• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Pre-Owned games. You game?

Luck

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • 6,779
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • Seen May 20, 2023
    How did the store get the 9 pre-owned ones in the first place...? Someone sold them to the store, right? How did the person selling them back get them? Buying them new. You can't have a pre-owned game without it being bought new at some point, even if it wasn't at the same place. So if in a set of 10 games, 1 was sold new and the other 9 were sold pre-owned, using your price parameters...
    The developers and publishers still see only a fraction of the sales.

    Developers get $36 per new game sold - they make $360 from all 10
    Retailers get $4 per new game - they make $4 from 1 new game sold
    Retailers buy games for $15 - they lose $135 from buying 9 pre-owned games
    Retailers sell pre-owned games for $25 - they gain $225 dollars from selling 9 pre-owned games

    Total developer profit = $360
    Total retailer profit = $94
    Let's use some more realistic measurements, for a $60 game.
    Publishers get $36 per new game sold
    Retailers and console manufacturers get $12 each

    Publishers decide how much developers get, if it's not a first party title I assume. The average is $10 for the game developers. On average, the game developer sees less money than the retailer that played no part in developing for the game.

    Also, almost every game company, if not every game company buys new games for about $25 and sells for about $55. No one except the retailers sees those $55. This isn't even counting the fact that the game may be sold and re-bought many times. How is that not unfair?
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
  • 13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015

    The developers and publishers still see only a fraction of the sales.


    Let's use some more realistic measurements, for a $60 game.
    Publishers get $36 per new game sold
    Retailers and console manufacturers get $12 each

    Publishers decide how much developers get, if it's not a first party title I assume. The average is $10 for the game developers. On average, the game developer sees less money than the retailer that played no part in developing for the game.

    Also, almost every game company, if not every game company buys new games for about $25 and sells for about $55. No one except the retailers sees those $55. This isn't even counting the fact that the game may be sold and re-bought many times. How is that not unfair?

    Is it the retailer's fault that the developer doesn't get enough money? I think your problem is with the game publishers and companies on that one, not the retailer. If you think the developers don't get enough, don't try to make other people earn less, try to make the developers earn more. The developer isn't going to earn any more per game if you take away the profit of the retailer, and since the problem you have is that game developers aren't paid enough, how does this solve the problem whatsoever?

    It really comes down to rights. Taking away the right to resell something that you own is just wrong on a fundamental level. If reselling video games is banned, why not televisions? Books? They're all bought used, and the only person seeing that money is the retailer selling it. How are those any different?
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
  • 13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    Just for clarification, the way my mind was working was.
    Person A buys the game then person A trades it in.
    Person B then buys the preowned then person B trades it in. And so on.​

    Lol okay, NOW I get it. Does this apply to outside the gaming industry too? Do you believe that all televisions should be bought new?
     
  • 12,201
    Posts
    18
    Years
    Lol okay, NOW I get it. Does this apply to outside the gaming industry too? Do you believe that all televisions should be bought new?

    HAHA!
    I think it was just me being a derp and not explaining fully; I think I was just letting my mind fill in the blanks, but you guys dont' have my mind! XD

    Well, I don't know. It is certainly a grey spot in the retail industry isn't it.​
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
  • 13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    I would like to point out the difference in revenue between EA, the game company that's been pushing things such as the 10 dollar project, and Gamestop, the retailer.

    EA made a net revenue of $1.65 billion in the third quarter in 09. Meanwhile, Gamestop's net income was $52.2 million. If the problem is with the retailers selling the games again, then logically the retailer would be making more than ~3% of the company. Which means the problem doesn't lie with secondhand games taking money from the developers, it lies with the game industry not paying developers enough. Like I said before, instead of trying to make the retailer earn less so the developer gets a cut of their already relatively meager profits, why don't you focus your energy on trying to convince game companies that it's worth it to pay their developers more?

