Topic: Blocking used games...

[Shiroi Koumori]

I love buying used games, and if that really happens, then I suppose I would just say goodbye to next gen consoles.

[Abnormal Freak]

I just realized this effectively kills game rentals as well. It would put some serious hurt on GameFly.

My buddy who almost exclusively buys used or rents (save for digital) won't be too pleased. He's a 360 fanboy.

[TheCruelAngel]

PS- That pic made me lol, so +1.

Glad to make you lol.

I can see the argument you're making, and it's incredibly valid. We do buy a product, and we do own it. It can also be argued that as soon as the product is "shipped" to a distributor that they have been paid for, by the distributor for the product.

At least...I think that's how it works? Distributor pays 'X' for a product and sells it for 'Y' making 'Y' - 'X' in profit.

So really, that kind of kills my argument? But I'm not really privy to that knowledge, I'm not sure if there are any kickbacks to publishers, etc. for every copy sold for new products, or whatever. 

Even still, I feel like there should be some way for developers, publishers, investors, etc. to see more revenue. My idea for reselling through GameStop (arguably a service) and seeing a tiny margin of royalties paid to concern parties (versus Fat Cats in Texas) only really applies to GameStop. From individual to individual, there would be no way to enforce it, nor should they. Whether from eBay, Craigslist, local newspaper ads, pawnshops or what have you, I don't think people should have to pay royalties to whomever, because they're getting rid of their property, and aren't also trying to push a 'new' product.

It's a conflict of interests on GameStop's part and I think that's where I have a lot of my issue. I don't care what consumers do at a consumer level with their property, but GameStop is a corporation that sells new and used product, side-by-side, with everything tracked (I would hate to be their DB admin) and very clearly promotes the sale of the used product, since that nets them the most profit.

They already buy back games on the cheap (brand new titles for $25?) and sell them for only $5 less than brand new (wtf?) and most of the time try to hook you with in-store credit instead of cash (to make sure the money you spend is kept within the store for MAXIMUM PROFITS lulz), magazine subscriptions, pre-orders, etc.

If you're willing to point out that preventing the usage of used games is greed, then you have to also admit that GameStop's business model is nothing but greed (imo).

GameStop doesn't make the games, they just distribute them and provide a service to off your old games and buy other's old games (which on paper is nice). Publishers, developers, investors, etc. create the games we enjoy. They provide us a consumable item, and us supporting them allows them to make more consumable items for us to enjoy.

Even if it is them being greedy, at least their greediness generates new content. I think is the base of my argument? I get kind of lost with these long posts... 

Enjoy more glorious PC master race!

[Inccubus]

I think you're right about how distribution works at a basic level, but there are all kinds of deals made as well.

Also, I'm no fan of GameStop either. The prices they pay for used games is an insult and they turn a mighty profit on those. I've had friends that worked for them before. Some of the regional managers in particular have been characterized to me as pompous dicks.

Another +1 for the extra lol.

[TheouAegis]

I don't know how video games work in comparison to other retail markets, but with food and beverages, the distributor credits old products (swaps out new items for old items) and occasionally sends the old items back to the manufacturer. It always has to trickle back to the manufacturer. Although with games, looking at Game Stop's inventory, I don't know how that works.

[Ratty]

This is the best image of the PC gaming master race I've seen, unfortunately I've not been able to find out who the artist is.

(click to show/hide)

[DragonSlayr81]

I couldn't disagree more. That is greed plain and simple. You make a product, you sell it for the best price you can, and you move on. If someone is done with your product and wants to try to recover some of the cost by selling it to someone else that's their prerogative.

This! Imagine if I wanted to clear some space in my garage and planned on putting out all my old He-Man figures for a yard sale. Would it be fair that Mattel comes in and says, "Nope, you gotta give us a cut of what ever you earn from those figures!!". No. I think the initial sales is all that these companies should be worrying about, because it's the initial sales, the release sales and how much a game sells, which actually counts regarding how well recepted a game is. If a game sells so many million copies upon release, that's "brand new" copies, not pre-owned ones.

