The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Main => Consoles => Topic started by: shmokes on August 18, 2010, 12:20:07 am
-
My god . . . I had no idea. Last week I was leaving the mall and when I got to the door I realized it was pouring rain like the last call of god. Being that I live in Miami there's a pretty good chance that in 10 minutes it would be blazing sunshine with no cloud in sight as far as the eye could see, so I went in to check out a nearby Gamestop. I'm not in the market (too busy and too poor right now) but I've been really wanting to get Heavy Rain for PS3, and it's been out for a while so I went over to the used game section. Fifty-five Dollars!!! I was like, "WTF? That can't be right . . ." So I stepped to the new game rack. Sixty-dollars. Wait . . . $5 off for a used game? Gotta be a mistake. So I start looking at some more. Without fail, whether the used game was $55 or $25, it's new counterpart was $5 more.
So . . . yeah . . . seriously? We're talking about shelf-space. Gamestop isn't going to dedicate that much prime shelf space to games that can't possibly sell. So, then, what kind of moron is buying used games just $5 below the MSRP of the same game, brand spanking new? WTF?
-
I agree, I've always found that baffling.
-
I've seen the ranges between new and used copies vary from $5-$20. Mind you the used copy ALSO comes with 10% off if you have the Edgecard. Ontop of that, games do go out of print so eventually used stock is all you'll find. Finally the popular games will remain at higher used prices because they are still very much in demand. Even some older games havn't come down much in the 2-3 years since their release. Halo 3 is a good example of this but Halo 3 is also the second most played game on Xbox Live, so why would you bring down the price a lot when it's still in demand? Meanwhile titles that arn't in huge demand come down much faster. So I got Ghostbusters for $19.99 used. :)
-
Well from their point of view they like to say that the used games come with the same warranty as the new ones, and that youre basically paying 5 dollars for the wrapping. They will even shrink wrap it for you if the wrapping means that much to you.
I just have a problem since i know they ripped off some poor kid giving him like 20 bucks for his game. lol Unless im desperate for the game NOW, I just buy from ebay.
-
A lot of people buy them there at the used price because you can return the game if you don't like it, something you can't do with a new game. That's the privilege you're paying for.
Still, though, I agree on the WTF about the price, I'm just telling you their perspective.
-
I just hate that they always try to get me to pre-order something everytime I go in. As for the price, meh you actually get $10 off with an edge card (as stated earlier) and you can return it. The trade in is what sucks. I for some reason, bought TNA Total iMPACT! for $60 and took it back TEH NEXT DAY and they gave me $14 credit, some kid was about to buy it in line next to me until he saw me trading it in. Horrible game, but if I bought it used I could took it back.
-
Yesterday, we went in and bought two games, and I decided to let the manager tell me about the free PowerUp (formerly Edge) card. When he was done telling me about it, I said I changed my mind and didn't want one. He then tells me it's MANDATORY that he give me one and then asks for my personal info. Rather than argue, I gave him made up info and got out of there.
"Mandatory".....ha!
I sent a complaint about him not letting me just leave with my purchase. NOTHING is mandatory.
-
Yesterday, we went in and bought two games, and I decided to let the manager tell me about the free PowerUp (formerly Edge) card. When he was done telling me about it, I said I changed my mind and didn't want one. He then tells me it's MANDATORY that he give me one and then asks for my personal info. Rather than argue, I gave him made up info and got out of there.
"Mandatory".....ha!
I sent a complaint about him not letting me just leave with my purchase. NOTHING is mandatory.
Why do I have this feeling in the pit of my stomach that all you're going to get is a rather curt e-mail back saying it IS mandatory? ;D
-
I was asked if I was interested. Normally I say no and just make my purchase. This time I said to tell me about it, and then when I said I wasn't interested, he said he wouldn't ring me up if I didn't give him my info and I HAD to take the card.
That's BS.
This was the STORE MANAGER, BTW.
-
Also, I'm mad that my two local stores (probably a company-wide move) have both put their used DS games in a display case without the boxes, so now you can't look at the covers to read about a game and look at screenshots, and it's impossible to see what most of the games are because of the tiny labels.
-
I always assumed that the reason people are willing to pay $55 for a used game is because they're able to take a $300 stack of their old games and get that $55 game for free.
I don't really get why people keep paying $60 for the new games, either, when most of them are heavily discounted soon after release. But I appreciate that they do that because the games I buy for $10-15 still end up being profitable and the publishers keep making more.
-
Cheaper is cheaper, even if its $10. Many people will see that as worthwhile to get a game that they will probably play through in a month and hardly ever touch again.
For me, the only used games Ive bought have been in the 5-10$ range (KOToR two years ago, and Lego Star Wars).
-
I've heard that Best Buy and Toys R Us are considering getting into the used game market. I hope this happens.
