A GameStop on Every Corner

[Chyron8472]

Is it me or does it seem like video game stores abound these days? I just turned 32yo, and I can remember back in the day when one would have had at most 3 nearby places (at least in a city the size of Tulsa) to go to buy video games from.

Today, I can locate 6 GameStops alone that are within 6 miles from me, as the crow flies. (A is me; and there are 2 Gamestops, one is in a mall, near 3)
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7983/41558346.png


This doesn't even include Best Buy, Toys 'R Us, Game Xchange or Vintage Stock (the last 2 also trade games from old consoles.)


Why is this? It would seem that, in such circumstances, there would now be a glut of video game stores and as such several would go out of business, or at least that GameStop corporate wouldn't have so many stores so close together. However, they've all stayed open for several years. I know that the video game industry is growing, but seriously....

Have you all also noticed tons of gaming stores popping up everywhere?

[[TTG] Yare]

GameStop does well for itself. Their yearly profits are more than 50% of the profits for the entire rest of the game industry (publishers/developers) combined. They have quite the racket going.

[GuruGuru214]

Here's the map I got:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y99/GuruGuru214/gamestop.png

I always go to 1 when I have a reason to go to GameStop, and sometimes I'll end up at 2 with my friends. I've never seen 3 or 7, and I've only ever seen 5 because that's where the nearest Toys-R-Us is. I don't know what 6 is doing on there, and 4 isn't even open yet. And there's one at the mall a little bit up the highway from 7.

All that said, I don't go in GameStop without a good reason. Either looking for a specific used game or something I just can't find anywhere else. I mainly buy my games at Target or every once in a while Best Buy.

[Giant Tope]

I kinda wish there were more locally owned game shops, but I understand why there aren't. :\

[Avistew]

At first I was like "what's gamestop?". So I googled it.
Turns out it's EB Games in Canada and Micromania in France. Yeah. They're everywhere.
Although Score Games is pretty big too in France. But when I was a kid there was just one in my area that was pretty far. When I left France they were everywhere.

It's a good thing, though, isn't it? Maybe one of them will actually make it around my current area someday. And I'll be able to buy games from a store.
Although to be fair I'm a bit surprised, with the Internet being big and all, I wouldn't have expected game store to multiply quite as much as they did.

[Kroms]

Yeah, Gamestop thrives on used games, which make them a ton of money and everyone else nothing at all. Which is why I want to say that, if you buy a used game from Gamestop (or any other large store), especially a recent game that developers and publishers are relying on, Kroms kills a kitten.

[GuruGuru214]

Well, I won't have any kitten killing on my conscience. I have a thing about buying my games brand new in the plastic, unless they're unobtainable in such a state.

[Didero]

You guys are lucky then. I know of one small game store in the nearest city, and one two cities over.
Toy stores carry games here too, but they're obviously not as specialised as game stores.

[guitarsareboring]

I'm glad we don't have Gamestop in the UK. We do have Gamestation, which has a lot of preowned games and 'Game' also stocks a fair few though.

What does everyone think about the $10 fee EA (and other companies) are going to charge people who buy second hand to play online?

[JedExodus]

We actually don't have a dedicated games shop in my town at all, the best we have since Woolworths went is the small section that Sainsbury's have and Xtra-Vision (which is just Blockbuster)

How's that for the other side of the penny?

[Rather Dashing]

I have two Gamestops. This is sad because they got rid of the far superior Rhino Games and Game Crazy stores that were here first. They bought Rhino, and I don't know what happened to Game Crazy.

[Hassat Hunter]

Well, there certainly is an increase in gamestores here in the Netherlands, but it's nowhere near that explosive.

[[TTG] Yare]

Yeah, Gamestop thrives on used games, which make them a ton of money and everyone else nothing at all. Which is why I want to say that, if you buy a used game from Gamestop (or any other large store), especially a recent game that developers and publishers are relying on, Kroms kills a kitten.

I also find the term "used game" misleading. When you buy a game, you're purchasing a license to use the data stored on the disc. The disc can certainly become used, but data doesn't age.

GameStop's profit margin on MW2 is higher than Infinity Ward's...

Everything about the organized used game trade is shady.

[Epic Kiwi]

Yare;309359']I also find the term "used game" misleading. When you buy a game, you're purchasing a license to use the data stored on the disc. The disc can certainly become used, but data doesn't age.
Okay, fixed it for ya.
Yeah, Gamestop thrives on [preowned game discs that may or may not be scratched up to the point of being unplayable], which make them a ton of money and everyone else nothing at all.

[Thespis]

Timely, this hit the wires today:

GameStop profit up with strong sale of new games (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64J42C20100520?type=globalMarketsNews)

Retailer GameStop Corp (GME.N) on Thursday posted stronger quarterly revenue and profit, helped by sales of new video games including "God of War III" and "Battlefield Bad Company 2."

The company said its first-quarter profit rose nearly 7 percent to $75.2 million, or 48 cents a share, from $70.4 million, or 42 cents a share in the same period a year ago. Analysts had expected earnings of 47 cents a share, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.

GameStop's revenue also edged past expectations, rising 5.1 percent to $2.08 billion. Analysts on average had been looking for quarterly revenue of $2.03 billion.

GameStop maintained its full-year outlook for 2010, saying earnings could improve 14 percent to 18 percent, marking a rebound from a disappointing 2009 for the video-game industry.

Shares of GameStop, the world's largest stand-alone retailer of video-game software, consoles and accessories, rose 2.4 percent to $21.75 on the New York Stock Exchange.

[Remolay]

gamestop annoyed me for the last time when I bought my copy of super smash bros brawl.

apparently to them "Play test" Means pop the disc in and see if it knows it's there. My wii knew it was there, but it wouldnt play it for more that one match.

that's when I switched to game crazy, which is closed now. >:(

[Jenny]

Well, I won't have any kitten killing on my conscience. I have a thing about buying my games brand new in the plastic, unless they're unobtainable in such a state.

Same. I like to have all the pieces and have them in new condition when I get them. Also, I like to support the company that actually created the game, rather than someone who just happened to buy it back from someone else. And they are usually not that much cheaper anyway.

[Epic Kiwi]

gamestop annoyed me for the last time when I bought my copy of super smash bros brawl.

apparently to them "Play test" Means pop the disc in and see if it knows it's there. My wii knew it was there, but it wouldnt play it for more that one match.

that's when I switched to game crazy, which is closed now. >:(
I miss Game Crazy :(

They had that great disc buffer that made ruined discs playable again, and they actually had some really good deals on used games.

[patters]

Yare;309110']GameStop does well for itself. Their yearly profits are more than 50% of the profits for the entire rest of the game industry (publishers/developers) combined. They have quite the racket going.

From what I have heard from several friends and acquaintances they suck at getting in slightly obscure games, which often leads to the phrase "did you pre-order it?". Video games seem to have a standard price which is fixed more than over here.

Over the pond we have Game (http://www.game.co.uk/) being the main brick and mortar retailer, though plenty of other shops carry games. Game in particular tend to stock about 50% new games and 50% pre-owned, which is different to the situation in Gamestop (from word of mouth). Of course the advantages of living on a small landmass could affect this.

I don't know where I'm going with this. Probably that a larger shop would be a better set-up for the gamer: larger variety of stock, easier overall stock take, etc.

[Wapcaplet]

I love how Gamestop charges you the full "new" price if you want to buy the last new copy that's been gutted for display purposes.

I love how the clerks try to convince me that their shrinkwrap machine will magically make the game brand-new again.

A Gamestop near me (actually it's a Planet X) has one copy of A Vampyre Story for $10 new, but of course it's a gutted box. I'm tempted to pick it up but haven't followed through on that temptation yet. I really hate encouraging the practice by actually buying their open-box products.

[Remolay]

On the subject of game crazy, I have one simpsons quote:

Bart: To close this place would be twisted
Bullys: We only heard this place existed.

seriously. with my copy of brawl they buffed it and made it so it would always crash in that spot instead of sometimes crash at that spot or before. Then when gamestop obviously lied and said they had NO Wii games at all they replaced it for free even though I didn't buy it there

[Chyron8472]

I really couldn't care less about open boxes. If I buy a game, I'm going to play it. Not just look at it. If I buy a game that's defective (which I have before,) then I just bring the game back and they give me a different copy. If I were ever to get a defective game that they didn't have another one of (which hasn't happened yet) then there are several other GameStops nearby I can take it to, or I can go to Vintage Stock and maybe have it resurfaced for a dollar. Whoopty-fricken-do.

It doesn't bother me at all.

[Alcoremortis]

I've wandered into GameStops occasionally, but I've never bought a game there, used or otherwise. I generally buy new games at BestBuy and used games online or at, strangely enough, second-hand bookstores. Actually, some of the best deals I've ever gotten on games were from a second-hand bookstore.

[GuruGuru214]

I really couldn't care less about open boxes. If I buy a game, I'm going to play it. Not just look at it. If I buy a game that's defective (which I have before,) then I just bring the game back and they give me a different copy. If I were ever to get a defective game that they didn't have another one of (which hasn't happened yet) then there are several other GameStops nearby I can take it to, or I can go to Vintage Stock and maybe have it resurfaced for a dollar. Whoopty-fricken-do.

It doesn't bother me at all.

I can see your point, but I like to have a pristine case and manual with mine (because I do look at them, and I take pride in my collection (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y99/GuruGuru214/DSC02924.jpg)), and if there's a registration code (in the case of 1st party Nintendo games or for things like Rock Band song imports), I want it to be unused.

[Wapcaplet]

It doesn't bother me at all.
It wouldn't bother me if the display-box games were priced the same as a used game. Slapping a new-game price on an opened box is wrong, especially since Gamestop employees are allowed to take those games home and play them (http://www.joystiq.com/2009/04/10/gamestops-employee-checkout-policy-may-be-illegal/).

[VeronicanPlay]

My nearest game shop is a train ride away in my capital, and even in that big town there is only about 3 places. And most of the time they don't have what I am looking for.
That is why I choose to buy my games online mostly, I am just lazy :p

[puzzlebox]

All my games are free-range, organic and (where possible) direct from the producer.

[Chyron8472]

I can see your point, but I like to have a pristine case and manual with mine (because I do look at them, and I take pride in my collection (http://http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y99/GuruGuru214/DSC02924.jpg))


True that a pristine case is important. I've passed up games I wanted more than once because the case was crap. As far as the manual goes, I prefer having one but it's not a deal breaker.


I have seen vids of ppl on Youtube that say they only get games that have the original label design, which is to say they refuse to get "player's choice" or "classic series" or w/e, where it has such on the label, possibly even the spine has a different color in places (eg. GCN games have black "GameCube" text on yellow background, PS2 games have white on red, instead of white on black for both as usual.) I've never been so picky about that... I'd actually prefer such a box with a manual to a normal box without one.



All my games are free-range, organic

This makes me think of Animal Crossing.

[GuruGuru214]

Oh, absolutely. Also, I've picked up some games with beat to hell cases before and bought extra cases from Nintendo. They're pretty cheap and well worth it for sprucing up my collection. Plus I haven't had to do it to too many.

[Giant Tope]

have seen vids of ppl on Youtube that say they only get games that have the original label design, which is to say they refuse to get "player's choice" or "classic series" or w/e, where it has such on the label, possibly even the spine has a different color in places (eg. GCN games have black "GameCube" text on yellow background, PS2 games have white on red, instead of white on black for both as usual.) I've never been so picky about that... I'd actually prefer such a box with a manual to a normal box without one.

i only have the japanese equivalent of player's choice for mother 1+2 and im jealous of those who have the pure red box because it doesn't match the rest of my collection.

[Avistew]

I get annoyed that my French DS cases are much thicker than the North American ones, and don't have any art on the spine.
I used to favour the French version of games because it included more languages, but now more and more North American version have several languages as well, so I get these (for instance Spirit Tracks has Québécois French, which is really nice if a bit weird at times because I picture all the characters having a Québécois accent and, well, that feels weird).

[Gman5852]

you guys are so lucky, there is only 1 gamestop near me and it is in a completly diiferent town unlike you people.

[Rather Dashing]

I find that an obscure new video game is far more likely to be on the shelves of Wal-Mart or Target than at the local GameStop. Especially if it's a PC game, which the GAMING-SPECIFIC RETAILER doesn't consider important enough to stock.

[Tor]

A couple of years ago GameStop acquired the second largest Norwegian record store chain and all of its retail locations. So... some stores that I rarely visited were replaced by some new ones that I never visit. Ah well.

[Steky]

Yare;309359']I also find the term "used game" misleading. When you buy a game, you're purchasing a license to use the data stored on the disc. The disc can certainly become used, but data doesn't age.

GameStop's profit margin on MW2 is higher than Infinity Ward's...

Everything about the organized used game trade is shady.