Though, from a personal opinion, you don't want people to sell their games back to Gamestop, maybe you should make games that people WANT to keep. Of course a person's going to want to sell their games if the games have the replay value of a sky rocket. Want people to keep their games, MAKE FUCKING GOOD GAMES! Games that warrent people to play over and over and over again. Games that people don't grow tired of. You kinda see, perhaps, this asshats have shot themselves in the foot, because in our great time of "now", with short attention spans, developers dont' make games to "last". They are all "quick hits" until the NEXT game comes out. So, naturally, if the experience wasn't meant to be long lasting, gamers are going to get tired of it fast, and quite frankly, why SHOULD you keep a game that you're tired of playing? It's just a waste of space, and interestingly enough, if you sell it, you can do STUFF with that money. And no, I'm not saying to sell it to Gamestop. There's different places you can sell it.

You kinda wonder what IS the next logical(yet illogical) step beyond the blocked game thing. Will, in the future, there be a special nano-scanner implanted in us that only allows each individual(who purchased the game) be the only ones allowed to visually see it on screen? It's kinda sickening how much control these assholes want regarding their games. Imagine if Atari was bitching about how much earnings they are loosing because of swap meets and old game collectors. Just let it go!

[Abnormal Freak]

Yeah, I'm not feeling the "little bit of kickback to the devs, etc." fee on used games idea. GameStop, like any other business, provides a service that people willingly, and in droves, pay for. People bitch about GS a lot yet they still frucking shop there and sell them their used games for in-store credit. The people make a business succeed; it's not as if there's somebody with a ton of money sitting in a chair throwing away millions of dollars so that his company will stay on top and APPEAR to be popular with the customers.

And if there were to be a fee on used game sales, what do you think GS will do? They'd charge more than they otherwise would have, essentially making the customer pay the fee, which is, of course, bad for the customer, which is bad for business, which is a good way to ensure people won't buy devs'/game studios' shitty games, new or used.

When you start talking about fees, you start getting into ugly territories that hurt the common people. Hey, you rented a movie that not only you, the licensee, watched, but your buddy AS WELL? Fuck ya, he's gotta pay a fee! Because "we're losing money" on only one of ya suckers paying the rental and we can make it so that "private viewing" means a single, solitary person, otherwise it's public exhibition and thus illegal--unless the fees are paid for every viewer of that Blo-me movie disc.

Maybe my sleep-deprived little scenario doesn't relate, but ithink it's nonetheless a pretty ugly area to get into, especially when it's targeting video games because no other medium or product to my knowledge has a reseller (or would that be re-reseller?) fee for used purchases. A place like a CD store wouldn't be able to exist if they did that, unless they charged customers out the ass for every CD, and by that point why not just buy new, which is what Sony and Microsoft fuckfarts apparently want, which is crippling to the paying customer because it only gives one "fuck you; our way or the highway" option, which can be bad for everyone in so many ways and gives me a sadboner.

[TheouAegis]

I've always wondered how rentals actually worked. Like Blockbuster or Hollywood Video or Crazy Mike's. Do they pay royalties? If so, how are the royalty dues figured? Why is it okay to rent out videos or video games and make money, but not make copies and give them away for free? I'm digressing, though...

[DragonSlayr81]

I've always wondered how rentals actually worked. Like Blockbuster or Hollywood Video or Crazy Mike's. Do they pay royalties? If so, how are the royalty dues figured? Why is it okay to rent out videos or video games and make money, but not make copies and give them away for free? I'm digressing, though...

Oddly enough, I think my reasoning applies to movie rental chains too. If a movie is in theaters you MIGHT want to see, but never get a chance to seeing it, what do you do? Wait until it comes out on video(DVD/Blu-ray). But, you dont' want to BUY it because, quite frankly, why SHOULD you? Movie ticket's, what, 12 buck(6 if you are lucky to go matinee)? You pay to see the movie, then if the movie sucked, all you lost was 12 bucks and the time the length of the movie. YOu don't have to drag around a copy of it(which would be a waste of space, ESPECIALLY if that movie sucked). What rentals did, at least for me, was basically a trail period where you watch something and(this IS what I do, since I was young, up until now) if the movie is good enough, I consider actually BUYING it. If I watch a movie I love, I'll ALWAYS buy it after previously renting it. Hell, I can say this with a straight face, hooked up to a lie detecting machine, 95% of my DVDs/Blu-rays in my home collection were bought after initially watching rental movies that I loved, and I bought ALL of them NEW.