-
The obvious solution:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cutting_edge.png)
-
That's what I usually do. I tend to stay a generation behind, except now I'm really wanting an Xbox 360. We have a Wii, but it doesn't exactly feel like a current gen system. :lol
-
I had to Google "the cake is a lie" so that tells you what I've been playing. ;D
-
I but used from Gamestop because s0metime you get a great deal, the other week i bought Fallout3 for 7.50. And you can take them back, I bought Legendary the other day, it looks awesome, but that game sucks hard... no big deal, going back this afternoon for a refund, i did teh same thing for burn out paradise. they do over charge though, if it is a game that I know I want like Call of Duty 4 I went pawn shop hunting and got it for 15 bucks, while at gamestop it is still 30-40 bucks used.
And the Edge Card is awesome, if you buy a couple of games a year, you get the magazine, and its pretty good, a lot better than it has been, it use to be just a big gamestop catalog, now it is a legit publication in my opinion.
You can also use teh edge card on used accessories too, I got a PS3 charging station for 4 bucks there before.
I want to buy Split Second, but as it is 55 bucks STILL I will not, but I'll wait, christmas 2011 it'll be 30 then and I will have it.
-
By the time it's $30 used it is $35 new. A $5 savings either way. The returning games you don't like thing is legit, though. I didn't know that. Still . . . enormous rip off. How often do you get a game you don't like . . . really? I mean, just skim metacritic. If a game is 90 or above there is probably at least a 90% chance that I'll like it. If it's below below 80 there's probably about a 10% chance I'll like it.
-
I used to buy used games when they had sales like buy 2 get 1 free, and far too often the used games didn't have the manual or original case (had GameStop's generic disc cover), which I know don't really matter for the game, but I still found annoying.
-
People wanting to save $5?
I didn't ask "who". I asked "why" and "what kind of moron". Don't be retarded.
-
You are exactly right about the price difference between new and used. Its always bothered me. But for myself, I try to be disciplined about any console games I buy, and wait for them to be old enough to be cheaper, AND wait for the Buy2-Get1 Free deal. Combine that with the 10% off, and the fact that I have seven days to test the game out, and it works out to be a decent enough deal.
-
I've been using Glyde lately. In the least as another option to get games for cheaper.
http://glyde.com/ (http://glyde.com/)
If you use this link and several of you guys use the service, I get a free $20. Dont feel obligated though.
http://glyde.com/?rid=cwleq2 (http://glyde.com/?rid=cwleq2)
-
If they cant afford the 60 and waiting for it used, how are they killing the industry? They aren't going to buy it new at all anyway. I buy new and used games, usually I buy old games I either had and miss or just missed out on at the time. I typically dont trade in my games, I hand them down to my nephews or my friends. Having to pre-order ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- just to get items you cant get in game any other way is whats killin the industry for me. Its not a bonus for pre-ordering, its a penalty for not pre-ordering.
-
I remember when Left 4 Dead 2 came out, people being mad about not getting the baseball bat unless you pre-ordered, but I find the samurai sword to be way better anyway. Very Michonne (props to those who get the reference).
-
she rocked the sword in the living dead =)
I mean like, Juggernaught in MAU2 (later released as a buyable download) red Hulk, Fable II pub games (which you could win gold and use in fable II) , extra guns in Splinter Cell:Conviction, stuff like that just...meh. Really grinds my gears
-
she rocked the sword in the living dead =)
Walking Dead, but I know what you meant. ;D
-
There's a lot of dudes out there that want it right away, and there's a lot of dudes that want to save a couple bucks and get it a few weeks later. If you can afford $55 on a video game, you can afford $60.
For me if a game just came out and there's used copies on the shelf I wont get it; in my eyes it must be real bad to be on the used shelf so fast. As for "if you can afford 55 you can afford 60", I'll just have to politely disagree, $5 is a lot of money to some people, including me.
-
why would anyone ever go to gamestop ??? I mean its not JUST buying a game. they will try to sell you bunch of crap that you dont need/want like VG magazine subscription and random other stuff. when you refuse buy those things, they like to insult you with "here is your receipt and fill out this survey online for a chance to win random $ and if you do win then you wont deny me all the crap I am trying to sell". then I said something like "I will always deny you everything because you are an annoying bish" :applaud: :cheers: :applaud:
I buy my games from ebay(when I am not "obtaining" lol). less than retail+ usually free shipping + no tax.
-
$5 is a lot of money to some people, including me.
No it's not. People for whom $5 is a lot of money do not spend $60 (or $55) on a videogame. If they buy videogames they buy them for a previous-generation system or they wait for the game to be substantially marked down. Anybody who can afford to spend $55 on a videogame can afford to spend $60. Nobody is forced to buy used at Gamestop for lack of means.
-
why would anyone ever go to gamestop ???
I live in a small town where my only choices are Wal-mart, Hastings, Gamestop, and online. I mostly buy online, but sometimes I just want to go browse a store like the good ol' days.
-
GS is pretty good to locate hard to find titles.
I got a complete Xbox package there for $60 and turned it over (abused) for over $100 in a couple of weeks.
Cables, joysticks, and whatever you want for an old dead console is pretty much fair game at GS.
New titles I do not buy at retail, as other have pointed it out, its cheaper on the net, but that doesn't mean you can not make money by selling games to those GS "college kids" for a nice return. Most hardware have a good warranty too.
They also cut discount on multiple purchases. Well they do in Nevada.