I hate the fact that when you buy a game your really just buying a license. It just gives company's like Ubisoft the right to put really crappy DRM on their games. I bought a copy of Settlers 7 but really all I payed for is the right to use their online server and I cant play the game with out the Internet. That's okay when I'm at home but If I try to play it on my laptop on a train, I cant with out wifi.
If you pay for a game you should have the right to sell it if you want. That's the big down side of direct to drive games for me. Though I did see some one try to sell his Steam account on Ebay a while back. Not sure how that went

[Chyron8472]

One thing I never understood was why people complain that GameStop buys back games for pennies on the dollar and yet they still trade games in.

Why do people sell games back to GameStop at all if they know they're getting a bum deal? I only ever tried to trade in a couple of my games, and that was because I knew I'd never play them through ever again. In the end, I didn't even trade in one of those (Star Fox Adventures) but instead gave it to my nephews after their family got a Wii.

It makes no sense why people would complain about the value and still trade in games instead of keeping them or trading them in elsewhere.

[JedExodus]

Especially if it's a PC game, which the GAMING-SPECIFIC RETAILER doesn't consider important enough to stock.

Gamestop don't stock PC games? That blows my mind, even our video rental place has a selection of PC games to buy (3 for £10 Sold-Out range, but still)

[Steky]

I'm glad we don't have Gamestop in the UK. We do have Gamestation, which has a lot of preowned games and 'Game' also stocks a fair few though.

What does everyone think about the $10 fee EA (and other companies) are going to charge people who buy second hand to play online?

Its odd that there is no GameStop in the UK when there in almost ever big town in Ireland

[Rather Dashing]

Gamestop don't stock PC games? That blows my mind, even our video rental place has a selection of PC games to buy (3 for £10 Sold-Out range, but still)
Generally they don't. There is ONE Gamestop in my area that is particularly large and it has one endcap-sized standee with some PC games. Only major titles, like the big MMOs, though, and a few PC gamepads(no wired 360 controllers, though, had to get that online). To put it into perspective, prepad cards for things like Zynga games and Gaia Online take up as much space as their PC game section, while each console gets an entire wall(the Wii's wall has some space dedicated to the DS, the PS3 wall has less space dedicated to the PSP, and the 360 wall is a bit shorter than the other two).

[Alcoremortis]

I once found a brand new copy of Sam and Max Season 2 in a GameStop. I didn't buy it because I already owned it, but they do occasionally have new PC games...just not many.

[MusicallyInspired]

I hate GameStop. Liked it better when it was Electronics Boutique before GameStop bought it out and changed it to EB Games. Can't stand the place. I don't like the way they (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6wnow_zero-originality-episode-1_videogames) do business (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6wx7h_zero-originality-episode-2) at (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6wy69_zero-originality-episode-3-part-1_videogames) all (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6xoh0_zero-originality-episode-3-part-2_videogames).

[[TTG] Yare]

If you pay for a game you should have the right to sell it if you want.

Really? So if only one person ever bought a copy of a game and then that single copy was sold second-hand a million times, you don't see anything wrong with that?

Video games are IP. They're an idea. Ideas don't age. They don't become "used". You didn't come up with the idea, why should you be able to sell it at the expense of the people who actually put time, money, and blood into that idea in the first place?

The second-hand game market as it exists now is a total racket. How should it be fixed? That probably depends on your political/economic beliefs. But I suspect within the next few console generations, physical media will be a thing of the past. I'm also really glad that games are requiring you to be online to play, or register DLC to your console/username to enjoy large chunks of content.

Most consumers would probably disagree with my sentiments. But most consumers would probably also be in favor of forcing game developers into slavery if it meant they could get their games a few bucks cheaper.

[Avistew]

I disagree with you, Yare. By your reasoning, second hand books or movies or music are bad too, because you've used the product. But I believe second hand books are not only not harmful, but helpful and necessary. Just like libraries. There too, an infinite number of people can access the same content and the author gets nil.
I guess you're against that too, but, well, I disagree with you. My reasoning isn't "people should get everything they want for free and the author gets nothing", my reasoning is that if you can get access to something this way, you're more likely to then buy it or future products by the same person. I can't count how many times I've borrowed a book from a library, randomly (that is, I would have never paid for it since I had no idea what it was), liked it, and therefore bought it.
I also know someone who self-published his book online. You can download it for free or buy the paying copy. They're exactly the same thing and advertised at first. Well, he's had as many downloads of the two, give or take. And while some are from different IP (I guess he can track them. Don't ask me, I don't get that stuff), more than half are the same.

When I buy a painting, I don't buy the right to look at it (and therefore I can never sell it!). When I buy a book, I don't buy the right to read it (and therefore I can never sell it!). I buy the item, use it to experience something, and then I sell it if I want. Being unable to resell something you bought and didn't like because you "were just buying the license to be able to use it" is ridiculous. It's one of these things that I sincerely believes harms the industry more than it helps it, just like the copyright laws that make it illegal to share a book that's out of print until the copyright expires, effectively preventing access to it for anyone who wants it and wants to pay for it.

[[TTG] Yare]

The difference is that there's not a monolithic second-hand book retailer making more money than most writers and publishers combined.

//EDIT

Which is to say that the second-hand game market is fast approaching the "one copy purchased first-hand, resold second-hand a million times" scenario I described above.

[Avistew]

Okay, fair enough. I thought you were against second-hand games on principle.

This being said "one bought and resold a million times" is kind of close to renting. Do people who make games get a cut every time their game is rented out?

[Wapcaplet]

Yare;310351']Really? So if only one person ever bought a copy of a game and then that single copy was sold second-hand a million times, you don't see anything wrong with that?
Avistew has covered a lot of the points I was going to make, so I'll leave you with these three words: first sale doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine).

Learn it, live it, love it.

[[TTG] Yare]

Learn it, live it, love it.

It's unfortunate that so many people have this attitude, which is destructive to the people responsible for creating the content in the first place. The whole "Make more games for me, slave. I don't care what my dubious rights are doing to murder creativity and innovation in your industry!" thing. Makes no sense.

I'm quite pleased that in a few years used game sales will be pointless because all of the actual content will be non-transferable DLC.

[Avistew]

Yare;310372']I'm quite pleased that in a few years used game sales will be pointless because all of the actual content will be non-transferable DLC.

You work in the industry, so you'd know it better than I do, but wouldn't that have a vicious effect?
What I mean is, people are less likely to give something a try if they know they can't sell it or return it if they don't like it. As a result, people are less likely to get things they haven't heard of, or things that are too "different" or too "weird".
So really, I'm thinking doing that would help the big budget things but damage the small companies, the independents, the new ideas and so on. How many people are going to give something a try that they know they'll be stuck with no matter what?
And how would people rent or borrow something first to know if they want to buy it? The answer is probably "they won't be able to". Well they'll give less things a chance.

It seems to me that it could kill the games that would have the most potential because they just wouldn't sell as much. I never would have bought any Telltale game if I wasn't getting a DVD in the end.

[Jenny]

Yare;310351']But I suspect within the next few console generations, physical media will be a thing of the past. I'm also really glad that games are requiring you to be online to play, or register DLC to your console/username to enjoy large chunks of content.

As much as I love to hold the game box in my hand, I can see that being a good solution to the current problem. But there is something to be said about owning a game for continual use in the far future. Otherwise couldn't games be more easily lost forever?

Films are still offered in DVD format for home use, although I know there is a problem there as well. Still, in the past there were situations where films were lost, and yet if a lone collector has one left, there is still a chance of restoration.

That aside, imagine what could happen if this solution is taken too far. Individuals could no longer be independent. They would be required to constantly connect to the global community in order to enjoy all forms of creative expression (other than their own). Even now books are being offered digitally. Will someday all collections be controlled not by the individual who owns them but by the estates that own the rights to that material? To think that I couldn't give a book to a friend is frightening.

I think registering games is a very good solution for the time being. But over the long run, if protection for all types of creative property is going to be implemented, there will have to be a new method discovered. I can't imagine what it might be, but hopefully someone will figure out a great way to fix this problem in the years to come.

I know that is a bit extreme, and that license/patent expirations are put into play for just such reasons, but it's still something to think about when considering a long term solution.

Also, why can't these companies, such as GameStop, be forced to give a large percentage of the game's cost back to the original company? Or do they do that already?

Edit: Oh wow, you all went and posted while I was typing. Well, okay, I just re-iterated a lot of what was said. :p

[[TTG] Yare]

Do people who make games get a cut every time their game is rented out?

Why would we? The rental place bought the game, so they own it, right?

[[TTG] Yare]

Also, why can't these companies, such as GameStop, be forced to give a large percentage of the game's cost back to the original company? Or do they do that already?

They're protected by the same dubious laws that protect private citizens. Large, organized corporations exploiting this are really my only objection, though.

[puzzlebox]

I can see how you would have an issue with the fact that GameStop an unnamed monolithic retailer can build a business out of piggybacking on others' hard work. It's a business model that takes revenue from producers (who deserve just reward for people enjoying their product), and siphons it off to a middleman who produced nothing, which feels entirely wrong and unfair.

I see a distinction between that, however, and swapping a game with a friend - the former is exploitative, the latter is not, even if the impact on the industry is the same (one less sale of that particular game).

Yare;310351']Most consumers would probably disagree with my sentiments. But most consumers would probably also be in favor of forcing game developers into slavery if it meant they could get their games a few bucks cheaper.

Poor Yare. I'd only be in favour of that if you had a really nice cell, and one Sunday off every month.

[[TTG] Yare]

Poor Yare. I'd only be in favour of that if you had a really nice cell, and one Sunday off every month.

Hahahaha. You're too kind, madam.

[JedExodus]

The fact of the matter is that most people don't know or particularly care about the people who make their games, that's just the way it is. However cultivating brand loyality like yourselves and the likes of Valve goes a long way to making people care and become more involved with a developer as opposed to a product

Also EA's Project $10 is quite nifty and pretty damned fair as far as I can see. Though it'll mean tagged on online capabilities in everything they can possibly tag it on. Ubisoft's solution's are not nifty or even particularly clever, their DRM has been cracked and now pirates are playing more solid copies of single-player games than genuine customer, completley arse about face and just detracts value from your product

[Avistew]

Will someday all collections be controlled not by the individual who owns them but by the estates that own the rights to that material? To think that I couldn't give a book to a friend is frightening.

That has already happened. Heard about how amazon deleted books from people's Kindles without even telling them?
I only get ebooks of public domain stuff because of that. For the rest, I get physical copies, because this way I can lend them to a friend or resell them. Although to be fair, my main beefs with ebooks is that they sell them the price of the hardcover and not the price of the paperback, no matter when you purchase them. It's ridiculous, I have an omnibus edition of a trilogy that cost me 17 euros, and that's the price for the ebook of the first volume of the trilogy. I just don't get it. I can get one ebook (protected of course) or three paper books, that I can lend to friends, resell or use to make a fire, how can they expect me to want to get less for more?
And before you ask, the ebook came out about ten years after the omnibus edition.

Yare;310377']Why would we? The rental place bought the game, so they own it, right?

That was mostly a rethorical question, although I honestly wasn't sure. I know in France you pay rental fees. When I worked in the videostore, for instance, 20 euro DVDs cost us 80 euros to purchase if you included the rental fees, to be allowed to rent it out. I'm not about sure game because considering how much they cost even for the consumer version, my boss just though it wasn't worth it renting them, that he'd never make a profit out of them.

So it's not like it's totally impossible, either. But from your tone I guess you're against renting too.

[Jenny]

Yare;310379']They're protected by the same dubious laws that protect private citizens. Large, organized corporations exploiting this are really my only objection, though.

I didn't realize that large corporations like that were protected under the same laws as private individuals. I completely agree that any sort of business should be forced to give a kick back to the original company.

Everything I said was based off of private consumers, not companies that profit off of them, large-scale.

[Wapcaplet]

Yare;310372']It's unfortunate that so many people have this attitude, which is destructive to the people responsible for creating the content in the first place. The whole "Make more games for me, slave. I don't care what my dubious rights are doing to murder creativity and innovation in your industry!" thing. Makes no sense.
It's no different from books, music, movies, or any other "idea" product. Once I purchase a physical item, it's mine, and its creator has no right to control my ability to dispose of that item through gift or resale. What if I couldn't resell my DVD or CD collections on eBay? What if, as a starving college student, I couldn't buy used textbooks?

Dubious rights? This has been mostly settled law for over 100 years, and every media technology that's risen since the dawn of the 20th century has been bitchslapped by the courts on this issue. It's only recently that software companies have tried (and often failed) to enforce ridiculous EULA agreements that are unconscionable contracts of adhesion.

I suspect that deep-pocket software companies will eventually sway Congress to carve out an exception in the copyright laws, but I'd hope the EFF would do something about it (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/08/first-sale-why-it-matters-why-were-fighting-it), and they'd get plenty of my charitable dollars for doing so.

[[TTG] Yare]

Once I purchase a physical item, it's mine ...

Enjoy that while you still can. :)

[Avistew]

Poor Yare. I'd only be in favour of that if you had a really nice cell, and one Sunday off every month.