    Honestly, this whole argument just boggles my mind. This is what free market is. EA saw that there was a problem with secondhand games, so instead of trying to ban people from buying them or ban stores from selling them, they implemented something to counteract it - the 10 dollar project. The consumer is assumed to buy what's best for them. Why would they do otherwise? The company banks on that, and their job is to make sure that they're the best option. If they're not the best option, maybe they should try to figure out why instead of trying to ban all the other options. My job isn't to support the developers of a game by buying new copies, my job is to get a game and enjoy it. Maybe I want to buy it new, because it's the best decision for me. The consumer isn't obligated to think of whether or not the company makes money, that's the job of the company itself. And to put it in terms of "I'm not making enough money, so let's ban everything else so people are forced into paying me" is just...wrong, I don't see how people can't see that.

    I also don't understand how this is only game companies/developers that complain about this. I've never heard a television company say that used TVs are ruining their business, or authors and publishing companies whining about used bookstores. Why is it this business in particular? Why are used sales "ruining" the game industry, but absolutely no other industry that relies on it?
     
  • 12,201
    Posts
    18
    Years
    I also don't understand how this is only game companies/developers that complain about this. I've never heard a television company say that used TVs are ruining their business, or authors and publishing companies whining about used bookstores. Why is it this business in particular? Why are used sales "ruining" the game industry, but absolutely no other industry that relies on it?

    Well, it is rather hard to compare the games industry pre-order to the TV business. Mainly because games are traded in a hell of a lot more than TVs.​
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
  • 13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    Well, it is rather hard to compare the games industry pre-order to the TV business. Mainly because games are traded in a hell of a lot more than TVs.​

    Books is a more apt comparison, I believe, especially considering that there are massive stores entirely dedicated to selling used books, unlike video games where most game stores offer new and used.
     

    Shanghai Alice

    Exiled to Siberia
  • 1,069
    Posts
    13
    Years
    I'm all in favor of it. If libraries can circulate books, and video stores can rent out games, then game stores should be allowed to circulate used games.

    Also, I picked up Guilty Gear: Judgment, with Guilty Gear X2: The Midnight Carnival #RELOAD (...yeah, I know...) for $7. On one disc. Hellz yeah!

    But, seriously. Buying pre-owned helps you find old games that aren't made new anymore, find games that were either lost or destroyed previously, or, better yet, find newer games at slightly discounted prices.
     

    Luck

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • 6,779
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • Seen May 20, 2023
    Is it the retailer's fault that the developer doesn't get enough money?
    Yeah, kinda, considering every owned game sale gives no profit to the developers. Companies like Gamestop make almost 50% of their sales on used material as well.

    And yes, the publishers are partly at fault too. But the publishers fund and market the game in the first place, the retailers do little more than stock them most of the time.

    If you think the developers don't get enough, don't try to make other people earn less, try to make the developers earn more. The developer isn't going to earn any more per game if you take away the profit of the retailer, and since the problem you have is that game developers aren't paid enough, how does this solve the problem whatsoever?
    Don't say it like they're different things. You can do both at the same time. The best way to even potentially raise the profits for developers without cutting other shares is by increasing the price, which I'm sure almost everyone would be unhappy about, to say the least.

    It really comes down to rights. Taking away the right to resell something that you own is just wrong on a fundamental level.
    And it's somehow right when a company reaps all of the profits created from the efforts of other people? Alright then.

    If reselling video games is banned, why not televisions? Books? They're all bought used, and the only person seeing that money is the retailer selling it. How are those any different?
    There's not a large market for those. Televisions are usually bought new and are used until they break. And as far as I know, authors don't require several millions of dollars to create a book.
    I would like to point out the difference in revenue between EA, the game company that's been pushing things such as the 10 dollar project, and Gamestop, the retailer.

    EA made a net revenue of $1.65 billion in the third quarter in 09. Meanwhile, Gamestop's net income was $52.2 million. If the problem is with the retailers selling the games again, then logically the retailer would be making more than ~3% of the company.
    Seeing as how EA is one of the largest companies in the world, it's probably comprised of many smaller companies which also need a lot of money to stay alive(since games aren't exactly capable of being made in garages nowadays). That isn't including that publishers also fund certain third party companies and market their published games, and neither of those are cheap.

    Despite their huge profits, EA still suffers losses. In October 2008 it lost $310 million despite an increase in revenue, and had to make a lot of layoffs because of that.