$5 bucks off for a new title? I think they see you coming and get out the price gun... ;D
-
$5 is a lot of money to some people, including me.
No it's not. People for whom $5 is a lot of money do not spend $60 (or $55) on a videogame. If they buy videogames they buy them for a previous-generation system or they wait for the game to be substantially marked down. Anybody who can afford to spend $55 on a videogame can afford to spend $60. Nobody is forced to buy used at Gamestop for lack of means.
I prove what you are saying wrong. $5 is a lot of money to me, so is $55 and so is $60 I buy new video games for current gen systems and for the games I *REALLY* want I buy them when they are released. I adjust my budget to spend the $60 over the $55/$50/$etc because I want it new and I dont want to wait. If I were more patient I probably would buy games used exclusively, and while is it by no means EASY for me to drop $60 at a time on a game it is slightly harder then if I only had to drop $55/$50. For the titles I'd like to have but can wait for, I do in fact buy them used, for a lot less. The ones I buy used, I'd never buy new, which takes me back to the replay I had for PBJ.
Just because IN YOUR OPINION if someone can swing $55 on a game that should be able to swing $60, that doesnt make it a fact. If what your saying is true, we'd all be ok if games went up to $65 (like they did from $50 to $60) and since $65 is doable, everyone could also afford $70 right? Why stop there, $75 is only $5 more right, and $5 is like pennies to everyone, so now everyone who bought games at $60 can now magically afford $75. Just $5 more at a time, right?
I'm very sure that people are in fact forced to only buy used games (from gamestop, ebay, amazon,craigslist,etc). I remember when $5 would get you 5 gallons of gas.
-
You know what I remember? I remember when $5 would get you a gallon and a half of gas. I remember it from about an hour and a half ago while I was driving down the street. Guess what . . . it's not 1995 anymore.
The idea that anybody is forced, for lack of means, to buy a used videogame at $55 instead of a new one at $60 is ---smurfing--- absurd. Nobody said that $5 is not a lot of money to anybody. But it's not a lot of money to the market of people who spend that much on videogames. Also, nobody said that you want to pay an extra $5. And nobody even said that you are willing to pay an extra $5. But to suggest that you can afford to drop $55 of your money on a videogame, but not $60 is ---smurfing--- comical.
There are lots of people in this world, and even in this country, for whom $5 is a lot of money. Those people don't buy videogames for $50+.
-
I remember when it was a buck a gallon, and the new HP PC computers had this new shiny round plastic disc that looked like a compact disc, and they said, nah it wouldn't sell.... :blah:
$5 is a lot of money especially when you do not have it in the first place.
-
GS is pretty good to locate hard to find titles.
Ebay is multiple times better. And you only get the rapejob on the shipping generally.
-
$5 is a lot of money especially when you do not have it in the first place.
$5 is neither a lot nor a little bit of money. it's relative to who you are. Steve Jobs presumably does not think $5 is a lot of money. The average 13-year-old probably does. We're talking about relative differences in classes of people and the relevant class is the group of people who own a current-gen game console and pay $50+ for video games.
-
I didn't ask "who". I asked "why" and "what kind of moron". Don't be retarded.
I wasn't aware that discs wore out. ::)
Back in the cartridge days, I wasn't particularly thrilled about used games but now I couldn't care less. Manuals are worthless because everything has a tutorial level nowadays.
The people saving the $5 are killing the industry, though. Game companies make nothing on that sale and all it does is dilute demand.
BS
Those used games are often first owned by someone who bought them new, and only traded them in so that they could buy another new game.
If that person was not able to trade his game in to buy another new game, then it is likely that he wouldn't buy it.
Used car sales don't kill car companies, and used game sales don't kill game companies.
I have bought plenty of games used for only $5 less. Why not? It is $5 less. Yeah, $5 less isn't really all that much in savings, and if I can afford $55, then I can afford $60, but so what? It is still a savings. So I don't get the new game smell. Oh well.
That being said...
Used games can certainly be got cheaper than only $5 less. Doesn't always matter to me though if I am in the store browsing. Convenience often wins.
-
i bought lost oddyssey, burnout paradise, and another game for about 45 or 50 when they had the buy 2 get one free. you can probably get them all now for like 30 bucks, but back then it was a deal.. lost odyssey was way too long though. I stopped on the 3rd disc =(
-
Generally, if I'm looking at used stuff, it has to be pretty dang close to 50% of original price or less for me to touch it.
Otherwise, well, I probably don't need it (or don't need it right now) anyway.
-
Versapak, thanks. You said what I was trying to say, only better.
Trying to get my point across using Smokes convoluted contradictory example was impossible, and "forced" is such a strong word. I cant seem to explain to him that I am in the "relevant class is the group of people who own a current-gen game console and pay $50+ for video games" and think $5 is a nice chunka change. I mean its not going to KILL ME to spend $5 more but $5 is $5. He sees it as if you can afford $55 you can afford $60, I see it as if you can afford $60 you can afford $55
Shattered, 2 games at $45 and 1 free is the same as 3 games at $30 :) I actually finished Lost Odyssey despite the fact I started to hate it around Disc 2; if you do all the side BS you are literally invincible against the final boss, everything and I mean EVERYTHING he does to attack heals you. And the final Cut Scene is like 22 minutes long *yawn*
-
What I'm saying doesn't just end with, "If you can afford $55 you can afford $60." That is, of course, the case in the relevant market. But my point is that if you can afford $60 why would you by something well above market value when you don't have to. A $5 savings simply does not represent the market value lost by virtue of the title being used.