I'd be in favour of that if the Sunday is spent with me. But then make it every week, once a month isn't enough. Heck, throw in Wednesdays too.

[Jenny]

That has already happened. Heard about how amazon deleted books from people's Kindles without even telling them?

Yes, I did read about that! I was horrified. I always buy my books to have too. There is convenience in a kindle, but for a book I really like, I buy the physical copy, or if I'm not sure if I'll like a book, I'll borrow it from the library first. If I love it, I'll usually buy it to keep. Or if I like a particular author, I will make sure to buy their book when it comes out, because even if it isn't the greatest book, I want to support their previous ones that I enjoyed.

If I could, I would buy it directly from the author. I wish more people realized how important it is to support the people who create the things you love. But for that support, it is nice to have something that isn't fleeting.

[[TTG] Yare]

Just to be clear, this isn't me being a crazy person. Lots of people in the game industry are concerned about it.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3171217

[Jenny]

Dubious rights? This has been mostly settled law for over 100 years, and every media technology that's risen since the dawn of the 20th century has been bitchslapped by the courts on this issue. It's only recently that software companies have tried (and often failed) to enforce ridiculous EULA agreements that are unconscionable contracts of adhesion.

But think of the changes in the last 100 years. The internet is what made this such a problem, and to a certain extent the airplane (if we're going there).

Books are heavy. It is hard for the individual person to mass distribute them to all their friends. But now, we can just email something to someone within a few seconds. The internet has thrown a monkey wrench into the whole thing.

Edit: And games are the ones facing the biggest problem. Because all their profits are made by selling to the consumer to enjoy in their own home. It's harder for a game to protect themselves than say a movie (that has a theatre release).

[Wapcaplet]

Yare;310393']Enjoy that while you still can. :)
I'm aware Big Content is doing everything it can to make that happen as soon as possible. Fortunately, your own company seems to be committed to physical products for the foreseeable future...

[Avistew]

If I could, I would buy it directly from the author. I wish more people realized how important it is to support the people who create the things you love. But for that support, it is nice to have something that isn't fleeting.

Yeah, for all the piracy and stuff, I think the Internet has allowed a lot of people to offer their stuff. There is more access. You cut out the middleman, which in the case of books tends to be the publisher rather than Gamestop. Sure there are great publishers, and they'll tell you they take risks to give authors a chance and so on, but hey, they take someone's content, sell it, and give that person 5%. Yeaaah, right. Oh, unless they're famous and it will sell super-well, of course, then they get a higher cut.
At least games publishers actually MAKE the games, they work on it. With books the writer and editor share the work (most of in on the author's part) and the publisher takes most of the money.

But I digress. With the Internet, more people can show their stuff online. Look at webcomics, they have all that variety and innovation (for some) that is harder to find from mainstream comic publishers. And there is a lot of crap but there is also good stuff. And you can give the people your money directly.
Not saying it's a dream job that will make you rich, but it beats being constantly rejected by publishers because you're not formatted enough, know what I mean?

[Jenny]

With the Internet, more people can show their stuff online. Look at webcomics, they have all that variety and innovation (for some) that is harder to find from mainstream comic publishers. And there is a lot of crap but there is also good stuff. And you can give the people your money directly.

Not saying it's a dream job that will make you rich, but it beats being constantly rejected by publishers because you're not formatted enough, know what I mean?

Thankfully, that is the positive of the internet. I have been working on a book for, oh my, 3 years now. And I am seriously considering not sending it to a publisher. I would probably make more money overall, if I just sold it online myself.

[GuruGuru214]

Yare;310393']Enjoy that while you still can. :)

The problem I have with this sort of thing is permanent availability. Companies fold all the time, and I don't expect them to somehow keep a server running to allow downloads of their games.

So maybe the solution is that games should only be allowed to be sold used if they're no longer available new. Not that that's legislation that'll ever happen...

And I have to say, I can see where you're coming from here, but I don't like this side of you. It feels as if you're angry with gamers in general here and not just the big bad corporation.

Also, this thread is moving too damn fast!

[[TTG] Yare]

I'm aware Big Content is doing everything it can to make that happen as soon as possible. Fortunately, your own company seems to be committed to physical products for the foreseeable future...

I don't think there's a large second-hand market for our games, which is good. People who like our games tend to hold onto them.

I'm concerned about the industry and its sustainability as a whole, however.

[Jenny]

I'm aware Big Content is doing everything it can to make that happen as soon as possible. Fortunately, your own company seems to be committed to physical products for the foreseeable future...

Which is why I bought all the bonus goodies. :p I'm sure I would have caved and bought Tales to play, even without a hard copy, because I'm too MI obsessed not to. But, I would not be buying extra bonus items unless I knew I was getting my very own hard copy of the game to hug and kiss and put under my pillow at night.... did I say that out loud?

[[TTG] Yare]

And I have to say, I can see where you're coming from here, but I don't like this side of you. It feels as if you're angry with gamers in general here and not just the big bad corporation.

My position is a difficult one to be in. I have no ill will toward my customers.

But then, people who buy used from GameStop aren't technically my customers. ;)

We still pay to support them, though. :(

[Wapcaplet]

Yare;310396']Just to be clear, this isn't me being a crazy person. Lots of people in the game industry are concerned about it.
1900s: lots of people in the publishing industry are concerned about resellers undercutting the sale of new books and demand a minimum resale price. Supreme Court says that's not allowed.

1930s: lots of people in the music industry are concerned about radio stations playing their music without payment. Courts say it's OK.

1980s: lots of people in the movie industry are concerned about video stores renting their movies and keeping all the profits. Courts say it's OK.

We've heard this before.

[GuruGuru214]

Yare;310405']I don't think there's a large second-hand market for our games, which is good. People who like our games tend to hold onto them.

That's because everything you guys create is made of pure awesome.

[Avistew]

Thankfully, that is the positive of the internet. I have been working on a book for, oh my, 3 years now. And I am seriously considering not sending it to a publisher. I would probably make more money overall, if I just sold it online myself.

Well, if you don't mind my giving you advice, you'll have to market it really well, and kind of become a marketing agent or something. Which would give you less time to write the next one. The other side of the medal is that there is so much content out there people can be overwhelmed, and publishing companies have the means to advertise and distribute what they publish.

I think the chances of your making more money by self publishing are fairly low. However the consumers would get a better deal out of it for sure. Also, on the long run, you might earn more as long as you keep writing, because if you're liked people will talk about you, and you will always offer your first work, unlike publishers tend to.

I wish you the best of luck with that, though :) I personally think that I'd hire someone to do the marketing for me. But I'm crazy, I'm absolutely ready to actually end up spending money to make my stuff available to as many people as possible :p

Right now I'm still working on the "stupid English language! Why are you so much harder to write in?!?" aspect of things though. Good thing I have an editor, sometimes I get so frustrated that I write things along the lines of "he looked at his wrist-time-giving-thing and walked through the hole-in-the-wall".

[[TTG] Yare]

We've heard this before.

Ah, but this is the first time in human history that something can be done about it.

[Wapcaplet]

But think of the changes in the last 100 years. The internet is what made this such a problem, and to a certain extent the airplane (if we're going there).

Books are heavy. It is hard for the individual person to mass distribute them to all their friends. But now, we can just email something to someone within a few seconds. The internet has thrown a monkey wrench into the whole thing.
I'm talking about physical goods here -- the Internet has fueled the rise of digital piracy, which I'm definitely against, but you still need to take your book or plastic shiny disc to a physical store or the post office (or in-person to your buyer) in order to transfer ownership of it.

[Jenny]

I wish you the best of luck with that, though :) I personally think that I'd hire someone to do the marketing for me. But I'm crazy, I'm absolutely ready to actually end up spending money to make my stuff available to as many people as possible :p.

Thanks! I welcome any and all advice. I probably will cave and just spend the extra money and hire someone, but it's a fun option to consider.

Everything you write here reads very well. I would never know you weren't a native english speaker, if I just read a couple of posts randomly.

[Avistew]

1930s: lots of people in the music industry are concerned about radio stations playing their music without payment. Courts say it's OK.

I don't know about then. But now, aren't stations paying to play things, as well as stores that play the radio having to pay a fee to be allowed to let their customers listen to it (even though radio is free in the first place :confused:)?

[Wapcaplet]

Yare;310413']Ah, but this is the first time in human history that something can be done about it.
Thanks to well-funded lobbyists, yes. Thank goodness for the EFF. (All of the proceeds from my purchase of the Humble Indie Bundle went to them.)

[Wapcaplet]

I don't know about then. But now, aren't stations paying to play things, as well as stores that play the radio having to pay a fee to be allowed to let their customers listen to it (even though radio is free in the first place :confused:)?
Yes, but that was a result in a change in the law. Sound recordings actually have two copyrights now -- the copyright of the music, and the copyright of the performance of the music. The license is for the performance copyright.

[Avistew]

Thanks! I welcome any and all advice. I probably will cave and just spend the extra money and hire someone, but it's a fun option to consider.

Everything you right here reads very well. I would never know you weren't a native english speaker, if I just read a couple of posts randomly.

Thanks! My main problem is twofold when writing... erm... stories, let's say, rather than talking to people.

a) my vocabulary isn't nearly as big in English. That's okay in a forum post, but in a novel or short story you can't really have repetition. Plus forum posts are about content, but stories, I feel, are as much about how you say things than about what you say.

b) I can't adapt as well, which translates into: all of my characters speak like me. I don't know slang or super snobby words, I don't know expressions someone else would be more likely to use, etc. I guess it's similar to a) but I feel it's different because a) is mostly a problem of narration while b) is a problem of characterisation that occurs in dialogues only mostly occurs in dialogue. I guess it also occurs in stream of consciousness or narration that's purposely from one of the characters' point of view. Of narration if the narrator isn't me.

I'm getting better, but when I'm writing my ideas are much faster than my fingers, and I fight hard not to write in French then translate. I think it really needs to be written in English directly if it's going to be offered in English first, you know what I mean? And translation just won't do, I have to manage to think as fast in English.
Well, it's good training, if extremely frustrating. But at some point I'll overcome it. I wasn't born with the ability to write in French, either, I had to work at it.

[Jenny]

I'm getting better, but when I'm writing my ideas are much faster than my fingers, and I fight hard not to write in French then translate. I think it really needs to be written in English directly if it's going to be offered in English first, you know what I mean? And translation just won't do, I have to manage to think as fast in English.
Well, it's good training, if extremely frustrating. But at some point I'll overcome it. I wasn't born with the ability to write in French, either, I had to work at it.

I can understand that, vocabulary and the way things are said is very important in written dialogue to help develop different characters. I can see writing in French and translating could be done, or possibly doing both? Writing in english for parts of it and french for other parts, but that could put stress on continuity.

It sure sounds like amazing practice though! Writing stories in foreign languages could be the future of language instruction.

[Avistew]

It sure sounds like amazing practice though! Writing stories in foreign languages could be the future of language instruction.

I don't know, in a way it's made me realise that speaking a language and writing it (as a writer, not in forums and stuff) are extremely different. I'm also a translator, too, so it's pretty hard not to fall into "translator" mode, and to create it in English directly rather than in translated French. It's really a different process.

[Hassat Hunter]

On the whole online DLC issue:

The only reason why I haven't bought Dragon Age: Origins yet is because I hate BioWare's DLC system. Also being online 24/7 like Ubisoft wants me is definitely not something I will EVER do for my singleplayer games. I buy all my games, but if this becomes the common practice I suppose I am pretty much forced into piracy to play my games, since I am not willing (and currently; even unable to!) to be online 24/7 for my SP games.
And yes, there is also the fear of pulling the plug. Even BioWare did so with their NWN DLC due to issues with Atari, so it's definitely a possibility. And seeing how I am still playing 10 year old games or older now I don't suddenly want to find out I am unable at all because it's been wiped clean, unlike compatibility issues with newer software/hardware which can probably be worked around...

Fortunately TTG gives me a disk at the end, if not I would have definitely not bought all the games I did here.

[Chyron8472]

Fortunately TTG gives me a disk at the end, if not I would have definitely not bought all the games I did here.

Just say, for the sake of argument, that they didn't. How is that different from Steam, GOG or D2D?

[Hassat Hunter]

I don't use said systems, aside from free portals and 1 Audiosurf.

So, your point?

[Avistew]

Just say, for the sake of argument, that they didn't. How is that different from Steam, GOG or D2D?

I don't know about Hassat, but I've never bought a Steam game, and Ian only got Portal because it was free. I was interested in Sam & Max but didn't realise I'd get a DVD until ToMI was advertised, so that's when I bought Sam&Max Seasons 1 and 2. And due to the way the Wallace and Gromit DVD turned out to be, I didn't buy any episode and got them with coupons instead. And I'm not going to order the disc, either, since it's of no use to me.