    Which means the problem doesn't lie with secondhand games taking money from the developers, it lies with the game industry not paying developers enough. Like I said before, instead of trying to make the retailer earn less so the developer gets a cut of their already relatively meager profits, why don't you focus your energy on trying to convince game companies that it's worth it to pay their developers more?
    I never said that wasn't a problem, but at least publishers do something. Most games aren't bought on a whim, so the only thing that stores like Gamestop do is hold the games for people for them to pick up.


    The company banks on that, and their job is to make sure that they're the best option. If they're not the best option, maybe they should try to figure out why instead of trying to ban all the other options. My job isn't to support the developers of a game by buying new copies, my job is to get a game and enjoy it.
    Then it's more of a moral obligation than anything. I just believe that most of my money should go to the people who published and developed the game, not some middle man.
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
  • 13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    Yeah, kinda, considering every owned game sale gives no profit to the developers. Companies like Gamestop make almost 50% of their sales on used material as well.

    So if used material was gone, would Gamestop even exist? Considering, as you just said, their profits would be cut in half if pre-owned games were no longer bought, anyone who actually visits physical game stores might be a bit disappointed if they all disappeared because they no longer make enough money to be a viable business.

    And yes, the publishers are partly at fault too. But the publishers fund and market the game in the first place, the retailers do little more than stock them most of the time.

    And advertise their own store, and hire employees that suggest the game, and offer sales/packages, etc. You're still laboring under the idea that game stores do nothing. Basically your argument is "developers deserve money more than game stores". Every store is the same. DVDs are sold used, books are sold used, CDs are sold used, all in different stores. Best Buy stocks items that aren't their own and advertises them and takes a cut of the profits. Most stores do. That's kind of the point of a store. If stores weren't wanted for some reason (convenience, people not wanting to use technology, etc.), then they wouldn't be THERE.


    Don't say it like they're different things. You can do both at the same time. The best way to even potentially raise the profits for developers without cutting other shares is by increasing the price, which I'm sure almost everyone would be unhappy about, to say the least.

    Well since you're so unhappy about how much the developers make per game, why don't you try to tell them who isn't worth as much as your developers so they can pay that person less and raise the salary of the developer? There's a reason they don't increase the price, by the way. They're not keeping it low to make a lot of people buy; there's a point in which raising the price won't raise profits, because instead of paying more for the game, people just stop buying. If the game companies could charge more and make more profit, they would.


    And it's somehow right when a company reaps all of the profits created from the efforts of other people? Alright then.

    No, reaping all of the profits is when people plagiarize others' ideas and sell them as their own. What Gamestop does is advertise their own used game buying/selling abilities, and market themselves as such. They're reaping the profits of people wanting to spend less money on games, the same way grocery stores lower prices to pull in more people to their store, although they did not personally create most of the things within the store.


    There's not a large market for those. Televisions are usually bought new and are used until they break. And as far as I know, authors don't require several millions of dollars to create a book.

    So is there a certain cutoff when the person is worth enough to you to warrant them losing money? Is it just the game developers that are worth anything? Did you know that authors only get on average ~15% of the money given to the publisher for the book, and half that based on the suggested publisher price? But I guess they're not worth anything and don't deserve money either, just game developers.

    Seeing as how EA is one of the largest companies in the world, it's probably comprised of many smaller companies which also need a lot of money to stay alive(since games aren't exactly capable of being made in garages nowadays). That isn't including that publishers also fund certain third party companies and market their published games, and neither of those are cheap.

    Despite their huge profits, EA still suffers losses. In October 2008 it lost $310 million despite an increase in revenue, and had to make a lot of layoffs because of that.

    So they're dealing with their problem, I applaud them. That was the point I was making, actually. Instead of trying to sue Gamestop or something ridiculous and get them to stop selling used games, they decided "We're losing money because of this, how can we fix this?" and reworked their business plan to incorporate the idea that, you know, if you buy something, you have the right to sell it to someone else because it's your property.


    I never said that wasn't a problem, but at least publishers do something. Most games aren't bought on a whim, so the only thing that stores like Gamestop do is hold the games for people for them to pick up.