People who wanted to act like I was being spoiled or insensitive to the financial difficulties of others were just being passive aggressive and dishonest. Some other people actually answered my question with things like the 7-day return-for-any-reason policy.
Even Versapak answered my question honestly, owning that the savings is negligible, but combined with the convenience of the game being right there and the fact that he doesn't care at all whether the game is new or used, he doesn't mind getting ripped off a bit.
In other words, Versapak said what you wanted to say because he didn't pretend to be victimized by my insensitivity.
-
In other words, Versapak said what you wanted to say because he didn't pretend to be victimized by my insensitivity.
Nah hes just more articulate then I am. He's also more articulate then you because he didnt require eleventy posts to get his point across. Hope I didnt tread on you, and I like your profile picture caption a lot better now =) Just so ya know, I also answered your question with the 7 day return policy thingie too
As for the price, meh you actually get $10 off with an edge card (as stated earlier) and you can return it
See?
gimme a high five!
EDIT: Awww I remember now, we clashed about the april fools/everything else/politics and religion thing! Miss me? Sometimes I roleplay Chaddles and Deathpunch and just like to argue for no real reason. Is there where I joke and say give me $5 and I'll stop, because I know you can afford it?
-
A $5 savings simply does not represent the market value lost by virtue of the title being used.
Keep in mind that Gamestop sells opened games as NEW all the time. It's bollocks. Even at $60, it still isn't market value.
If there is a $55 used one or an opened $60 "new" one, take the $55.
-
Awww I remember now, we clashed about the april fools/everything else/politics and religion thing! Miss me?
Lol . . . I honestly have no idea what you're talking about and no memory of having ever clashed with you (specifically). I clash with everyone. It's not personal. I'd buy you a beer if I saw you in a bar.
-
wait you could return any game in 7 days? I need to rent some stuff.. :lol
-
Awww I remember now, we clashed about the april fools/everything else/politics and religion thing! Miss me?
Lol . . . I honestly have no idea what you're talking about and no memory of having ever clashed with you (specifically). I clash with everyone. It's not personal. I'd buy you a beer if I saw you in a bar.
I'd buy ya a jagerbomb or Soco and Lime :cheers:
wait you could return any game in 7 days? I need to rent some stuff.. :lol
I dont quite remember the specifics, but its something like you can exchange it for a title of equal value and you can only bring back 1 game, if the one you exchanged it for sucks as well, you are teh boned.
-
you can only bring back 1 game, if the one you exchanged it for sucks as well, you are teh boned.
Wow . . . that's a pretty big caveat. I mean . . . like I mentioned before, it's not difficult at all to predict with great accuracy which games you will like and which you won't. We have the internet. You can get metacritic scores. You can base judgments on critical reviews from particular critics who seem to share your tastes. You have prior games to go on (e.g., the next Tim Schafer game will be excellent because he always makes excellent games). You have trailers and oftentimes you have demos.
Unless you are incredibly lazy or just have no self-control at all you should have very little occasion to take advantage of that 7-day return policy if you're ligitmately using it because you bought a game thinking it would be good only to find out otherwise. If you can't exploit the policy a bit as a pseudo-rental service I'm back to my original position (not that I ever strayed too far from it). $5 off is highway robbery. Paying $55 for a used game that costs $60 new is just embarrasing.
Btw, while I was going on about it being nonsense that anybody could afford to pay $55, but not $60 for a game it didn't occur to me that there was a far better way to illustrate this point. Explain to me the incongruence of a person who will buy a used game for $55 because he can't afford to pay $60 for it, but yet doesn't take advantage of the fact that he could get the same thing for $40 with free shipping on eBay. I mean, if $5 is a lot to you, $20 must be a ---smurfing--- fortune.
-
I find that my gamestop experience varies by store. I'm fortunate in that my favorite one is within walking distance from my work. The staff there are always polite even though I seldom buy anything. I cherry pick older titles that got great reviews for around $20. That plus the edge discount on used games and hardware makes it a great resource. It's fun to walk in browse around for a while and find a great game that's on my list for cheap...that game probably isn't even on the shelf new anymore and now I have it in hand.
-
gamefly is way better, you always get a new case and booklet, and the games are always in great condition. Right now they have final fantasy 13 for 30, and god of war 3 for 22 and if you are member or have an old account you can get it shipped for free. Seriously good deals, 40 or 30 dollars less in about 3 or 4 months.
some more
bioshock 2 $16.99
Bayonetta $17.99
-
Back around 2001 or so I bought (http://cotmm.org/old/old/stills/imweak.jpg) Chrono Trigger for SNES from the local GameStop for $39.99.
I still can't decide if it was a good deal or not.