I did buy Puzzle Agent, but that's because I want to support these guys, and I'm hoping it will sell enough that it will get an actual copy at some point. I think Telltale is being a nice enough company that people are more likely to keep buying from them if they change the way they work, but they'd lose me as a paying customer for sure if they stopped offering a DVD that has nothing to do with the Internet whatsoever.
I'd probably stick around on the forums and stuff though.
And I guess I'd buy non-game stuff too, like comics and stuff. Unless they start selling them in a "you need to be online to read them" way, of course.

There is no way my opinion would stop them from doing whatever they want of course, but I want to keep playing their games so I hope they don't do that :S

I guess I just don't get Yare's reasoning, I mean I get some of it but not all of it. If I want to replay the games, I'm not paying a second time. I paid once and will get to play as many times as I want. And not just me, but my husband, and potentially any roommates or family member living with us.
And that's apparently fine, because we're not paying for the experience of playing it once, like we're paying for a single plane ticket or a single meal at a restaurant, we're paying for the right to play it whenever we want for all of our life, and that extents to the whole household.

But if you sell it to someone else, then suddenly it's different. Even though you can't replay it because you've sold it. Why? The way I see it, only one person has the right to play it at a time. What does it change if it's me playing it five times or five different people playing it once? Ether way it's played five times and paid for only once.
Obviously we're not paying for the experience, but for the right to play it. That game comes with a right for someone to play it, as many times as they want. When you resell the right to play it, you can't play the game anymore, the new person can instead.
Seems to me that if you want to restrict that, you should also make sure that whoever buys it can only play it once, and never replay it. There is never going to be several people playing that same copy at the same time. Never.

I guess I just don't get where the discrepancy comes from. "That copy might be sold to millions of people!". Well, if it survives enough to go through that many transactions, it sure can be played a million times by me, the rest of my household, whoever inherits the game after I die and so on.

If the problem is that Gamestop is making money by taking someone's product for nothing and selling it to other people for a lot, then the person who's been had in the story isn't whoever made or sold the game in the first place. It's the person who sold it to gamestop, and the person who bought it from gamestop. And that's it.
Sure it's annoying, but it's also annoying that the person who grows the crops I'll eat is only paid a very small percentage of what I spend to get them, and the middleman takes the rest. People are making profit every where by buying something and reselling for more, sometimes ten times the price. It sucks, but that's how economy works.
Which reminds me of something my economy teacher used to say: most if not all of the time, economy and morality have diametrically opposed interests.

[Tor]

I'm in two minds about this. On one hand, I really see Mr. Yare's point, and I realize that this is a problem in the games industry (probably more so than for other forms of intellectual property). I want developers to get my money when I buy games. (I also like to cut out "useless" middlemen as much as possible, i.e. retailers, distributors, publishers--but that's a different discussion)

I never resell my own games, nor do I buy used games when new copies are readily accessible. I buy a lot of old games though; and in those cases, used copies are often the only option. (I don't use GameStop or similar stores, I prefer eBay, Play.com etc.) I'm also strongly against strict IP laws on general principle. While some degree of protection is necessary for IP holders, I think the current state of affairs, e.g. the DMCA, parts of the US patent system etc. is way out of hand.

What I'd like to see is some kind of compromise. I'd agree to removing the used games market for new games in exchange for dropping DRM in PC games. Or perhaps if we say that any intellectual property that is out of print automatically becomes public domain? That'd be pretty sweet. Wishful thinking though...

[Avistew]

Or perhaps if we say that any intellectual property that is out of print automatically becomes public domain? That'd be pretty sweet. Wishful thinking though...

Maybe if you gave the option. Whoever holds the copyright can choose to keep the copyright by making a new printing, or it becomes public domain?
This way people wouldn't bother keeping the copyright if they think it's not worth reprinting it, and whichever option they choose you wouldn't get unobtainable stuff you wish you could pay for.

[Tor]

Maybe if you gave the option. Whoever holds the copyright can choose to keep the copyright by making a new printing, or it becomes public domain?
This way people wouldn't bother keeping the copyright if they think it's not worth reprinting it, and whichever option they choose you wouldn't get unobtainable stuff you wish you could pay for.
Yes! That's exactly what I meant. Copyright holders would retain their rights as long as they keep the product available for end users.

[Avistew]

Yes! That's exactly what I meant. Copyright holders would retain their rights as long as they keep the product available for end users.

Right. When you said "automatically", I sound it was a bit harsh. I think there should be a delay to allow them to organise the next printing, and make sure to inform them they're losing the copyright, and everything. Automatically sounded more like "it expires and you might not even realise you've lost the rights".

I personally don't see the point of anything ever being copyrighted after the author dies. They're the only person who should get royalties from it. Not the publishers, not the descendants/heirs. Only the person who actually came up with it.
In case in a case of posthumous publishing you could have something like a five year delay or something. Like, five years after first printing or at the author's death, whichever comes later.

Anyway, I obviously don't make the laws, but I get annoyed at how copyright laws are only protecting "the middleman" as we've been saying, and so rarely protect the author.

[Hassat Hunter]

There is never going to be several people playing that same copy at the same time. Never.
That's not quite right, since you can burn copies. Which is definitely something I do if I want to play a LAN MP game with a friend and then it turns out we both need a copy.

[Avistew]

That's not quite right, since you can burn copies. Which is definitely something I do if I want to play a LAN MP game with a friend and then it turns out we both need a copy.

Well, add "legally" to my statement, then. But if you include illegal stuff, you might as well pirate it for free.

[Steky]

Yare;310372']I'm quite pleased that in a few years used game sales will be pointless because all of the actual content will be non-transferable DLC.
I can see were your coming from Yare but the main problem I have with non-transferable DLC, is that it costs the same as a game without it. And if it’s a direct to drive game it should cost less than a DVD copy because there’s no manufacturing cost. I think it’s too draconian to make gamers be online 24/7 if they want to play games they paid for.
If you’re going to take the TV model for your company, why not look at how TV channels work. We pay for the TV channel and we can watch all its content. If we’re going to have to be online to play games we should only have to pay for that service and as long as we’re paying for the "channel" we can play all the games on it as much as we want for a prescription fee. But if we want to own the game, we can pay more for that right and buy a DVD.
I don’t support GameStop and never buy second hand games when I can help it. I never sell a game I like because I may want to play it again some day. I just don’t see why gamers should be punished because of companies like this. I don’t think non-transferable DLC is the solution.

[Didero]

Non-transferable DLC isn't the same as having to be online all the time to play.

The DLC solution is that the DVD you buy doesn't contain the entire game, the part that's missing has to be bought off the site of the people who made the game. BUT if you buy the game first-hand, there's a code to download that DLC for free. So if you buy it first hand, you get the entire game for the store price, but second-hand buyers that buy the game cheaper, have to give a bit of money to the creators of the game too to be able to actually play.
That DLC doesn't necessarily require you to be online ALL the time, but you do need an internet connection to download it the first time.

Having to be online all the time is more of a copy-protection than a way to prevent people selling on their games, though it can be used for that purpose too.

[Steky]

Yes but Yare is in favour of non-transferable DLC, meaning you can’t sell the game on or give it to someone else. I think games with non-transferable DLC should be cheaper. I think it’s a good idea for second-hand buyers having to give a bit of money to the creators

[MusicallyInspired]

One thing I like about console games is they will never require online activation. Unless they go entirely DLC and scrap game media altogether.

[Rather Dashing]

I'm 100% fine with non-transferable DLC in the vein of the ME2 stuff. The game is still playable, but you're missing some stuff. Seems like that makes sense and is fair for used purchases to not get everything, but to still get something that works. And hey, you can still buy your share back for ten bucks, so you may still be able to get a copy of your game for less money than a new copy still, if you plan it right. I wouldn't mind this becoming a standard part of the business, it feels like a nice compromise between industry and consumer needs. Both sides need to realize that there needs to be some form of respect between the two groups for each other. I think Ubisoft's online all the time DRM is against the needs of consumers, and the used games market as it exists today is against the needs of the developers.

[Tor]

One thing I like about console games is they will never require online activation. Unless they go entirely DLC and scrap game media altogether.
Who knows what the next generation of consoles will bring. It seems like all the current consoles have already started moving in that direction. Also: See PSP Go--no physical media.

I've heard that WiiWare/Virtual Console titles are locked to work only on the console they were purchased on; users can't transfer purchased games to a new console. This restriction is apparently in place even if your console breaks and you get a new one on warranty. Pretty strict DRM if you ask me.

From what I hear, Live Marketplace and PlayStation Store titles are tied to the user account rather than the console itself; which sounds a bit more consumer friendly.

I don't use any of the current generation consoles though, so everything I've said may be entirely wrong...

[MusicallyInspired]

What you say is true, but disc-based Wii games aren't locked to one Wii. Save games are, though (unless you have homebrew). This bugs me actually because at long last black Wiis have finally been released in North America and I already have a white one! I really want a black one...

[Didero]

You can transfer savegames to an SD card from the Wii. You mean if you copy them from that SD card to a new Wii, they won't work?

[[TTG] Yare]

From what I hear, Live Marketplace and PlayStation Store titles are tied to the user account rather than the console itself; which sounds a bit more consumer friendly.

The PSN method is actually quite good. You're allowed to have your account "active" on up to 5 PS3 systems. When you buy something on the PSN, you're allowed to download and install it on all of the consoles your account is active on. If you deactivate your account on one console, the content deactivates as well but then you can go activate your account on a different console.

Lots of PSN game sharing goes on but it's all above the bar, since Sony's license allows it.

[Zonino]

What you say is true, but disc-based Wii games aren't locked to one Wii. Save games are, though (unless you have homebrew). This bugs me actually because at long last black Wiis have finally been released in North America and I already have a white one! I really want a black one...

You could buy a jar of black paint? :P

What you've described isn't just something on the Wii though. Some PS3 games don't let you copy save files despite the fact that the files can only be used with the profile they were originally saved to. This caused a friend of mine to lose a few save files when his PS3 was repaired as they replaced the hard drive but couldn't copy all the files.

I think the X-Box does something similar but I'm not sure.

Back on the topic of DLC and used games. It does seem like an interesting idea to limit some parts of the game if you buy it used until you spend a bit extra money. Despite all the gripe about piracy destroying the gaming industry second hand games do far more. Devil's Advocate time here you could possibly say that used games sells are worse, as they are still a guaranteed sell of the game, where as there's no guarantee that a pirate would buy the game anyway.

So there does have to be some sort of compromise, but it has to be smart. Wasn't EA wanting to not let people use the multiplayer if they bought a game used? That's not very smart. It seems more drastic and money grubbing since nowadays multiplayer is a big part of games. You might as well just not let people play the game at all until they cough up. Removing some weapons, classes, or unimportant story sections seems a much user friendly way to go.

[[TTG] Yare]

Devil's Advocate time here you could possibly say that used games sells are worse, as they are still a guaranteed sell of the game, where as there's no guarantee that a pirate would buy the game anyway.

A pirate is just denying you money for an experience you provide. Somebody who buys a game second-hand (from a large company) is actually giving money to your competitor.

[Didero]

One of the main reasons for the second-hand trade is, I think, the high price of games nowadays. Few people are willing to spend €/$ 70 on a game they may or may not like, so they get it cheaper second-hand. If games were priced more reasonably (like Telltale games :D), more people would buy first-hand, and profits for the creators of the game could actually go up.
I'm no expert on the field though, so I could be wrong.

[Zonino]

Yare;310739']A pirate is just denying you money for an experience you provide. Somebody who buys a game second-hand (from a large company) is actually giving money to your competitor.

Wait... you're in competition with games retailers? The people who sell your games?

I suppose you are aren't you, since the battle lines have been shifting for a while. It used to be shop vs shop, then shop vs internet, and now it's shop vs internet vs direct from the developers and everyone wants to offer the best deals.

[Tor]

One of the main reasons for the second-hand trade is, I think, the high price of games nowadays. Few people are willing to spend €/$ 70 on a game they may or may not like, so they get it cheaper second-hand.
Yes, I also suspect that has something to do with it.

Personally, I just wait for the game to drop in price. I'm a very patient guy... why are some people in such a rush to play the new games immediately after release? It's not like the game gets any worse if you wait a few months to play it. Sometimes it's amazing how quickly prices on new titles drop.

Telltale's games are different though; they are priced perfectly from the launch :3

[Jenny]

One of the main reasons for the second-hand trade is, I think, the high price of games nowadays. Few people are willing to spend €/$ 70 on a game they may or may not like, so they get it cheaper second-hand.

I would just buy the game new and then sell it to someone if I didn't like it. But as a private seller, it wouldn't make as much of an impact.

Wouldn't it be a better solution for corporate second hand game selling (non private persons) to be done away with? And for those that are unsure about a game, just rent it? That way if they like it, they can buy it to keep and play forever. And if they don't then they just give it back and forget about it. Like the library system.

What happens if a company goes under, or refuses to sell the game anymore, and you have some copy protection on your game that doesn't let you play it on some new computer you get 10 years down the road? All of a sudden you have no game left, and are forced to either get a pirated version, or I suppose pay someone to re-program your game to make it playable again?