    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Gamestop doesn't try to make the publishers money, and instead tries to make itself money? Oh, I didn't realize that every business had to make its job keeping another business afloat. I'll be sure to let my local used bookstore know that if a book they stock flops, it's their fault and they need to shut down because of it.

    Then it's more of a moral obligation than anything. I just believe that most of my money should go to the people who published and developed the game, not some middle man.

    That's fine. You absolutely have the right to not buy used games, to only buy directly from publishers if you want. You have the right to send the developers money if you want, if you think they're hurting and need it. No one's stopping you. What I am arguing is that you shouldn't have the right to dictate to me what I do with my own personal property. If I want to sell the game to someone, why should you have a say in it? I bought the game. It's mine. I didn't buy it conditionally, and the game company doesn't have a right to take the game back or tell me what to do with it, whether it's "only play this if you're wearing a green hat on a Tuesday" or "don't give this to anyone else for money".
     

    Luck

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • 6,779
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • Seen May 20, 2023
    So if used material was gone, would Gamestop even exist? Considering, as you just said, their profits would be cut in half if pre-owned games were no longer bought, anyone who actually visits physical game stores might be a bit disappointed if they all disappeared because they no longer make enough money to be a viable business.

    I never said that Gamestop should stop selling used games, don't mix up my words.


    Well since you're so unhappy about how much the developers make per game, why don't you try to tell them who isn't worth as much as your developers so they can pay that person less and raise the salary of the developer? There's a reason they don't increase the price, by the way. They're not keeping it low to make a lot of people buy; there's a point in which raising the price won't raise profits, because instead of paying more for the game, people just stop buying. If the game companies could charge more and make more profit, they would.
    what.



    No, reaping all of the profits is when people plagiarize others' ideas and sell them as their own.
    What. No. They don't have to plagiarize as long as someone else's efforts are used to make them money only.


    So is there a certain cutoff when the person is worth enough to you to warrant them losing money? Is it just the game developers that are worth anything?
    I fail to see how you came to this conclusion, but okay.

    No.

    Did you know that authors only get on average ~15% of the money given to the publisher for the book, and half that based on the suggested publisher price? But I guess they're not worth anything and don't deserve money either, just game developers.
    I'm sure that authors need millions of dollars and teams of 30+ people.

    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Gamestop doesn't try to make the publishers money, and instead tries to make itself money? Oh, I didn't realize that every business had to make its job keeping another business afloat. I'll be sure to let my local used bookstore know that if a book they stock flops, it's their fault and they need to shut down because of it.

    Believe it or not, there is a way to make money without being an ass.
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
  • 13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    I never said that Gamestop should stop selling used games, don't mix up my words.

    So is your argument that people should just stop buying them? Because in that case we don't even need to discuss it; you can not buy them and I can and we'll both be happy.
     

    Luck

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • 6,779
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • Seen May 20, 2023


    So is your argument that people should just stop buying them? Because in that case we don't even need to discuss it; you can not buy them and I can and we'll both be happy.

    No, that's not my argument either. I find it unfair when a company can sell a new game made entirely by other yet gain all of the profits.

    Note how I said new. I don't think anyone really cares if a copy of Earthbound is bought new or not.
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
  • 13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015


    No, that's not my argument either. I find it unfair when a company can sell a new game made entirely by other yet gain all of the profits.

    Note how I said new. I don't think anyone really cares if a copy of Earthbound is bought new or not.

    Yeah, and I'm sure Gamestop would make enough money from games that cost 5-10 dollars and/or games that no one wants to stay afloat. How new is "new" to you? After a few weeks? Months? Decades?


    I fail to see how you came to this conclusion, but okay.

    No.


    I'm sure that authors need millions of dollars and teams of 30+ people.

    This is exactly what I meant, by the way. You seem to be claiming that because authors don't spend as much creating the book, they don't deserve to be paid at a higher percentage, like you're saying about developers. I'd also like to point out that you keep talking about money spent and developers not getting enough money...I think you're confusing the two. Unless I'm drastically mistaken, it's not the developers who are spending the millions of dollars, it's the publishers. So saying "they spent a lot of money making it" and then relating what they got back to only what the developers earned is twisting the facts to suit your own purpose. The developers didn't spend money, just time, and they're making profit. The publishers spend the money.