-
$5 is a lot of money especially when you do not have it in the first place.
$5 is neither a lot nor a little bit of money. it's relative to who you are. Steve Jobs presumably does not think $5 is a lot of money. The average 13-year-old probably does. We're talking about relative differences in classes of people and the relevant class is the group of people who own a current-gen game console and pay $50+ for video games.
Are we talking about the same class of person who used to be the class of person, that went out and bought a $50 game, say 9 months ago, now makes the same choice either to pay the utility bill or go family food shopping with that last $5?
Relative speaking.... is your example similar to a Nevadian who used to purchase said games at $50 a pop and now treats $5 like a C note?
Before you go mighty than thou, research Reno NV, which has the worst economic downturn in the country. I'm sure there will be of 360s and PS3 consoles in the living rooms of Reno playing old rehash.
Especially Christmas rehash... ::)
I'm not that person BTW, but I will be the person who will donate food, clothing and toys this holiday season. You know what would be cool? To organize a Christmas (or whatever you celebrate) drive to get games and consoles to economically deprived kids in your area that are either refurbished or not wanted. I used to donate used computers to low income families (old Macs) in 2000. Maybe need a new thread eh?
-
Are we talking about the same class of person who used to be the class of person, that went out and bought a $50 game, say 9 months ago, now makes the same choice either to pay the utility bill or go family food shopping with that last $5?
Yes. Exactly. When I referred to a class of people in the present tense I obviously was talking about people who once belonged to that class and are now unemployed. Seriously?
Anyway, I already explained this. $5 is a lot of money to your guy deciding whether to apply his last $5 to utilities or groceries. Guess what . . . I bet you can guess . . . I'm gonna give you a minute . . . see if you can do it . . . here it comes . . .
wait . . .
for . . .
it . . .
That guy isn't buying $50+ videogames.
-
Are we talking about the same class of person who used to be the class of person, that went out and bought a $50 game, say 9 months ago, now makes the same choice either to pay the utility bill or go family food shopping with that last $5?
Yes. Exactly. When I referred to a class of people in the present tense I obviously was talking about people who once belonged to that class and are now unemployed. Seriously?
Anyway, I already explained this. $5 is a lot of money to your guy deciding whether to apply his last $5 to utilities or groceries. Guess what . . . I bet you can guess . . . I'm gonna give you a minute . . . see if you can do it . . . here it comes . . .
wait . . .
for . . .
it . . .
That guy isn't buying $50+ videogames.
Haha ya, I was thinking the same thing. If a guy needs his last $5 to buy groceries, then he shouldn't be spending $50 on a videogame. Buts lets say he really wants the game no matter what, then he would still be an idiot not to buy it online for $35 and have an extra $15 to put in the bank.
-
Maybe he doesn't have internet and what he saves in broadband bills he applies to Gamestop highway robbery. ;D
-
He could have a gaming habit.
-
I used to have a gaming habit.. it's crazy how many good deals they have for games that were rated as must haves, A, 90+/100... so I kept buying eventhough i didn't have time i'd stockpile 15 10 and 20 dollar games. I stopped that. now i'm building an arcade cab
-
I didn't ask "who". I asked "why" and "what kind of moron". Don't be retarded.
I wasn't aware that discs wore out. ::)
Back in the cartridge days, I wasn't particularly thrilled about used games but now I couldn't care less. Manuals are worthless because everything has a tutorial level nowadays.
The people saving the $5 are killing the industry, though. Game companies make nothing on that sale and all it does is dilute demand.
BS
Those used games are often first owned by someone who bought them new, and only traded them in so that they could buy another new game. If that person was not able to trade his game in to buy another new game, then it is likely that he wouldn't buy it.
That may cover a portion of the used game buyers/sellers, but in my experience, each time I have purchased a new game, the salesclerk has said, 'would you like a used-copy with the same guarantee for $5 less.' The people who accept that offer - and I'm guessing that there are many - are directly taking a sale away from the publisher and giving it to the reseller. Not every person who buys a game for $5 less is doing it because it's all they can afford. There are plenty who walk in with every intention of buying a new game and decide to save $5.00.
Used car sales don't kill car companies, and used game sales don't kill game companies.
This is a horrible analogy. The used car market is entirely unlike the used game market. Unless the packaging and manual have any value to the consumer (which they usually don't) a used game and a new game are identical in every way. The game plays exactly the same. The same cannot be said for physical items (like automobiles) which lose value as they accrue mileage, wear & tear, etc.
Because of this the new game market is in direct competition with the used game market. The used game market is offering - for all intents and purposes - an identical product at a reduced price. The same cannot be said of the used car market.
I have bought plenty of games used for only $5 less. Why not? It is $5 less. Yeah, $5 less isn't really all that much in savings, and if I can afford $55, then I can afford $60, but so what? It is still a savings. So I don't get the new game smell. Oh well.
My point exactly. You can afford a new game (which benefits the publisher) but choose the used game (which does not benefit the publisher). How can you say that this isn't killing the developer/publisher?
