surprised sarcastic gamer wrote this....

[JohnApocalypse]

Interesting theory's but then again he's doesn't work in the videogame industry

[Dawn_Of_Ashes]

used game is a plague. When you buy a used game you its basicly like if you stole something. Yeah you are paying for it but these scumbags at gamestop keep all the money. Thats nothing good for the industry.
Its not with the used game market that we will have better game in the future... With the rise of the used game market i will not be surprised if sooner or later new game will cost more than now...

I think people who buy used game should get a job and buy new game.

[Zinc]

Put the crack pipe down and back away slowly.

Not everybody is a trust fund baby or robs banks for a living, ass.

Look at the bigger picture and maybe someday you can be a big boy too.

[Saryk]

They paid money for the game, what you thought they got it for free. And the people who sold it to them didn't have to, there is always EBAY.............

[zero_gamer]

I buy all my 7th-gen games brand new yet I heavily disagree with some of the posts here. How can you buy out-of-print titles you no longer can find at the new games retail? The damned used games market...unless something else is missing.

[Unicron]

I'm all for it for out of print games. But when Gamestop is making insane profit 3 days after release because someone thought it was smart to trade in their $59.99 for $20, thus eating into new sales... well I don't agree with that.

People still have the gall to wonder why so many devs play it safe instead of taking chances lately.

[Baka-akaB]

it's even worse , again i've seen cases where store purposely break release date , so they could game used copies even faster .

In some of those case , tey managed to get dozens of used copy for solo games , right for official release date .

What do you think ahppened then ? Most people bought the used copies , eating any chances of better sales for already low pofriled titles .

[Elvfam511]

what? so people buy used games because they dont have jobs? Wow I thought pp was retarded.

[JD_Shadow]

This is an epidemic that has been holding everything hostage lately. This is the old "blank check" trick.

We bitch about piracy, and how it turns the gaming industry inside out, and how it’ll destroy it. So when we bitch, they decide to do something about it. Thing is, they took us complaining as them getting a free pass from us to screw us over because hey, we were the ones complaining, so why SHOULD we bitch about something like DRM or things like the AC2 controversy, or the changing of the rules and laws? To them, it's either nothing or screw everyone, with no middle ground that leaves the legit consumers out of it. Simple reason is that they make more money by using the piracy cover as a way to force EVERYONE into their corrupt business practices. Until someone decides to try to push FOR the middle ground instead of giving people who do the AC2-like stuff a blank check to do whatever the hell they want because we want for them to tackle what we believe is piracy, and until we get a clear translation of what a law that might as well be written in Greek actually means instead of having ten million translations that people can use as weapons to corrupt the system even further, we'll never get anywhere.

Same thing here. We had been bitching about Gamestop left and right (not the used game market in of itself since stores like Funcoland and Babbages were doing this LONG before Gamestop was even FOUNDED (with no one caring, by the way), but JUST Gamestop), and it wasn't even for the notion that they were selling used games, but because of them allegedly ripping off the consumer at the checkout line. I'm not going to judge one way or another about that issue, but again, people on the other side saw this as the perfect opportunity to do things like this: to do what THQ does, and take a complete dump on the consumer (hell, EA hasn't been as vocal). Hey, who are we to complain? We wanted to take it to Gamestop, right? Why SHOULD we complain when someone like THQ decides to step on our toes to do it? We're the ones giving THEM the blank check allowing them to DO it because we never did set any parameters as to what is an acceptable act of combating this so-called "outlaw practice" and what is NOT acceptable. We were too busy complaining ABOUT the outlaws to even notice what the corrupt sheriffs were doing.

This is like trying to take out one bank robber in a town by dropping a nuke from an F-16 fighter jet to blow up the entire damn town. How would YOU know where that robber could be, if there are others like him in that same town, if there’s others like him, or where he’ll strike next? So why SHOULD you care if they use such force just to get that one guy? You never set the parameters. The people who are trying to catch said criminal would just want to bring in the new weapon to show to others, "Hey look, we got this new toy, it works. Send your blank checks to buy the new toy to us. We'll tell you the cost right after we deposit the check in our bank account in Switzerland."

They're showing their weapons not as a way to combat piracy or "used game sales”, but to show to the shareholders in the board room meetings, "Here's what we're going to use to make sure you get even more money to get a new sports car in your garage of your million-acre mansion. No need to give any of the money you get from this to the actual developers who helped you BUY that mansion. To you wanting this technology, send us the blank check so we can turn our million-acre mansions into BILLION-acre mansions, and we'll make sure you can do the same...just make sure your mansions isn't bigger than ours and you never tell anyone else why we're even using this technology." This has nothing to do with what they are actually CLAIMING to combat, but rather them trying to make more money by using us.

[Sidewinder-]

I'll buy a game used if it's impossible to get new. That or i'm strapped for cash. What you gonna do? Sue me?

[ACEMANWISE]

There are many issues this generation is witnessing. It all centers around the online model and its' attempt to sink their hooks into everything you do. It's called online control and has been very prevelent in the PC gaming industry for over a decade.

In a nutshell these developers want to take ownership away from the consumer. It is very hard to do if they are selling you a physical copy of a video game. Why? Well first it's in your possession and second the format it's on ages like any product we buy.

Therefore these developers are doing two things. They are seperating the game from the physical disc by making it digital and thus eliminating any possibility of it becoming used or aged.