In this case, all buyers should be aware they are paying for the chance to play the game for a week? a year? or until something unfortunate happens, or they move and lose their account or computer. All games then would be technically rented. The buyer, when it comes down to it, would own nothing. And under that logic, the games themselves would have to be a whole lot cheaper. I just can't see paying $70+ for a game like that.

[Chyron8472]

One of the main reasons for the second-hand trade is, I think, the high price of games nowadays. Few people are willing to spend €/$ 70 on a game they may or may not like, so they get it cheaper second-hand. If games were priced more reasonably (like Telltale games :D), more people would buy first-hand, and profits for the creators of the game could actually go up.
I'm no expert on the field though, so I could be wrong.


"The high price of games?"

New games for new systems are ~$50. They've always been that much. Even for NES games and PC parser-based adventure games 25 years ago, they were still that much. Even when 50 bucks was more money back then.


Granted newly released console hardware is more money now, but again if you're talking computers, the prices for modern parts are again the same as they were back then.

[Didero]

I just checked a few Dutch sites, and new console games mostly sell for €60 here, while I'm pretty sure it used to be €50, and before the euro they were 50 guilders, which is less.
So maybe €70 was a bit of an exaggeration, but prices are steadily increasing, which can't help to increase first-hand sales.

[[TTG] Yare]

So maybe €70 was a bit of an exaggeration, but prices are steadily increasing, which can't help to increase first-hand sales.

It's a lot more expensive to make games now. Consumers have a higher expectation. You can't ship Final Fantasy 7 today and have it sell well.

To sell the same number of games, you have to invest a stupendous amount of money in art resources. I mean, you still need PRICE * SALES to be >= DEV COST if you want to keep your studio open. Since dev cost is going up, you have to increase price or sales to stay afloat. There's no easy way to increase sales, unfortunately. DLC, merchandise, games being $10 more expensive, etc... are all necessary for modern video games to exist at this point.

I mean, Square has said they can't afford to remake FF7 with modern hi def art resources. We've painted ourselves into a corner, here.

[Irishmile]

We have them here but I buy and sell used games through a locally owned place called video gamestar....

[Zonino]

I've been thinking for a while about the price of making games and how it will affect future development. Too many companies are trying to one up each other, so you're not talking about just the artistic cost, but hiring in actors, and good ones at that.

Bethseda is a big culprit. They've been bringing in big actors for bit part roles and it must cost them a fair bit, not to mention any royalties they might need to pay. The price of Patrick Stewart and Sean Bean alone must be the reason they could only get in 4 other voice actors for Oblivion :P

Now games cost millions to make, they need to make millions, or companies go bankrupt. It honestly can't go on like this can it?

[Avistew]

I've liked game graphics less and less and less. It makes me sad to know that I have to pay more for something that I like less, that it cost more time and money, and that it might be destroying the industry.

And I think the new Yare meme, after "Telltale programmer says iPods are more powerful than Wiis", is going to be "Telltale programmer advocates game piracy".

[SHODANFreeman]

Just throwing this out there, but 10 years ago, what is $60 now, would have been $45 or so. The value of our currency has kind of been dropping like a rock. (since the world seems to be realizing we don't provide any kind of product or have anything behind the money anymore)

So yeah, on top of massive increases in development costs, there's been some pretty steep inflation, too.

[[TTG] Yare]

And remember, the talent who make video games live in large, expensive cities. The dollars we make don't go very far.

$1500+/mo for a studio in some places here, I can only imagine the cost of keeping a commercial office open. Not to mention California taxes the hell out of businesses (which is why game studios here are being closed or moved to Washington). California also figures they're entitled to a large cut of our paychecks, even though we drive over perpetually pot-holed roads.

Everything is lame, hahaha.

[Avistew]

Yare;310866']$1500+/mo for a studio in some places here

That sounds like a lot, it's only 500 euros for a studio in Paris. Well, was last time I checked. How big are your studios? The Parisian ones are 10 square meters.

Yare;310866']Everything is lame, hahaha.

You're so cynical :p You should spend more time on the boobs thread.

[puzzlebox]

Yare;310866'][Yare hates life]

On the plus side... um... rainbows are for free?

http://www.alaska-in-pictures.com/data/media/13/rainbow-over-the-muldrow-glacier_1127.jpg

[Avistew]

He'll probably complain that they're not coded properly. You're wasting your time I think.

[Remolay]

That rainbow looks correct to me.

[Avistew]

Then they're unfair competition?

[SHODANFreeman]

They're misleading. Example:

http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n377/GodzillaX8/25784_561765971179_184801329_328359.jpg?t=12745742 34

When they say "pot of gold", it's not so much a pot as it is a bucket. And the "gold" they speak of is just crispy golden pieces of fried chicken.

[puzzlebox]

You're wasting your time I think.

His bitter laughter breaks my heart. :(

Don't worry - I haven't even started on the daily miracle of the sunrise, the warmth of a loved one's embrace, or the joy of having random strangers try to cheer you up by being persistently and irritatingly positive.

[Avistew]

Well, I tried boobies earlier, so I guess my area of expertise has been covered.
Sadly, I don't really know any other way to cheer up people. Hugs sometimes work but he's a programmer! He'd probably faint from so much contact with another human being.

[WarpSpeed]

Telltale is located around Silicon Valley, which is why everything's so expensive. Once you get out of California, New York, and certain places in Florida, things are a lot more reasonable. My 4-bedroom house in the St. Louis area has a mortgage payment of less than half what that studio apartment's rent is. The state income taxes are cheaper, too. (I used to live in California once upon a time, so I know what it's like there. I would demand a much higher salary if I had to adjust back to that cost of living.)

Rainbows on Telltale's forums tend to remind people of Hugh Bliss, so I'm not sure that's such a calming effect.

Edited P.S. After seeing messages posted while I was writing this: Programmers like hugs, too.

[puzzlebox]

Sadly, I don't really know any other way to cheer up people.

With hardened crankypants cynics, I just hang around until they're thoroughly sick of my sweetness and sunshine. When I finally give up and go away they're flooded with a euphoric sense of relief. It's surprisingly effective.

[SHODANFreeman]

With hardened crankypants cynics, I just hang around until they're thoroughly sick of my sweetness and sunshine. When I finally give up and go away they're flooded with a euphoric sense of relief. It's surprisingly effective.

You could achieve the same effect by being rude and insulting them for the same length of time.

[Avistew]

Edited P.S. After seeing messages posted while I was writing this: Programmers like hugs, too.

Well, then why do they weep when I give them one, or scream weird stuff I don't get?

You could achieve the same effect by being rude and insulting them for the same length of time.

I don't know about you, but if I'm rude I feel terrible, while if I'm nice I feel great. If both achieve the same effect, might as well choose the one that doesn't make you feel like crap.

[puzzlebox]

You could achieve the same effect by being rude and insulting them for the same length of time.

I couldn't do that, I love the hardened cynics in my life. :)

[Avistew]

Okay, here are my contributions for Yare:

a) a rabbit singing a song in French about kisses and hugs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61VEZfsCFvY)

b) if it doesn't help you feel better, an alternate solution to solve your problems (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRXtwaAoPS0) (I have no clue what the video is about).

[Rather Dashing]

Clang clang Maxwell's silver hammer came down upon her head

Clang clang Maxwell's silver hammer made sure that she was dead.

Also, wait, Yare has a problem? I'm noticing that everyone else is annoyingly chipper, but Yare seems to be doing fine.

[Avistew]

Also, wait, Yare has a problem? I'm noticing that everyone else is annoyingly chipper, but Yare seems to be doing fine.

Well, being bitchy, bitter and cynical is normal for you, but we're not sure if it is for Yare so we're trying to cheer him up just in case.

[Alcoremortis]

Huh? Studios for 1500? I recently looked at apartments in that area and found two bedroom apartments for 1600. Right next to UC Berkeley, too: where the prices are the highest. Yare should come live in Berkeley and save money...or have a bigger apartment for the same price.

[Chyron8472]

Telltale is located around Silicon Valley, which is why everything's so expensive.


Big Brother is watching.
(and also Avistew... the stalker.)

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/7609/65536330.png

[Chyron8472]

(@Dashing) Well, being bitchy, bitter and cynical is normal for you, but we're not sure if it is for Yare so we're trying to cheer him up just in case.

Don't forget intransigent.

[Tor]

(...)
So... their office is in some bushes at the side of the road? :p

[Avistew]

So... their office is in some bushes at the side of the road? :p

Haven't you heard? GameStop's concurrence has been pretty harsh on the guys, now they have a bunch of computers on cardboard boxes and whoever isn't using the computers has to peddle to generate more energy.

(Okay, I meant pedal. But that's funny too.)

[GuruGuru214]

On the plus side... um... rainbows are for free?

http://www.alaska-in-pictures.com/data/media/13/rainbow-over-the-muldrow-glacier_1127.jpg

At the end of every rainbow is a mugged leprechaun.

[puzzlebox]

Based on this discussion, I thought it would be interesting to correlate the Mercer cost of living index and the quality of living index for some of the world's cities. San Francisco does pretty well!

1523

Cost of living is based on the cost of rental accommodation and various goods and services (e.g. price of a hamburger, cost of an average trip on public transport). Quality of living is a separate index that takes into account things like personal safety, hygiene, and city infrastructure. Both of these indexes (indices, if you must) are relative, using New York as the base of 100 (i.e. NY will always be at 100, and everything else is compared to NY). The chart is based on 2009 data.

So San Francisco is relatively inexpensive compared to places like Tokyo, Paris, London or New York, but the quality of life is ostensibly the same or better (in other words, SF is good value!).

Apparently I should ditch London and go back to Sydney though. :p

[Avistew]

I wonder what they included or not though. Seems to me that health care is a pretty important part of quality of life for instance, but I'm guessing it's not included in there or there would be more difference between Paris and New York, right?

I think we can show this chart every time an Australian complains about cost of shipping, though :p

[puzzlebox]

Healthcare is included. This is the full list:

Quality of living

Mercer evaluates local living conditions in all the 420 cities it surveys worldwide. Living conditions are analysed according to 39 factors, grouped in 10 categories:

Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc)
Economic environment (currency exchange regulations, banking services, etc)
Socio-cultural environment (censorship, limitations on personal freedom, etc)
Health and sanitation (medical supplies and services, infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc)
Schools and education (standard and availability of international schools, etc)
Public services and transportation (electricity, water, public transport, traffic congestion, etc)
Recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc)
Consumer goods (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc)
Housing (housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services, etc)
Natural environment (climate, record of natural disasters)

[Avistew]

Interesting.

What I find the most interesting is that while quality of life is pretty much the same everywhere, cost can change so much... I guess you should expect the same quality of life in the western world, but it's still... I don't know, it's like everyone is getting the same thing, but people in Sydney are paying only a third of what people in Tokyo do.
And all of that is big cities, the cost of living is so much lower in smaller places (although to be fair, I'd say the quality of life is, as well, if you follow these criteria: you often don't get very good public transit, you have access to less stuff, etc).

Of course, none of that is really applicable to the "company" part of it, since we don't know what kind of taxes each city has.

[Tor]

Interesting indeed. I'm surprised that the quality of living doesn't vary more--in the top 50 list, the lowest score is 99.8 and the highest is 108.6.

And Sydney's low cost of living is quite striking. Seems like Australia would be a pretty awesome place to live, if it wasn't for the few puritanical paranoids who're forcing all that censorship legislation on the poor Aussies. (No, I won't shut up about it, those people are dangerous)

[puzzlebox]

To show a greater variation in quality of living, I updated my original post (http://www.telltalegames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=311131#post311131) and added Johannesburg and Moscow to the chart.

I think a large part of the international variation in cost of living is due to the relative strength or weakness of the currency compared to the US dollar. It's not comparing the cost of living to the median household income in that city, so to be honest I don't think it gives a real indication of how affordable it actually is for most people living there. I'd be very interested to see that kind of data.

If anyone is interested, the 2009 top 50 lists for the cost of living and quality of living indexes are available here (http://www.mercer.com/costoflivingpr#top_50) and here (http://www.mercer.com/referencecontent.htm?idContent=1173105#Top_50_citi es:_Quality_of_living), along with more detailed info on how they're calculated.

[Avistew]

I think a large part of the international variation in cost of living is due to the relative strength or weakness of the currency compared to the US dollar. It's not comparing the cost of living to the median household income in that city, so to be honest I don't think it gives a real indication of how affordable it actually is for most people living there.

Good point. The cost of living is shown as higher in Paris than San Francisco, but minimum wage is higher in France than the US, for instance. I can't speak about wages in general or on average though.
Then other stuff come into account, for instance you're not allowed to have two jobs or work over 35 hours a week in France except in specific cases (the goal is to reduce unemployment, therefore people have to hire more employees rather than be allowed to make the current ones work more), which can be bad (you'd like to work more so you can pay your bills) but also good (you're obviously less overworked).

[Jenny]

@puzzlebox
Thanks for posting all this data. It's very interesting and is making me think I should move to Australia or Paris.