    Believe it or not, there is a way to make money without being an ass.

    What's your business model for Gamestop and the like that will keep them in business without selling used games that are such a huge part of their economy, since you obviously know more about the free market than profiting businesses? Are there other ways they can make money that are guaranteed to have the profit that used games have? Do you expect them to take a loss and risk having to close to fulfill your personal moral beliefs about used games?

    On a side note, I still don't understand how you can summarily dismiss every other industry that deals with used sales because they're not video games. Movies have large budgets too, and those are also sold used as often as video games. Why is this crusade for video games only, and not all pre-owned industries? If you believe it's morally wrong to buy and sell used games, then it should apply to everything else as well because it would be just as morally wrong, regardless of the cost of production or the loss they may or may not be taking because of it.
     

    Luck

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • 6,779
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • Seen May 20, 2023
    Yeah, and I'm sure Gamestop would make enough money from games that cost 5-10 dollars and/or games that no one wants to stay afloat. How new is "new" to you? After a few weeks? Months? Decades?

    Or, maybe Gamestop could stop selling otherwise new games and taking all of the profits. Please please please please please note how I put emphasis on ALL this time around.

    This is exactly what I meant, by the way. You seem to be claiming that because authors don't spend as much creating the book, they don't deserve to be paid at a higher percentage, like you're saying about developers.
    I never said they don't deserve it. I said it wasn't necessary. If a high budget game flops(see: Shenmue), then the company will most likely be screwed in one manner or another. If a book flops, then it's not as big of a problem because it wasn't extremely expensive to create.

    I'd also like to point out that you keep talking about money spent and developers not getting enough money...I think you're confusing the two. Unless I'm drastically mistaken, it's not the developers who are spending the millions of dollars, it's the publishers.
    In some cases yeah, but I highly doubt that a game costs more to advertise than to make. Final Fantasy XII had a $50 million dollar budget, excluding marketing. Halo 3 had $200 million worth of marketing put into it, but it was still a $55 million budget game.

    Also note Shenmue. I doubt that they used those $70 million to market the game, considering it did quite poorly in the market.
    So saying "they spent a lot of money making it" and then relating what they got back to only what the developers earned is twisting the facts to suit your own purpose. The developers didn't spend money, just time, and they're making profit. The publishers spend the money.
    I'm sure the publisher is also fine and jolly if they give a team $10 million and the game flops.

    What's your business model for Gamestop and the like that will keep them in business without selling used games that are such a huge part of their economy, since you obviously know more about the free market than profiting businesses?
    Maybe not selling games for $55 and stealing all of the profits would be nice, especially when the game was likely not even a month old.
    Do you expect them to take a loss and risk having to close to fulfill your personal moral beliefs about used games?
    Ooh, they won't make $55 from a game, they'll make slightly less money. I'm sure Gamestop will absolutely crumble without those extra 10 or so dollars because they're struggling to stay afloat as a company.


    On a side note, I still don't understand how you can summarily dismiss every other industry that deals with used sales because they're not video games. Movies have large budgets too, and those are also sold used as often as video games. Why is this crusade for video games only, and not all pre-owned industries? If you believe it's morally wrong to buy and sell used games, then it should apply to everything else as well because it would be just as morally wrong, regardless of the cost of production or the loss they may or may not be taking because of it.

    Inception had a budget of $160 million. Their gross revenue was $800 million. Now it's been a really long time since I went to the movies, but as far as I know you can't buy used tickets at the movie theater so the movie theater can have all of the profits.
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
  • 13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015

    Or, maybe Gamestop could stop selling otherwise new games and taking all of the profits. Please please please please please note how I put emphasis on ALL this time around.

    Sure, but then used game prices would go up and there would be no point in even buying them. The ability to lower the price stems partly from the fact that there is no cut to be given out. Like I mentioned before, prices are set at a certain level because it gains the most profit. Higher price and less people will buy it, getting less profit. Lower price and the people who can now afford it still won't add up to the profit lost by a lower price.