As an aside, many publishers (beginning with EA) have begun to institute a $10 fee for online multiplayer for upcoming titles. If you purchase the game new, you will get a code to waive the $10 fee. So the price remains the same for the customer who pays full price, but folks who buy the game used will have to fork over $10 to the publisher.
-
Used car sales don't kill car companies, and used game sales don't kill game companies.
This is a horrible analogy. The used car market is entirely unlike the used game market. Unless the packaging and manual have any value to the consumer (which they usually don't) a used game and a new game are identical in every way. The game plays exactly the same. The same cannot be said for physical items (like automobiles) which lose value as they accrue mileage, wear & tear, etc.
Well, when buying used games, one does have to take wear and tear into account. A new game and scratched to hell used game aren't necessarily going to play the same. Like a car, a game can have mileage, too.
-
Not to mention, who the eff cares? When you buy a new game it's yours. You own it. That's why they call it buying instead of licensing. I can sell a game that I own every bit as much as I can sell a book that I own or a CD that I own. And I'm perfectly free to buy games, books, CDs from other people. And if there's a market a person is perfectly free to facilitate those sales by getting into the business of buying/selling used games, books and CDs. If a content creator wants to discourage resale he might just have to get creative and build some longevity into the product or something, because once he sells his game he doesn't own it anymore.
Don't get me wrong . . . consumers are utter morons who purchase used games at Gamestop for a whopping $5 savings, but I digress. Point is, nobody who sells me anything should be able to tell me that I have to either continue owning it or destroy it. That's retarded.
-
Point is, nobody who sells me anything should be able to tell me that I have to either continue owning it or destroy it. That's retarded.
A-frickin'-men.
-
Well, when buying used games, one does have to take wear and tear into account. A new game and scratched to hell used game aren't necessarily going to play the same. Like a car, a game can have mileage, too.
Maybe Im in the minority, but I have never had a game have a problem dues to scratches, dating all the way back to my PS1. When buying used, you check out the disc to make sure there is nothing major, beyond that, no problem, same product.
Especially now a days with my 360, where any game Im actively playing I install to the HDD first. The CD just has to spin up once to make sure its there. Then there is no difference.
-
Maybe Im in the minority, but I have never had a game have a problem dues to scratches, dating all the way back to my PS1. When buying used, you check out the disc to make sure there is nothing major, beyond that, no problem, same product.
Back in the day, I would buy Dreamcast games used and occasionally they wouldn't work because they had one tiny, barely visible scratch in just the right place. I had NFL2k that stopped working because of one nearly invisible scratch!
-
man.. I remember when I was a kid there was this guy at the swapmeet who would let you trade your used Nintendo games for free. Well not exactly.. he'd look at the game you had and tell you which section you could trade in for (they were separated by price). From what I can remember, he would look at the game and based on what people would probably pay for it, he would let you trade for that stack (I think the games were separated into 10, 12, 15)
I remember the first time I went to sell a game . I had bought some game with my own money (brand new) .. but it turned out I didn't like it. When I found out how much I could get for it.. I nearly cried, then the guy felt bad and gave me some more $$ (I bought the game from him and was now selling it back to him).
Aaaaaaaaannnnd
When I was a kid, my dad would bring a used Nintendo game home each time he went to the swapmeet. This one time, he brought home donkey kong jr. I looked at it and was dissapointed and asked him why he got this one (and did the whole ungrateful kid thing). He never bought us a used game again. I still feel bad about it to this day and my brother blamed me for our dad no buying us games anymore.
used games created so many good and not so good memories, I didn't care if they were older games. I bet kids today get older used games too from their parents.
-
Used car sales don't kill car companies, and used game sales don't kill game companies.
This is a horrible analogy. The used car market is entirely unlike the used game market. Unless the packaging and manual have any value to the consumer (which they usually don't) a used game and a new game are identical in every way. The game plays exactly the same. The same cannot be said for physical items (like automobiles) which lose value as they accrue mileage, wear & tear, etc.
Well, when buying used games, one does have to take wear and tear into account. A new game and scratched to hell used game aren't necessarily going to play the same. Like a car, a game can have mileage, too.
That's ridiculous. The "mileage" has no effect on the gameplay. Either it works, or it doesn't work. If it works, the gameplay is identical. If it doesn't work, GameStop will replace it with a working copy. For all intents and purposes, a working used copy is identical to a working new copy.
-
Not to mention, who the eff cares? When you buy a new game it's yours. You own it.
No it isn't and no you don't.
You own the physical media the game is on, and you own a license to play the game. Sorry, but you don't own the game.
That's why they call it buying instead of licensing.
You are "buying" the license, not the game.
I can sell a game that I own every bit as much as I can sell a book that I own or a CD that I own. And I'm perfectly free to buy games, books, CDs from other people. And if there's a market a person is perfectly free to facilitate those sales by getting into the business of buying/selling used games, books and CDs.
Yup. The First-Sale Doctrine protects you there. However, you still have limitations to what you can and can't do with a video game or a CD because you do not own them. Go ahead and make copies of the music or video games "you own" and sell them and see what happens...