I kind of like the idea of having maximum work hours in France. That way people can't overwork themselves, and so they will get sick less. It seems like a good idea. Although, I can see the problems if you just don't have enough money to pay your bills each month.

[MusicallyInspired]

What happens if a company goes under, or refuses to sell the game anymore, and you have some copy protection on your game that doesn't let you play it on some new computer you get 10 years down the road? All of a sudden you have no game left, and are forced to either get a pirated version, or I suppose pay someone to re-program your game to make it playable again?

In this case, all buyers should be aware they are paying for the chance to play the game for a week? a year? or until something unfortunate happens, or they move and lose their account or computer. All games then would be technically rented. The buyer, when it comes down to it, would own nothing. And under that logic, the games themselves would have to be a whole lot cheaper. I just can't see paying $70+ for a game like that.

QFT. Call a spade a spade. Call renting a game license a rent and stop charging $60+ for games. Ridiculous. I understand companies need to make money and all, but it is becoming too much. I'd rather not pay so much for something I'm never really ever going to own. I'm glad TTG's games are still pretty cheap. Also, I saw Left 4 Dead 2 in a Gamestop for $29.99 (turns out it's $29.99 on Steam too). It was just $49.99 a couple months ago when I last saw it. And it wasn't used because you can't sell a used pre-HL2 Valve game. Valve at least tries to constantly give deals to their customers to make up for high prices.

[Avistew]

I kind of like the idea of having maximum work hours in France. That way people can't overwork themselves, and so they will get sick less. It seems like a good idea. Although, I can see the problems if you just don't have enough money to pay your bills each month.

Yeah... Because the unemployment was so high they reduced it from 40 (well, 39) to 35. It's not the only such law, either. They're a mix of "trying to help the most people at once" (more people work, even if they work less) and "trying to protect the employees" so they don't get overworked and stuff.
The "not allowed to have two jobs" is a bit different. While technically it's legal as long as both jobs combined don't push you over the maximum hours, in practice most jobs will have a "no other job" clause in their contacts.
I think that one is more for the employer: they don't want you to be tired and cranky from another job and end up less productive or something.

But there are other laws like that that taken together get really annoying. I remember when I tried to get a part-time job, 20 hours over two days. I was told "sorry, the law requires us to spread that over at least four days". So instead of having 5 days to study, write, etc, I'd have 4 days taken out for 20 lousy hours?!
You have other "maximum hours" stuff (no more than 10 hours in a workday, no more than 5 hours without a 30 minute break, no less than 12 hours between shifts). I remember how frustrating it was in McDonald's, when one day I'd end up doing overtime, so the next day even though I was one time I wasn't allowed to work (it hadn't been 12 hours) and had to just wait there. Usually for a couple of hours).
Which didn't prevent them from considering it "showing up late for work), which was the most frustrating part.
Or once I was done eating during my break and decided to get back to work (I had taken my break late so it was the normal time to start work again), but the machine didn't let me because I hadn't taken a full break.

All these things are meant to cause you to overwork yourself less, but in the end it's time you spend at work, not being paid, instead of ether working them or finishing earlier and having more time at home and stuff. It's pretty frustrating. You'd also regularly on Saturdays (the McDonald's weeks started on Sundays) have the machine's alarm because someone had reached 35 hours, and had to stop working NOW. So most Saturdays we ended up short on staff because they had worked extra hours during the week. And Saturday isn't a day you want to be short on staff -_-'.

Anyway, I guess it's nice that your employer can't take advantage of you these ways (oh, you also need your two days off to be in a row) but much too often it comes and bite you in the ass, because the time you would have worked ends up pretty much lost.

I also remember when I worked at the frozen food store, we had 2 hour breaks for lunch. Two freaking hours. Sure, you could go home (and waste an extra hour or so of unpaid transiting) but some people couldn't, and well, you ended up losing 2 hours in the middle of every workday. It was pretty ridiculous, I'd have preferred 15-30 minutes to eat and finishing earlier or starting later, or even working that time and getting paid.

[Jenny]

I also remember when I worked at the frozen food store, we had 2 hour breaks for lunch. Two freaking hours. Sure, you could go home (and waste an extra hour or so of unpaid transiting) but some people couldn't, and well, you ended up losing 2 hours in the middle of every workday. It was pretty ridiculous, I'd have preferred 15-30 minutes to eat and finishing earlier or starting later, or even working that time and getting paid.

That is very annoying. Especially if you don't work close to home.

A lot of people I went to college with would miss classes because their boss wanted them to cover for someone else's shift. And the boss would intimidate them into staying longer. So although that does seem a little extreme and frustrating, the way it is here in the US is really not good either.

[Avistew]

Yeah, I realise that. I just get annoyed sometimes how France has so many policies that pretty much boil down to "let's make X illegal so people can't abuse it", instead of working on regulating it so it's not being abused.

[Alcoremortis]

I don't normally even eat lunch and so got yelled at during a lab job for not taking a break. I tried to explain that the stuff I was doing was sort of constant and if I took a half hour break I'd have to stay two hours later but nobody really cared about that. It's sort of stupid.

[SHODANFreeman]

1900s: lots of people in the publishing industry are concerned about resellers undercutting the sale of new books and demand a minimum resale price. Supreme Court says that's not allowed.

1930s: lots of people in the music industry are concerned about radio stations playing their music without payment. Courts say it's OK.

1980s: lots of people in the movie industry are concerned about video stores renting their movies and keeping all the profits. Courts say it's OK.

We've heard this before.

This is a really late reply to this post, but I don't see why it's "OK" for second hand retailers/renters to make money hand over fist on goods they had nothing to do with creating and not giving even a tiny cut to the people who made the goods. It's one thing to sell your own used copy of something on the second hand market, but it's another thing entirely to have a business that exists solely to profit off of someone else's labor.

If you made something and were selling it, would you think it was cool if someone was selling used copies of your product (which cuts into your potential customer base, since they would no longer have a desire to buy your product in a way that provides you, the one who made it and deserves the profits from it, any cut of the profits) and not giving you a dime or even asking you if it was cool?

[Hassat Hunter]

Well, radiostations and movierenting companies pay money for "renting" out their stuff, so that's not harmful.

But if GameStop makes $ without paying anyone in the gaming industry money what-so-ever obviously something is wrong.
They are thinking here about putting tax on CD's and HardDisks' and MP3-players for the music companies because everybody will use them to play illegal music anyway. That's just plain stupid. So why can GameStop do stuff like that without any penalty, like us consumer's are stuffed down the throat by copyright companies (and as a result; infuriate many people)?

[[TTG] Yare]

Well, radiostations and movierenting companies pay money for "renting" out their stuff, so that's not harmful.

There are no "rental copies" for video games.

[Hassat Hunter]

Maybe they ought to be?
Although I guess with the easy possibility of burning a disk that's probbably a bad idea. A x days ability to play like some Steam actions probably makes more sense in that regard...

[[TTG] Yare]

I mean that when a copy of Halo 3 or whatever gets rented out, Bungie does not get any money for it. The rental companies buy games at the regular price and then rent them out.

[Avistew]

Yare;318594']I mean that when a copy of Halo 3 or whatever gets rented out, Bungie does not get any money for it. The rental companies buy games at the regular price and then rent them out.

Maybe that's (part of) the problem. If the rental copies were different and you had to pay rental fees and stuff, people would get part of the money.

On the other hand, try finding a rental place for games in Paris. Unless it has drastically changed, you might find one and that's it. It costs so much that nobody wants to risk it, and as a result games are much less accessible. Not only would that mean less gamers (a lot of people started out by renting) but it probably also means more pirating (although I guess you said that's preferable).

Maybe if it's something in the middle? Rental place paying more for games, but not four times the price?

[Wapcaplet]

This is a really late reply to this post, but I don't see why it's "OK" for second hand retailers/renters to make money hand over fist on goods they had nothing to do with creating and not giving even a tiny cut to the people who made the goods. It's one thing to sell your own used copy of something on the second hand market, but it's another thing entirely to have a business that exists solely to profit off of someone else's labor.

So the following businesses should no longer exist under your theory, since they all make money without reimbursing the original creator :

Used/rare book stores
Antique stores
Thrift stores
Used car dealers
Consignment stores
eBay

Mind you, I hate eBay as much as the next guy, but I respect their right to conduct business.

[SHODANFreeman]

So the following businesses should no longer exist under your theory, since they all make money without reimbursing the original creator :

Used/rare book stores
Antique stores
Thrift stores
Used car dealers
Consignment stores
eBay

Mind you, I hate eBay as much as the next guy, but I respect their right to conduct business.

Most of those types of stores don't have brand new versions of the same product sitting 2 inches away from the vastly cheaper used version. If a store deals in only second hand goods, that's one thing, but when they're a retailer of new goods, I don't think it's right to place used cheaper copies directly next to brand new ones in a retail environment.

[Wapcaplet]

Most of those types of stores don't have brand new versions of the same product sitting 2 inches away from the vastly cheaper used version. If a store deals in only second hand goods, that's one thing, but when they're a retailer of new goods, I don't think it's right to place used cheaper copies directly next to brand new ones in a retail environment.
Why not? Why restrict the choice of the consumer?

You can either buy a game new, knowing that it is in pristine condition, has all the documentation, and has a full manufacturer's warranty, or you can buy it used, knowing that it may have some cosmetic damage or wear & tear, possibly missing documentation, and a shorter (if any) warranty. The lower price reflects the lesser quality of the used item. Sounds like a fair choice to me.

New and used cars are frequently sold on the same dealer lot. You can often find a used car from the previous model year that costs half of a new one, and the models may be virtually identical if there have been no major design changes. Should used cars be forbidden from being sold on the same lot as new cars?

[SHODANFreeman]

Why not? Why restrict the choice of the consumer?

You can either buy a game new, knowing that it is in pristine condition, has all the documentation, and has a full manufacturer's warranty, or you can buy it used, knowing that it may have some cosmetic damage or wear & tear, possibly missing documentation, and a shorter (if any) warranty. The lower price reflects the lesser quality of the used item. Sounds like a fair choice to me.

New and used cars are frequently sold on the same dealer lot. You can often find a used car from the previous model year that costs half of a new one, and the models may be virtually identical if there have been no major design changes. Should used cars be forbidden from being sold on the same lot as new cars?

Considering the auto industry is crumbling due to a lack of new car purchases, that might be a good idea.

My local Gamestop will gladly show you the used copy before you buy it if you ask to see it, so if condition is an issue, you just ask them to pull it down and look at it before you buy it. Used games aren't typically "lesser quality" than new, unless having some plastic wrap around a case is that important to you.

Gamestop refinishes any disc that has any scratches or anything like that, so there is almost no difference to buying used. I'm fairly certain Gamestop has a 30 day "return for any reason" policy for used games, also, so I think their policy for used games is far more lenient than for new, as I believe for new games, you can only return a sealed copy, or exchange it for a new (opened) copy of the same game. There is virtually no manufacturer's warranty to speak of on software purchases, as any non-working software is typically just exchanged at the store for a different copy of the same software.

It's equivalent to if you went to the auto lot and there was a brand new car with a piece of tape over the door indicating it hadn't been opened, and one with no difference whatsoever, besides the lack of the piece of tape, was sitting right next to it for 10-20% cheaper. You'd have to be an idiot to grab the new one in that situation.

[Wapcaplet]

Considering the auto industry is crumbling due to a lack of new car purchases, that might be a good idea.
The US auto industry was betting all of its chips on high-margin SUV and truck sales; when gas prices rose, credit tightened, and the recession affected consumers' willingness to spend, sales tanked. Their failure was their own fault from poor planning, and they shouldn't be rewarded by getting a cut of used car prices!

My local Gamestop will gladly show you the used copy before you buy it if you ask to see it, so if condition is an issue, you just ask them to pull it down and look at it before you buy it. Used games aren't typically "lesser quality" than new, unless having some plastic wrap around a case is that important to you.
Many of the used games I've examined look like they've been to hell and back. You must live near a Gamestop where games are meticulously cared for by glove-wearing gaming enthusiasts before they're traded in.

Gamestop refinishes any disc that has any scratches or anything like that, so there is almost no difference to buying used.
How do you know how many times a disc has been refinished?

I'm fairly certain Gamestop has a 30 day "return for any reason" policy for used games, also, so I think their policy for used games is far more lenient than for new, as I believe for new games, you can only return a sealed copy, or exchange it for a new (opened) copy of the same game.
Nope (http://www.gamestop.com/gs/help/Store%20Return%20Policy.pdf). Only 7 days to return a used game for any reason, and I believe they track this to make sure people don't abuse it (note in the fine print that they reserve the right to refuse any return!)

There is virtually no manufacturer's warranty to speak of on software purchases, as any non-working software is typically just exchanged at the store for a different copy of the same software.
Nope again. I finally caved and bought the "opened but new" copy of Vampyre Story from my local Gamestop-owned Planet X I mentioned earlier in the thread, and the manual specifically states:

DreamCatcher will gladly replace any disc free of charge, whether accidentally damaged or due to manufacturer defect, within the first year of ownership
DreamCatcher may legally restrict that warranty only to the original purchaser. Buying used does not guarantee you'll get that one-year warranty.