    I never said they don't deserve it. I said it wasn't necessary. If a high budget game flops(see: Shenmue), then the company will most likely be screwed in one manner or another. If a book flops, then it's not as big of a problem because it wasn't extremely expensive to create.

    I thought you said this was a "moral obligation" sort of thing? If so, it applies regardless of whether the company is losing $500, $50,000, or $500 million.

    In some cases yeah, but I highly doubt that a game costs more to advertise than to make. Final Fantasy XII had a $50 million dollar budget, excluding marketing. Halo 3 had $200 million worth of marketing put into it, but it was still a $55 million budget game.

    Also note Shenmue. I doubt that they used those $70 million to market the game, considering it did quite poorly in the market.

    I think you misunderstood what I meant, I mean developers personally, as in the individual people developing the game, not the group as a whole. You're speaking of how much the developers personally are getting paid, but then using the numbers of money spent as if the developers were personally shelling out millions of dollars each to create the game.

    I'm sure the publisher is also fine and jolly if they give a team $10 million and the game flops.

    Not sure what you're trying to say here.

    Maybe not selling games for $55 and stealing all of the profits would be nice, especially when the game was likely not even a month old.

    I'm glad your snippy, sarcastic replies are up to snuff, but that didn't answer my question at all. You're suggesting a very specific, very damaging move for retailers to take, and then pretty much saying "eat the losses" because you're not giving any alternatives to the business model they currently have.

    Ooh, they won't make $55 from a game, they'll make slightly less money. I'm sure Gamestop will absolutely crumble without those extra 10 or so dollars because they're struggling to stay afloat as a company.

    I'm sure EA would be fine without the 10 or so dollars as well. Once again, you're falling into the pit of "X company is more important than Y company" syndrome. I'll restate that as much as you think Gamestop and the like don't do anything for games and don't deserve as much money because they objectively (read:completely subjectively based on your own opinion) do less work than the game developers and publishers. If Gamestop was so unnecessary, then game companies would stop using them to sell their games. They would get more money off of it because they could charge the same price, and get all their money plus the cut Gamestop would normally get. If it wasn't wanted, it wouldn't exist.

    Inception had a budget of $160 million. Their gross revenue was $800 million. Now it's been a really long time since I went to the movies, but as far as I know you can't buy used tickets at the movie theater so the movie theater can have all of the profits.

    I was referring to DVDs, I thought that would be obvious because as you said used movie tickets are impossible. I guess you just took that as another way to sidestep the issue and try to get a jab in at me instead of actually replying to what I'm saying.

    Just like games, some movies make a ridiculous amount of money and some flop. Call of Duty: Black Ops made $360 million in the first 24 hours; that does not make the point about Shenmue flopping invalid, does it? Just like Inception made fistfuls of money, so do some games. Then there are movies like Cutthroat Island, which spend $115 million in production and got $10 million of it back. It pushed the production company into bankruptcy. Movies have the same issues as games.

    If this was against a rule or a law, this would have ended by now. Every game business would have sued Gamestop, the pre-owned industry we have right now would have died (or at least been made less public and given the air of piracy), and you would be able to sit on your high and mighty horse and know that you were right. This is not an issue of if Gamestop can or can't sell pre-owned games. By the laws, they can. It's an issue of convincing others to not buy those pre-owned games because your morals believe it's wrong. Why should I be bound to your moral obligations?

    And if your goal is to make a law or something similar to MAKE Gamestop unable to sell pre-owned games...why in the world are you trying to convince me of anything? Your goal has nothing to do with whether or not I buy used games now.

    What I really don't understand is the difference in the approach of you and Captain Fabio. He and I had a nice, civil discussion where we agreed to disagree, but you've been attacking people who think differently than you since your first post (the one sarcastically accusing pre-owned buyers of killing the industry, if you recall), and have kept that attitude throughout our entire discussion, the condescension and sarcasm and quips that only say "you suck" without answering anything I'm saying. It's really baffling; why would you want to act like that when you're trying to convince someone of a point? It would be very nice if you kept yourself in check a bit more and tried to be a bit more civil.
     