If a content creator wants to discourage resale he might just have to get creative and build some longevity into the product or something,
That is what's happening now. We already see creativity in the form of DLC and other additional content. We are also seeing separate charges for multiplayer.
because once he sells his game he doesn't own it anymore.
Legally, he does. He has only sold you the license.
Don't get me wrong . . . consumers are utter morons who purchase used games at Gamestop for a whopping $5 savings, but I digress. Point is, nobody who sells me anything should be able to tell me that I have to either continue owning it or destroy it. That's retarded.
Again, you are purchasing the license to use a certain content and a physical medium to transfer the content. Despite your unfounded claims otherwise, You do not own the game.
-
Used car sales don't kill car companies, and used game sales don't kill game companies.
This is a horrible analogy. The used car market is entirely unlike the used game market. Unless the packaging and manual have any value to the consumer (which they usually don't) a used game and a new game are identical in every way. The game plays exactly the same. The same cannot be said for physical items (like automobiles) which lose value as they accrue mileage, wear & tear, etc.
Well, when buying used games, one does have to take wear and tear into account. A new game and scratched to hell used game aren't necessarily going to play the same. Like a car, a game can have mileage, too.
That's ridiculous. The "mileage" has no effect on the gameplay. Either it works, or it doesn't work. If it works, the gameplay is identical. If it doesn't work, GameStop will replace it with a working copy. For all intents and purposes, a working used copy is identical to a working new copy.
Yeah, well it's always fun to get 10 hours into a game and find out it doesn't want to work anymore, or certain aspects of the game won't load.
-
I personally prefer to rent games now adays instead of buying them. I bought Spiderman for N64 back in the day and I beat it the same night I bought it. Couldnt exchange it or return it for anything. I was out 55 bucks. Gamestop wasnt even around back then but still. Most games you can rent, beat em, then give em back. I havent tried Gamefly yet, but it sounds like it would be cool. I barely justify paying 65 bucks for a game (I live in CA so I get raped by tax) that I REALLY want. I bought Starcraft 2 for 65 bucks because I know Im going to play the hell out of it, and it is going to have tons of replay value, odds are Im not going to want to sell it. But am I going to play 65 bucks for a game like...say Batman Arkham Asylum (when it came out, havent been playing the console stuff lately) probably not.
\Back around 2001 or so I bought Chrono Trigger for SNES from the local GameStop for $39.99.
I still can't decide if it was a good deal or not.
Yes you got a good deal, that damn game still goes for 40+ on ebay. Thank god I found one for 20 the other day, cause the guy was a tard. I remember when the damn thing was 79.99 at Toys R Us when it first came out. Thats the only cartridge game I remember seeing for more than 50 bucks for its time. But see, now look. That game is awesome and you will play that through every few years, I do anyway.
-
That is what's happening now. We already see creativity in the form of DLC and other additional content. We are also seeing separate charges for multiplayer.
I wouldnt say its creativity, its trying to milk the property as much as they can. Take Starcraft 2 for example. I got it cause I played the first one, its an awesome story, and its been 12 years in the making. Yeah Im going to pay 65 bucks for it, because its an awesome game that I can play FOREVER. People still play the old one. Make a great game, and you wont need to charge for DLC or multiplayer. Thats ridiculous. I would never pay more money to play the game, after I bought the damn thing. Thats why I think people that play WoW are a different breed of animal. I wouldnt pay extra money to download a map pack from MW2 either. Thats absurd. Game companies want more money, because they know people will pay it cause they can afford to. It boils down to their target audience as well. Most kids now-a-days have such bad ADD they need something new constantly, and the game market is trying to bank on that.
-
Used car sales don't kill car companies, and used game sales don't kill game companies.
This is a horrible analogy. The used car market is entirely unlike the used game market. Unless the packaging and manual have any value to the consumer (which they usually don't) a used game and a new game are identical in every way. The game plays exactly the same. The same cannot be said for physical items (like automobiles) which lose value as they accrue mileage, wear & tear, etc.
Well, when buying used games, one does have to take wear and tear into account. A new game and scratched to hell used game aren't necessarily going to play the same. Like a car, a game can have mileage, too.
That's ridiculous. The "mileage" has no effect on the gameplay. Either it works, or it doesn't work. If it works, the gameplay is identical. If it doesn't work, GameStop will replace it with a working copy. For all intents and purposes, a working used copy is identical to a working new copy.
Yeah, well it's always fun to get 10 hours into a game and find out it doesn't want to work anymore, or certain aspects of the game won't load.
If there are any issues, they will more than likely appear within the first 90 days which is the normal exchange period for defective games. You can continue to create unlikely situations where a used game differs from a new one, but the fact remains that a functional used game is identical to a functional new game.
-
No it isn't and no you don't. You own the physical media the game is on, and you own a license to play the game. Sorry, but you don't own the game. You are "buying" the license, not the game. The First-Sale Doctrine protects you [in the situations you described]. However, you still have limitations to what you can and can't do with a video game or a CD because you do not own them. Go ahead and make copies of the music or video games "you own" and sell them and see what happens...
Again, you are purchasing the license to use a certain content and a physical medium to transfer the content. Despite your unfounded claims otherwise, You do not own the game.