Gamestop's used game return-for-defects warranty is only 30 days. Again, you get what you pay for.

It's equivalent to if you went to the auto lot and there was a brand new car with a piece of tape over the door indicating it hadn't been opened, and one with no difference whatsoever, besides the lack of the piece of tape, was sitting right next to it for 10-20% cheaper. You'd have to be an idiot to grab the new one in that situation.

You don't know how the used car was treated by the previous owner unless you examine the engine and transmission. You no longer have the manufacturer's original warranty, which for some brands can last as long as 100,000 miles. There's no way I'd buy a used car if it was only 10%-20% cheaper than new. Likewise, I'd never buy a used game that's only $5 less than new.

Bottom line is that if Gamestop can sucker people into buying used, then more power to them. They have every legal right to, and if they can separate that much money from consumers' wallets in the process, good for them. I think buying used is usually foolish, but I'm in the minority.

[SHODANFreeman]

Many of the used games I've examined look like they've been to hell and back. You must live near a Gamestop where games are meticulously cared for by glove-wearing gaming enthusiasts before they're traded in.

Some of them, maybe, but any used game I have ever bought in my life was in near mint condition.

DreamCatcher may legally restrict that warranty only to the original purchaser. Buying used does not guarantee you'll get that one-year warranty.

Gamestop's used game return-for-defects warranty is only 30 days. Again, you get what you pay for.

Given the nature of a game disc, if you can't tell that it's defective within the first 30 days of ownership, there is no way it is defective.


You don't know how the used car was treated by the previous owner unless you examine the engine and transmission. You no longer have the manufacturer's original warranty, which for some brands can last as long as 100,000 miles. There's no way I'd buy a used car if it was only 10%-20% cheaper than new. Likewise, I'd never buy a used game that's only $5 less than new.

My comparison wasn't meant to be about engine condition/previous owners etc. as I clearly stated the only difference between the two was the tape on the door, which is 95% of the time the case with a used vs new game purchase at Gamestop, although you apparently live in a place where people violently stomp on their games before trading them in, I guess.

Edit: PS: My car was purchased used and is still covered under the manufacturer's warranty.

Bottom line is that if Gamestop can sucker people into buying used, then more power to them. They have every legal right to, and if they can separate that much money from consumers' wallets in the process, good for them. I think buying used is usually foolish, but I'm in the minority.

I still don't think it's right for a company to offer used products alongside new ones, regardless of its current legality. I don't think it's fair to artists/creators in general to lose sales to the second hand market directly from a first hand retailer.

I said before I have no problem with the second hand market, and I have no problem even with retailers entirely dedicated to selling second hand copies of things, especially if it's something that isn't available new anymore, but I think if a store is going to stock a used, and for all intents and purposes, exactly equal copy of something right next to the brand new copy, a cut of the sale should still go to the developer, even if it's just a tiny fraction.

[Wapcaplet]

Given the nature of a game disc, if you can't tell that it's defective within the first 30 days of ownership, there is no way it is defective.
DreamCatcher's warranty also covers accidental damage. If I scratch or break the disc six months from now, I can get a new one at no charge (except postage).

you apparently live in a place where people violently stomp on their games before trading them in, I guess.
Sure seems like it! If the game was just released, then yeah, there may have been only one owner, but I've seen some messed up used discs in my day.

Edit: PS: My car was purchased used and is still covered under the manufacturer's warranty.
Some manufacturers (Hyundai for one) don't let you transfer the 10-year, 100,000-mile powertrain warranty, and others will only transfer the warranty if you pay a fee ($50 to $100, usually). You still don't get the full benefit of the warranty since it runs from the original purchase (a five-year warranty doesn't give you 5 full years if the previous owner bought it four years ago).

I still don't think it's right for a company to offer used products alongside new ones, regardless of its current legality. I don't think it's fair to artists/creators in general to lose sales to the second hand market directly from a first hand retailer.
But they already profited from the first sale! Creators have no right to benefit over and over again from resale of a single item. If I make one widget*, I expect to make 1 widget's worth of profit. However, if I'm making software, I'm suddenly entitled to get a fraction of every resale forever and ever? Every used game has already earned the creator 1 new game's worth of profit. If they lose out on resales, then too bad. They've already profited, and that's all they should expect.

Just because Gamestop presents its used items in the best possible light doesn't give creators new rights. If the item is more attractive in its used form, then the buyer will choose it instead. I wouldn't, but I appreciate having that choice.

No other industry gives resale revenue back to the creator. Software is just like any other retail item (except possibly for its ease of duplication, but that's not relevant here) -- there's nothing special about it that deserves rewriting decades of established legal precedent.

*We lawyers love using widgets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widget_%28economics%29) as placeholders for any imaginable manufactured item. It shows up way too frequently in legal hypotheticals.

[SHODANFreeman]

But they already profited from the first sale! Creators have no right to benefit over and over again from resale of a single item. If I make one widget*, I expect to make 1 widget's worth of profit. However, if I'm making software, I'm suddenly entitled to get a fraction of every resale forever and ever? Every used game has already earned the creator 1 new game's worth of profit. If they lose out on resales, then too bad. They've already profited, and that's all they should expect.

Just because Gamestop presents its used items in the best possible light doesn't give creators new rights. If the item is more attractive in its used form, then the buyer will choose it instead. I wouldn't, but I appreciate having that choice.

No other industry gives resale revenue back to the creator. Software is just like any other retail item (except possibly for its ease of duplication, but that's not relevant here) -- there's nothing special about it that deserves rewriting decades of established legal precedent.

Theoretically, they could create one copy of a game that is then purchased and played and traded back to Gamestop and resold 50 times over, and they will have only received the initial value of the game for those 50 people that all got a turn at owning it, I don't know, something about that just seems wrong to me.

[Chyron8472]

What seems to be making this issue complicated is that GameStop often sells used games that are in near pristine condition. If new games were always mint and used games were always disheveled, then it wouldn't be as much of an issue.

I think the reason why people complain so much about GameStop selling so many used games is because they're successful at it. Pawn shops in general aren't widely well known for making money hand over fist. Whatever GameStop is doing, they're making money at it. If they weren't so successful (as they indeed once were not,) people won't care so much because people wouldn't blame them for eating into the sales numbers of new games.

Really, what I wonder is why do people sell games to GameStop for crap prices and then complain about the value being so low? Why do people trade in games at all if the trade in value sucks so bad? It seems to me that GameStop would stop making so much money on used games if PEOPLE STOP SELLING GAMES TO THEM.

[SHODANFreeman]

Really, what I wonder is why do people sell games to GameStop for crap prices and then complain about the value being so low? Why do people trade in games at all if the trade in value sucks so bad? It seems to me that GameStop would stop making so much money on used games if PEOPLE STOP SELLING GAMES TO THEM.

Agreed, but usually laziness wins out over common sense/frugality for most people.

[Chyron8472]

Agreed, but usually laziness wins out over common sense/frugality for most people.


How is it laziness to buy something for 50 bucks, sell it back for 25 and have nothing to show for it instead of keeping it and accumulating a reasonably sized game library?

edit: It seems to me that GameStop makes alot of money because a lot of people are foolish with their money by selling back perfectly good games for cheap. I'm not sure I can fault them for that.

[MusicallyInspired]

GameStop takes used games for pennies and sells them for a third of the full retail price. They're a very twisted company.

[Didero]

GameStop takes used games for pennies and sells them for a third of the full retail price. They're a very twisted company.
That's not twisted, that's good business sense. If people are willing to sell their games for that little to GameStop, and other people are willing to buy used games for that money, I can't really see anything wrong with that from GameStop's perspective.
The problem lies with people selling their used games for far too little to GameStop. They could most likely get far more for their games if they sold them on eBay or something, but for most people, that would be too much trouble, since you'd have to set up an auction, keep track of it and send the game to the winner of that auction. While with GameStop, you can just walk in, hand over your old games and buy new ones at the same time.

[Friar]

How is it laziness to buy something for 50 bucks, sell it back for 25 and have nothing to show for it instead of keeping it and accumulating a reasonably sized game library?

edit: It seems to me that GameStop makes alot of money because a lot of people are foolish with their money by selling back perfectly good games for cheap. I'm not sure I can fault them for that.
Because you'd make alot more money most of the time if you sold it on ebay.

[Avistew]

When I worked at the used bookstore, we bought some books from people, but really what usually happened is they brought ten boxes of ripped apart books and we could maybe buy one for a few cents and that's it.

Most of the books we got were for trades though. We had a trade that was, you bring us two books, you get one of the same value. That is, if the two books you brought had "9.99" on the back, you could get one with "9.99" on the back.
Or you could sell your two books for maybe 50 cents each and get the book you wanted for maybe five dollars. So people didn't do that.

I thought this store was awesome. It's horrible to think of books sitting on shelves, unread. And I found some gems, I remember finding an old favourite's children book of Ian, about a dog called "What-a-mess", I think. Found some gaming books, too.

I'm sure people could have sold their books on ebay and made more... if they had found someone to buy them. I traded some stuff in myself because I knew I wouldn't get buyers right away, plus this way I got a book we had that I wanted.

Anyways, by the standards I've read in this thread, all of that is as wrong as GameStop. But I think bringing together people who want to sell and people who want to buy has been a job for centuries. What about real estate agents? What about anyone who buys from producers and sells to stores?

GameStop might have terrible business practice and treat the consumers and employees both terribly, but I can't say I have anything against the concept of how they make their money.

[puzzlebox]

And I found some gems, I remember finding an old favourite's children book of Ian, about a dog called "What-a-mess", I think.

Aw, that's really sweet. Does he know it was made into an animated series (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe7uKhHj-kk) too? It was on TV when I was a kid.

[Avistew]

Aw, that's really sweet. Does he know it was made into an animated series (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe7uKhHj-kk) too? It was on TV when I was a kid.

Oh, that's great! I'll show it to him, I don't think he knew that.

[taumel]

I've never been in a GameStop in my whole life.

Sounds more like a debugger or a cheatingtool to me. :O)

[[TTG] Yare]

But they already profited from the first sale! Creators have no right to benefit over and over again from resale of a single item. If I make one widget*, I expect to make 1 widget's worth of profit. However, if I'm making software, I'm suddenly entitled to get a fraction of every resale forever and ever? Every used game has already earned the creator 1 new game's worth of profit. If they lose out on resales, then too bad. They've already profited, and that's all they should expect.

So if only one copy of a game gets sold first-hand, and gets sold second-hand a million times... that's totally legit. Agree/Disagree?

It doesn't matter either way. This will be remembered as the brief period in human history where software and IP in general were considered products instead of services.

[Harald B]

Sure. That situation would suck for the creator as much as it is unlikely, but so it goes.
Far as your prediction goes, I sure hope not. Big companies circumventing the principles of first sale and fair use by using legalese to say they never actually sold you anything are a bad development that ideally ought to be smacked down somehow.

[[TTG] Yare]

Sure. That situation would suck for the creator as much as it is unlikely, but so it goes.

For those of us with a code of ethics informed by but not limited to the word of law, it is nothing short of a tragedy.

[seanvanaman]

At the danger of getting entrenched in a gross battle of ideology, it'd be cool if folks realized that what's bad for the creator is generally bad for the audience. We didn't get into this business to get rich and we don't work weekends for the extra pay (because there is none). If somebody plays our game, we should see a little somethin' for the effort. Because the onus is on us to give what we make value -- and a system that allows IP and creations to have real value (and stay valuable over the life of the game) is what will allow new games to come out, better games to get made, and the industry to grow.

Robert's right -- in the next five years games will continue to grow as a service and not a product. And it will be up to creators to make sure that service, offering interactive entertainment, is one worth paying for.

[Friar]

Yare;320092']So if only one copy of a game gets sold first-hand, and gets sold second-hand a million times... that's totally legit. Agree/Disagree?

It doesn't matter either way. This will be remembered as the brief period in human history where software and IP in general were considered products instead of services.

Is it really different to someone handing down their old clothes, or selling old furniture? With disc games, the data may stay the same, but the condition of the case and readability of the game (due to scratches etc) will innevitably decrease.

But my policy on used games is: Avoid them unless the price is significantly cheaper (£20 off) or the game is very difficult to track down new.

Given the price difference towards launch (at most, about £5) it hardly seems worth it to buy 2cnd hand. But devs in general could do much more to persuade people. I think TTG do an excellent job (even though used game sales are probably minimal, given the delay between digital and hard copies). But others could do alot. Things like single use codes for DLC, or extras (which some companies do already), or even something like in Animal crossing on GC, where you would get certain items sent to you if that was the first time the game had been used (still no idea how that worked. The GC must have overwritten part of the disc or something).