  • 12,201
    Posts
    18
    Years
    Books is a more apt comparison, I believe, especially considering that there are massive stores entirely dedicated to selling used books, unlike video games where most game stores offer new and used.

    Late reply is late.

    The books comparison is more apt, however, I personally think it takes a lot more skill to make a game. For a writer to publish a book, they have to spend about £3000 to have it proof read and then published to a decent amount. I know this because my friend is a writer. There is, normally, only one individual that writes it. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand that the writer puts a great deal of effort into writing their masterpiece, but I still think the sheer amount of work that goes into games, towers over the book industry.

    One thing you have to take into account, is that the developers of these games have to be paid and they aren't cheap. A junior developer will normally enter a job, looking at £25,000 - £30,000 salary. Now, if it is a AAA title, like Halo for example, there were about 180 people working on the game in different sections of the development cycle; ranging from concept art to programming. Of course, not all of these developers will be working full time throughout the course of the games development, but they are still being paid.
    Games companies are business, as most companies are. At the end of the day, they need to come out with a decent profit so they can be successful. The costs include things like wages, advertisement, licenses for the development kits, hardware and so on. If you look at what a writer needs, it is minuscule compared to it.

    Indeed, writers books are bought second hand and as you said, there are large stores dedicated to it; no question. However, the costing in making a game vs writing a box is alot more complex and with pre-owned games, it is making a noticeable impact.

    It is understandable to think I am bias, because in a way, I am. This is the industry that I want to go into and I have been studying for nearly three years to gain the skills to do so, so I am sorry if I am acting hard headed! :3​
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
  • 13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    Late reply is late.

    The books comparison is more apt, however, I personally think it takes a lot more skill to make a game. For a writer to publish a book, they have to spend about £3000 to have it proof read and then published to a decent amount. I know this because my friend is a writer. There is, normally, only one individual that writes it. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand that the writer puts a great deal of effort into writing their masterpiece, but I still think the sheer amount of work that goes into games, towers over the book industry.

    One thing you have to take into account, is that the developers of these games have to be paid and they aren't cheap. A junior developer will normally enter a job, looking at £25,000 - £30,000 salary. Now, if it is a AAA title, like Halo for example, there were about 180 people working on the game in different sections of the development cycle; ranging from concept art to programming. Of course, not all of these developers will be working full time throughout the course of the games development, but they are still being paid.
    Games companies are business, as most companies are. At the end of the day, they need to come out with a decent profit so they can be successful. The costs include things like wages, advertisement, licenses for the development kits, hardware and so on. If you look at what a writer needs, it is minuscule compared to it.

    Indeed, writers books are bought second hand and as you said, there are large stores dedicated to it; no question. However, the costing in making a game vs writing a box is alot more complex and with pre-owned games, it is making a noticeable impact.

    It is understandable to think I am bias, because in a way, I am. This is the industry that I want to go into and I have been studying for nearly three years to gain the skills to do so, so I am sorry if I am acting hard headed! :3

    It's fine, it's interesting because I've been asking my friends and so far every one of them agrees with the pre-owned business, so I can't really have a discussion like this anywhere else. (:

    As you mentioned, game companies are businesses. They're not charities that are dedicated to bringing us the best games because they love us and want to take a loss to make us happy; they're out to make money, just like every other business.

    Say you like a particular brand of soap because it has a certain scent. It's more expensive than other brands, but that's okay because you're willing to pay the price required to get that scent that's unavailable anywhere else. Other people, however, are all spending their money on the cheap unscented soaps, and your company is in danger of going out of business. Do you blame the people that don't buy your soap, and try to get other brands banned from being sold? The analogy isn't perfect, but the point of it is the free market system. If you feel like your money is best spent on a new game, that's fine, it's your money. But if a business is going under, trying to limit everyone else's options on what to buy isn't the way to handle it. Part of the free market is that everyone is free to buy legally whatever they want, and if a business doesn't profit from it, they need to change their system or they'll go under. The job of the consumer in a free market society is to buy what's best for them. The job of the business is to make what they're selling what's best for the consumer. As long as it's legal, it's free market.

    Insert reference to Nazis and communism here.
     
    Back
    Top