..and two..on the disc front they are still trying to control you by making you reliant on their online services. They release games incomplete on the disc, purposely mind you, so that you will need to go online to remove any annoyances and bugs currently sold to you. This is engineered by design and in the end they will start to blame the disc format as an outdated way to get complete games. Please note that back in the day console games were complete or they were shipped back, no questions. It would hurt sales and their reputation. Furthermore, some games on disc come with a mandatory system update much to the example of Sony's recent OS removal feature that caused a small percentage of gamers to disconnect from PSN permanantly because they disagreed with it and ultimately accepted the consequences. However, it was later found that buying certain games would contain these updates and would not allow you to play the disc unless you conformed. In these practices they are sabotaging any stable gaming experience on both the OS and the games...thus making you go along with the program or render your investment useless. It goes on.

I have studied this online move for years and most of my answers were found on the PC gaming front. This was the prime reason I chose the console for my gaming needs.

For years this was masked under the guise of antipiracy measures and for years the honest consumers were losing accounts, game data, etc. because of it. Digital Rights Management, Proprietary hardware/software, and recently "activation" of backed up games through an online server. Not only that but tabs are kept on how many consoles you play it on. It goes on.

I'm going to end this here but the used game industry is in trouble. Game collectors are in trouble. Ownership is in trouble. We are in trouble if you value the history of gaming because 10-20 years from now you may not be able to look back and remember like we do now...unless the developers offer it. Believe me they won't to the extent you want them to and when they have complete online control the only pirates left will be the developers and service companies taking your money while giving you nothing in return. Just look at cable and you will see gaming's future.

[drsnobby]

Devs don,t get jack sh__ for the sales of used games.i want devs to get paid for work renderd for the gamers.digital distribution is what gamestop and the rest of them are afraid of.devs hate used game sales,and i dont blame them.i would be pissed too if i worked hard on a game and got nothing from the resale.put yourself in the devs shoes for ounce gamers,and lets stop being selfish.

[ACEMANWISE]

However, there are other issues that effect the honest paying consumer. For starters the blatant misleading of the general public in regards to owning their games. Yes there is a 5 page long agreement you must agree to. Yes they tell you that you don't own it. What they refuse to do is make it obvious to everyone outside of this document.

Since when is a rental placed with a "buy" button? Since when does Sony state that you "own it forever" when there is no reasonable backups to your games? Why must there be a server "activation" when you restore your video games from a backup? Since when has a server ever existed as long as you wanted it to? Bottom line is that their antipiracy measures are effecting consumers too.

All this online control so that these developers can sell everything new by offering it online and controlling your account with DRM, download limits, and activation servers. I'm all for developers getting paid...but not at the expense of reverse piracy against the honest paying consumer.

[Alacrist]

First let me say that, i like that i can find games at a Gamestop that aren't being shipped out anymore from the source companies...

Besides that i agree with the developers, they are losing money, example: I make a CD and give it to the store to sell, they sell it and send me my money, the guy brings the CD back and they re-sell it 20 times (i get nothing from 20 sells), then three people decide they like it enough to buy the follow up album new.

How is that fair to me?

Think about your own jobs, if ten people get a service from you but only one person plays you just got shorted, even if three people come back...

[hazelamy]

firstly, you sold that one copy, you made money on that one copy, what happens to it after that has nothing to do with you, so long as they're not copying it and selling the copies.

secondly, is it better that one person keeps it when he has no interest in it and therefore is less likely to buy the follow up, or for more people to experience it and possibly buy the follow up album.

so three people may buy the follow up or one guy leaves his copy of the first album gathering dust on a shelf, which is better?

is it fair that you design your product to cripple itself it somebody other than the original buyer uses it? in almost any other industry that kind of product sabotage would be illegal, maybe it's sabotage or maybe it's price fixing, i'm no legal expert.

as an artist wouldn't your priority be that people get to experience your work? so long as they're not breaking the law to do it?

personally i'd rather any work i created was pirated than some greedy publisher restrict who gets access to it.

[Zinc]

@Alacrist - There is a fundamental flaw in your logic.

In this senario, it did not cost you more money to produce more product. You have a fixed cost that does not change. Nobody reproduced anything that you produced. It's the same item being bought and sold. This is something that has been done since pretty much the beginning of the concept of ownership or property. How can you say that 10,000's of years of convention should simply go away? It's not broken. It the model works well. Leave it alone. Stop making it out to be some kind of antichrist.

[Alacrist]

@ hazelamy

I get what your saying and yes as a artist I could care less about the money as long as people hear it, but if you spend a $100 making 100 games and you need that 90 to sell to continue funding your work, if 10 buy it new (money goes to you) and 90 buy it used(money goes to the other guys) you may not have covered your overhead but your game sold well and you were cheated...

Now do i think it's fair to make features unavailable if you don't buy it new, NO, i think that is a terrible idea but when you start taking money out of people's pocket for work they have done, then folks get a little crazy..

@ Zinc
i have provided a new scenario lol but i have seen the flaw in my previous post, also I'm not saying it should go away, but you can't ignore the fact on new game sales developers do get shafted sometimes...

[ikral]

Very good article, good point. I buy mostly used, but if i don`t, i would not buy more new. And for my money, people that sell me used games are buying new ones. No money from used games, less new game sales.

[hazelamy]

i buy plenty of games preowned, do i have any guilt over that? hell no, i know the publisher got paid for that copy, in all likelihood they also benefited when it was traded in by the original owner probably to part fund the buying of a new game.

[Jdoki]

Imagine if car manufacturers cried about people buying second hand cars like video game publishers cry about people buying second hand games.

Crazy.

I buy mostly brand new games, but sometimes I wait until they see a price drop, and sometimes I'll make an impulse purchase and buy a game used.

The type of games I buy used are not the sort of games I would have bought brand new - so if the used game market disappeared overnight, no big deal.

Plus in general (and this is a generalisation) a lot of top games are rarely traded - or don't appear in high numbers for a long time. For example, I have only seen one copy of ModNation Racers second hand in the 3-4 video game shops in my area, and the price was 39.99!