[seanvanaman]

I actually don't have a problem with selling your games to friends or bringing them to Goodwill or selling them to an INDEPENDENT game shop. I don't know if anyone (especially the international folks) is familiar with Amoeba Music on the boards, but it's a GIANT indie record shop that is a rare/new music Mecca in California. There's one on Sunset Blvd. in Hollywood, one here in SF and one over in Berkeley. Amoeba buys and sells used music and (in my opinion) is great thing, culturally, to the music business. Why Lady Gaga might be a little grumpy that she's not seeing some coin on a resell of her latest album, I'm sure she'd be happy with Amoeba's mission to support struggling artists, donate vigorously to non-profits, create a cultural center around music by having weekly concerts and create what is essentially a museum of music history -- anything ever made can be found at Amoeba and it's truly an enthusiasts destination. It is the Smithsonian of recorded music and it just so happens that you can buy the stuff inside.

This is not what Gamestop is.

What I take issue is the proliferation and institution of Gamestop's resale policies across the globe. I have no problem with you selling your games on eBay or to your friends. I do take issue with what has essentially become a billion dollar chain of pawnshops that have given nothing back to the gaming culture. You can't go to Gamestop and find a treasured copy of Full Throttle. They don't support indie developers. You have to be a multi-million dollar publisher and beg-borrow and deal for shelf space. You're not giving Gamestop an exclusive pre-order bonus or DLC content? You're not getting advertised in store and we'll see what we can do about facing your game forward on the wall.

When a corporation grows to a size where it can dictate that level of content creation and truly determine whether someone's product lives or dies at retail, I think we can all agree that it's no good for anyone (and that's not even taking into account selling the same copy of Halo a bajillion times to GET that big). I'm all for capitalism and Gamestop has the right to make money, but you also have a responsibility to be fair, which is why we regulate businesses from cars to cheese.

Saying Gamestop sucks and is bad for the industry isn't saying you don't have the right to do what you want with your games. It's about the privatized exchange of goods vs the institutionalized profiteering of unfair resale. If I were you, I'd just swap them with a buddy or get a bunch more loot for them on eBay anyway.

[[TTG] Yare]

Amen, brother.

[Power46]

Things like single use codes for DLC, or extras (which some companies do already), or even something like in Animal crossing on GC, where you would get certain items sent to you if that was the first time the game had been used (still no idea how that worked. The GC must have overwritten part of the disc or something).

As for the Animal Crossing thing, the game came with its own memory card, as it took up almost an entire small memory card by itself (the small memory cards were 59 "blocks", and Animal Crossing would take between 58 and 61 blocks, according to the back of the game case.) Incidentally, you could actually copy the data from that memory card onto other memory cards, unlike the game's save games themselves.

As for the debate of this thread, I feel it is very unfortunate that the companies don't see any money from the used games of a national chain, as I am sure they can afford to give at least a little bit of money per used game. I can see small scale pawn or used game shops not giving any money, as they usually barely make any money, but from a billion dollar company that makes most of their money off of that, it is not good, nor fair.

[Avistew]

I think it's not about second-hand things anymore, though. It's more akin to how Blockbuster gets to censor movies before they're even made, because movies want to be sold there so they're made to match their criteria. It's harming the industry because of the way it disrespects everything there is about it. I don't think the problem here is the fact that they sell pre-owned games, it's with their business practice in general.

[SHODANFreeman]

But devs in general could do much more to persuade people. I think TTG do an excellent job (even though used game sales are probably minimal, given the delay between digital and hard copies). But others could do alot. Things like single use codes for DLC, or extras (which some companies do already), or even something like in Animal crossing on GC, where you would get certain items sent to you if that was the first time the game had been used (still no idea how that worked. The GC must have overwritten part of the disc or something).

Single use DLC codes etc. is just the first step towards a much more drastic solution. How long will it be before the disc only contains a demo, and you have to use a one-time code to download the rest of the game? I mean, we've already seen this begin to happen, Mass Effect 2's substantial amount of free bonus content, as well as Alan Wake shipping with a code to download the entire first DLC episode free.

Publishers/developers will continue to do things like this, and in much more substantial ways as it is warranted in order to keep new purchases more incentivized than GameStop's dirt cheap used sales.

Add this in to what Sean said about GameStop nearly requiring publishers to offer "GameStop exclusives" in order to attain any decent shelf space, and there are plenty of reasons to be upset with the way GameStop does business.

[Power46]

I think it's not about second-hand things anymore, though. It's more akin to how Blockbuster gets to censor movies before they're even made, because movies want to be sold there so they're made to match their criteria. It's harming the industry because of the way it disrespects everything there is about it. I don't think the problem here is the fact that they sell pre-owned games, it's with their business practice in general.

Oh, I guess I wasn't paying as much attention as I should have. Yeah, I agree that that is not good either. It's a travesty that that is happening, and it is unfair to small developers. Smaller developers don't have the budget to make one for each pre-order. It also begs the question: How much of that causes the price to rise for each game? I hope it is not going to cause game prices to sky-rocket. I feel that that fear probably not warranted, but it is another thing to throw onto the table.

EDIT: Did you notice that I repeated myself several times there? I just did.

[seanvanaman]

Avistew -- yeah, I hope I was clear about that. I love second hand things. Probably to a fault. But I don't think Gamestop has the same revelry for quality game hand-me-downs as a used book shop has for a first edition Hemingway.

[Hassat Hunter]

I don't think any gamer would disagree if GameStop's practice was required by law to give a cut to the developers.

Much like the music stuff corperations do, although I have no idea how they spread it amongst artists, producers etc.

[Harald B]

(snip)Ok then. In that case I think I actually agree. Sorry if I seemed a bit aggressive; 'twas late and I may have got hit in a nerve.

[Chyron8472]

If I were you, I'd just swap them with a buddy or get a bunch more loot for them on eBay anyway.

or KEEP them. Why do people sell their games back at all?


I still say GameStop's profit margin hinges almost entirely on the foolish spending habits of people with either no common sense and/or who are easily bored.

[taumel]

Just a quick thought, i'm in a hurry, as this debatte reminds me of:

The only reason i'm getting the DVDs of the games is that i want to be sure that i always can start up the games, no matter if i do have a working internet connection or if changed my system x-times already.

I wouldn't do so if there would be no copy protection, still i wouldn't put the games online for free download. What i'm thinking about is, wouldn't it make sense driving on two rails here? Maybe handing out a copy protected games for new customers and giving copy protection free copies to those who are known and already bought a large part of the portfolio for instance? Ideally there would be no copy protection at all. This plus fair prices, interesting products, campaigns and i don't see a reason why you should get your games elsewhere.

Oh and just for the record, i guess a large part of the people aren't working for getting rich, instead they are quite happy having a job at all in order to feed their families.

[Elvenmonk]

or KEEP them. Why do people sell their games back at all?


I still say GameStop's profit margin hinges almost entirely on the foolish spending habits of people with either no common sense and/or who are easily bored.

You know I'm with you. It wasn't 'till I turned 16 did I realised it was dumb of me to sell my games. One day I opened up my gaming cabinet and saw like 6 games to choose from. Now I take more than 4 draws for games to look through.

[[TTG] Yare]

I can't find my NBA Jam SNES cartridge. I'm not pleased.

[SHODANFreeman]

Yare;321648']I can't find my NBA Jam SNES cartridge. I'm not pleased.

Greatest basketball game of all time. OF ALL TIME.

[Elvenmonk]

Yare;321648']I can't find my NBA Jam SNES cartridge. I'm not pleased.

:( I can't find my Atari or NES.

[Avistew]

or KEEP them. Why do people sell their games back at all?

Personally, when I hurt for money, games are the first thing to go. What else? I'm not going to stop eating or leave in the streets. Makes perfect sense to me to get rid of the non-essential, 100% luxury items like games first.

And considering they gather dust if you're not going to reuse them...

But I agree with you to some extent, now instead I just buy a lot less of them.

[Alcoremortis]

I can't imagine you'd get very much money for used games, especially given the low prices that used game stores sell them for.

[Avistew]

I can't imagine you'd get very much money for used games, especially given the low prices that used game stores sell them for.

I pretty much always sold my games as a teenager, usually almost the price I got them, a couple of time I actually made a profit. (I also bought them second hand). You just need to do it directly, not through someone.
I also did that for movies.
I sold my mother's games, too, that was a kind of "pocket money". She's never interested in playing them a second time, so she'd just dump them on me to make room on her shelves for new ones and I could keep any money I made from selling them. She buys all her games new and only plays them once, so they were always in perfect condition.
I've never sold a game in a store. I agree you don't make any money. Internet or face to face is the way to go. Face-to-face you can also do trade, or buy several games together, which is pretty much the same thing.

I think going to a store is what people do when they have tons of games to sell at once and want it done over with fast. Or maybe when they want to get a new game right away, and in a store they know they'll have more choice. I'm not quite sure. Be it music, movies or games (video or otherwise) I pretty much never go to stores. The only thing I've been to a store for was books, because I could trade them and worked there.

You don't always make much money, and it's a lot of work. I had a whole system going on, I was buying the envelopes for shipping in bulk, the packing bubble thing to wrap things in, the packing tape. I walked to the post office pretty much everyday to ship whatever I had sold (oh, I almost forgot, I sold a lot of manga this way too. Always bought the manga first hand, with the intention to keep it, but often got sick with a series, or it was getting too long, or I was interested in another series that I couldn't afford if I kept reading the old one.)

Then I needed to warn people of what I had shipped and give them the tracking numbers (if they had requested tracking) and so on. It would have been cheaper not to buy anything at all, that's for sure, but if I had kept everything, well I wouldn't have bought half of what I did (always resold stuff for more than half what I had spent on them). For games, I realise that since I bought them second hand to begin with, it didn't make a difference. For other stuff though, the money I got when selling them went into more new stuff.

Now I don't do that anymore, but I'm much more selective. I don't even buy manga at all anymore. I buy maybe a DVD a year, if that. As for games, well I pretty much only get the telltale stuff. And yes, the fact that they come with a DVD I might sell if I need to in a few years does play a part.

I don't know, even if you get a few cents, it's still better than getting nothing at all and having useless junk that takes up room. And if you're not going to replay a game, then that's all it is.

[Alcoremortis]

I guess I've always been a bit of a packrat then. I don't even sell my used textbooks anymore because I would prefer to own a book for $300 than rent it for $150. Same thing goes for games. I'm far more likely to give a game to a friend then to sell it for the same reason.

[Avistew]

I guess I've always been a bit of a packrat then. I don't even sell my used textbooks anymore because I would prefer to own a book for $300 than rent it for $150. Same thing goes for games. I'm far more likely to give a game to a friend then to sell it for the same reason.

I followed you until the end. If you're willing to give things away, that doesn't sound like a pack rat to me. What do you mean by that, you want to be sure they get a good home or something?

I'd always go to friends first, although usually for trades of some sort. I used to be materialistic (that's how I called the "pack rat" thing. Because I liked material things.) about books and stuff like that. Games never applied due to their lower value, though.

What I mean is that at the time, I could get a (new) manga volume for 5 euros. It didn't last long but had a very high re-usability, as I typically re-read a whole series every time a new volume came out (every three months), sometimes even more. Still for 5 euros I could buy a (new) paperback novel. That would make about a day to a week worth of reading, depending on size and style, and had a high re-usability as I can't think of many books I've read once only.
Then I could get a (new) DVD for 10-15 euros, and while it would only be a few hours long, I was almost sure to watch it more than once.
Or, if I wanted games, I could spend 50-60 euros and get one new, or 20-30 euros and get it second hand. It would either be very short, or be long but also boring so I wouldn't finish it. The average use would be once, because for every game I replayed once or more, there would be many, many games I never even finished.

When you reach that point, really, not only do you buy less games than the rest, bu you sell them as much as you can. From my point of view, the rest wasn't as much worth selling, because I'd get less money out of them if I sold them, and more value out of them if I didn't sell them.

After moving across continent though, even my love for books has faded. I had to leave everything behind, or close, and while it was very hard at the time, I stopped caring afterwards, and now I wonder why I ever cared? Why did I care about the item book, when I should have cared about the contents only?
So I'm definitely less of a pack rat. And the way I see it, something is of value to me only if I'm sure I'm going to use it at some point. If not, its value is zero, unless I sell it.
Even if I think I might use it someday at some point, it's probably worth selling it now, and re-buying it in a few years if I really want it, when it has lost some value anyways.

I'm still "materialistic" to some extent though. For instance, I don't go to the (movie) theatre, because for the price of a DVD I go back home with nothing in my hands. Not worth it.
Now, the play theatre, that's something different altogether, because the interaction with the actors is something you wouldn't get if you just bought a recording of it. But the way I see it, in the movie theatre the only differences are that you can't skip the commercials and you can't pause to go pee. Oh, and other people are sure to ruin your experience in some way. So you usually don't even get to see/hear the whole movie.

[taumel]

Greatest basketball game of all time. OF ALL TIME.
I add International Basketball for the C64 by Andrew Spencer, cracked by Section 8 if i remember things correctly.