[Phoenix7786]

Oh, I know--just tired of seeing them in the gaming market. If we could have one consolidated system for once, I think that'd be rad. We certainly don't need THREE options.

Ehh I think competition is good for you. It teaches you to think outside the box and re-invent it or get kicked in the teeth. Look what a snooze-fest pro-wrestling became after WWF was the only game in town.

[DragonSlayr81]

Ehh I think competition is good for you. It teaches you to think outside the box and re-invent it or get kicked in the teeth. Look what a snooze-fest pro-wrestling became after WWF was the only game in town.

Competition's good when it allows you to think outside the box. Though, some of what I've seen is far from that. It seems more like they are all trying to appeal to mainstream gaming taste by playing the safe route. Not to mention, Microsoft and Sony are basically focusing on the Teen+ market while Nintendo is focusing on the E market. When they start to notice there are OTHER age groups they should try focusing on, competition might get a little more interesting. Imagine Microsoft and Sony aiming to appeal more to kids rather than teens and adults? Imagine Nintendo doing vice versa(which they say they plan on doing with the Wii U, I guess)?

But yeah, just like in the other thread, taking the safe route with gaming almost goes entirely against the idea of "thinking outside the box". Wanting a steady flow of profit from mainstream gamers just won't allow it, unless the mainstream trend changes drastically, which would force them to all adopt a new trend.

[TheCruelAngel]

(click to show/hide)

Yeah, I'm not feeling the "little bit of kickback to the devs, etc." fee on used games idea. GameStop, like any other business, provides a service that people willingly, and in droves, pay for. People bitch about GS a lot yet they still frucking shop there and sell them their used games for in-store credit. The people make a business succeed; it's not as if there's somebody with a ton of money sitting in a chair throwing away millions of dollars so that his company will stay on top and APPEAR to be popular with the customers.

And if there were to be a fee on used game sales, what do you think GS will do? They'd charge more than they otherwise would have, essentially making the customer pay the fee, which is, of course, bad for the customer, which is bad for business, which is a good way to ensure people won't buy devs'/game studios' shitty games, new or used.

When you start talking about fees, you start getting into ugly territories that hurt the common people. Hey, you rented a movie that not only you, the licensee, watched, but your buddy AS WELL? Fuck ya, he's gotta pay a fee! Because "we're losing money" on only one of ya suckers paying the rental and we can make it so that "private viewing" means a single, solitary person, otherwise it's public exhibition and thus illegal--unless the fees are paid for every viewer of that Blo-me movie disc.

Maybe my sleep-deprived little scenario doesn't relate, but ithink it's nonetheless a pretty ugly area to get into, especially when it's targeting video games because no other medium or product to my knowledge has a reseller (or would that be re-reseller?) fee for used purchases. A place like a CD store wouldn't be able to exist if they did that, unless they charged customers out the ass for every CD, and by that point why not just buy new, which is what Sony and Microsoft fuckfarts apparently want, which is crippling to the paying customer because it only gives one "fuck you; our way or the highway" option, which can be bad for everyone in so many ways and gives me a sadboner.

Are there CD stores that lets you buy New and Used CDs, side-by-side of each other? Movie stores?

I don't know of any (but that' doesn't mean they don't exist). GameStop seems to be one of the few businesses with this type of model (automotive dealerships being the other) and I tend to stay away from them anyway.

Yeah, and again to reiterate (since I know not everyone reads through my posts because, reading, wut dat?) the fee would only apply to GS, since they are providing a service in a model where both new and used are sold side-by-side. Where the incentive is to buy within the store, trade within the store, sell back to the store, etc.

The only reason we're having this discussion is because of the rumors regarding the blocking of used game sales. Are you going to honestly suggest that those in power should just "get over themselves" and let used sales continue when they see the massive profits GS is making off of them? Logically, yeah, they should get over themselves, but they won't.

So if providing a theoretical alternative that could appease:

• consumers
• resalers
• powers that be

is not going to mesh, what do you suggest? Suck it up and enjoy used games being blocked? Go on an internet tirade about the injustice of these "greed animals" and try to start a protest? Start a revolution? Organize a bunch of low life hackers who live off the grid to take down the man and free the people? Create your own console? Laugh at everyone high upon your throne in the clouds, supported by the machinations of your Steam engines (get it?!)?

Me personally? I have no qualms with used games being blocked. I can just sit high up on my cloudy throne and not give a bother. But I understand that's not for everyone, so how would you go about hypothetically solving the situation?

This is the best image of the PC gaming master race I've seen, unfortunately I've not been able to find out who the artist is.

(click to show/hide)

It's...it's too beautiful!

[Abnormal Freak]

Are there CD stores that lets you buy New and Used CDs, side-by-side of each other? Movie stores?

All over the place, here in Minnesota at least. Mostly smaller chains: Cheapo, Half Price Books, CD Warehouse. All of these sell new and used; Cheapo charge MSRP for new music and movies so I assume they get their stock directly from manufacturers, whereas I believe HPB get a lot of new stock from warehouses or stores wanting to get rid of their stock. All of them buy used from customers and then put that on their shelves.

But I'm pretty sure new&used CD stores are nationwide. Amoeba is a big one in California.


And I know you're discussing GameStop specifically, but what's to prevent that kind of fee from being applied to smaller businesses who sell used video games? I'm talking brick and mortar local chains and individual shops. Because they don't sell new-from-the-manufacturer products, are they somehow exempt from the fee on reselling of used games? I also don't see such a fee just stopping there but moving into eBay/Half.com and Amazon Marketplace as well, because it's not exactly person-to-person; you're still going through a much larger service provider who already charge their own fees—fees that are for services provided, not for some arbitrary "let's give more money to developers and game studios on a product that was already bought from them" demand. I highly doubt such a fee instated would even go back to devs; it would just go to the bank accounts of the higher-ups as they are the ones fronting all this money to fund and/or distribute a game anyway.


What would be nice, and this has been mentioned already, is to see a scaling-down of video game development. Games are increasingly costing millions of dollars to make and everybody wants to make a blockbuster so there's a lot of hype and undelivered promises behind a lot of games. It's a big reason why I don't buy a whole lot of new games because that kind of targeting doesn't reach me; I don't want a bombastic "BEST GRAFIX EVER" type game because a lot of the time those games don't offer me much in the way of actual fun and ingenuitive gameplay because they're trying to be as mainstream as possible to get the biggest bux. One of the most fun games I've played in recent years is Lost in Shadow, and that's a pretty small little game that didn't take long to be dumped on the Walmart cheapie shelf for $10 alongside budget bullshit meant for toddlers.


Back on the used game restrictions discussion, I mentioned it elsewhere that this would kill a lot of games and possibility for an ongoing franchise for good. A lot of times with movies you get a new release that makes zero profit but over time through video rentals and people passing their copies around, you've got a cult classic on your hands that can potentially make a lot of money years later. I'm certain this has happened with video games though I can't think of any examples right now (lol). Anyway, such slowly built up affection for a game could create demand for a sequel. But if used games are blocked, there's no longer a backcatalog; that shit goes straight to the dumps because nobody can play it. Missed out on a game and want to pick up a used copy because the manufacturer is no longer pressing it? You're screwed.


Blocking used games certainly is a shooting-oneself-in-the-foot approach, but a proposed fee targeting GameStop (that realistically would affect more than just one retailer) doesn't sound much better. I think the smart thing to do is for developers to make fun, ingenuitive games that don't cost millions to make and new games that are priced more affordably, because $50–60 is pretty damn ridiculous for new games and is a HUGE deciding factor in people buying used.

[TheouAegis]

It just occurred to me by the above post: Take this beyond Game Stop, beyond Half-Price Books, beyond whatever else.

The GOODWILL and VALUE VILLAGE sell used video games! This would hamper not-for-profit companies like that! (Well, not sure Value Village technically falls under the not-for-profit category, but you get my drift.)