I don't know if you are a lawyer or are pretending to be one, but either way (and especially if you are a lawyer) you should learn to write in paragraphs. Look at the quoted text to see how easy it is.
Aside from basic usage problems, though, everything you wrote is complete nonsense. Everyone, including you, knows that when I say that you own the game you buy I don't mean you own the intellectual property. Don't be absurd. I said that you can sell the game you own. And you can. The fact that you have a license to use the product is a distinction without a difference because the license is irrevocable and freely transferrable forever and ever. It is no restraint whatsoever on transferrability (such as is the case with the license you get when you rent a game from Blockbuster). You own the disc and every single 1 and 0 on that disc. And yes, only the ones on that disc. But that's all we were ever talking about so coming in and pointing out that I can't make copies of it and then sell them is entirely irrelevant because, and I shouldn't have to point this out to you, but, once you sell it you no longer have any right to possession You sold that. That doesn't just apply to games. It applies to anything involving protected intellectual property.
At any rate, I didn't say that you can do anything you want with it. I said you can sell it. Which we both know is true. And whether you know it or not, you do own that game--the copy of the game that you purchased. You own the physical media and you own the right to use it and you own the right to sell it. And the person who owned it previously can do absolutely nothing to affect those rights in any way.
You don't own a right to make copies of it and sell those or to keep copies and sell the original. But who was ever talking about that?
edit: fixed tags
-
Yes you got a good deal, that damn game still goes for 40+ on ebay. Thank god I found one for 20 the other day, cause the guy was a tard. I remember when the damn thing was 79.99 at Toys R Us when it first came out. Thats the only cartridge game I remember seeing for more than 50 bucks for its time. But see, now look. That game is awesome and you will play that through every few years, I do anyway.
Pretty sure I bought Final Fantasy 3 (6) when it came out for $69.99, may have even been $79.99
-
No it isn't and no you don't. You own the physical media the game is on, and you own a license to play the game. Sorry, but you don't own the game. You are "buying" the license, not the game. The First-Sale Doctrine protects you [in the situations you described]. However, you still have limitations to what you can and can't do with a video game or a CD because you do not own them. Go ahead and make copies of the music or video games "you own" and sell them and see what happens...
Again, you are purchasing the license to use a certain content and a physical medium to transfer the content. Despite your unfounded claims otherwise, You do not own the game.
I don't know if you are a lawyer or are pretending to be one, but either way (and especially if you are a lawyer) you should learn to write in paragraphs. Look at the quoted text to see how easy it is.
My occupation is irrelevant to the conversation. What I say is either correct or incorrect.
As for my formatting, I find it easier to quote out the portions of text that I am addressing (as one would carry on a conversation). I do use paragraphs, albeit small ones. Is there a certain length quota (number of words? number of sentences?) that you prefer for each paragraph?
Aside from basic usage problems
Such as?
, though, everything you wrote is complete nonsense.
With the exception of a disagreement between the definition of "the game", can you please point out exactly what I said that is incorrect?
Everyone, including you, knows that when I say that you own the game you buy I don't mean you own the intellectual property. Don't be absurd.
I can honestly say that if this is what you meant than I misunderstood you. I've been involved in plenty of conversations with folks who think that once they buy a game that they have every right to do anything and everything with that game. As you and I are both aware, that simply isn't true.
I said that you can sell the game you own. And you can.
As with many forum conversations the devil is in the definition. You say you own the game and you're right, because you define "the game" as the disc and it's packaging. I say you don't own the game and I'm correct, because I define "the game" as the actual game content. I think we both agree that as a customer you own the disc and the ability to transfer the license along with the contents through sale or trade.
The fact that you have a license to use the product is a distinction without a difference because the license is irrevocable and freely transferrable forever and ever. It is no restraint whatsoever on transferrability (such as is the case with the license you get when you rent a game from Blockbuster). You own the disc and every single 1 and 0 on that disc. And yes, only the ones on that disc.
I never claimed otherwise.
But that's all we were ever talking about so coming in and pointing out that I can't make copies of it and then sell them is entirely irrelevant because, and I shouldn't have to point this out to you, but, once you sell it you no longer have any right to possession You sold that. That doesn't just apply to games. It applies to anything involving protected intellectual property.
The creator of the content still has control since he never sold the content, he sold the license. I think we're both saying the same thing here.
As for my "can't make copies" comment, I apologize for the non-sequitur. I mistook your claim of "it's mine and I can sell it" with a different claim that I continually hear, "it's mine and I can do whatever I want with it". Knee-jerk reaction. Sorry.
At any rate, I didn't say that you can do anything you want with it. I said you can sell it. Which we both know is true. And whether you know it or not, you do own that game--the copy of the game that you purchased. You own the physical media and you own the right to use it and you own the right to sell it. And the person who owned it previously can do absolutely nothing to affect those rights in any way.
I agree. However, the creator does retain certain rights, but I think we both understand that.
You don't own a right to make copies of it and sell those or to keep copies and sell the original. But who was ever talking about that?
Nobody. I can admit the mistake.
-
I can honestly say that if this is what you meant than I misunderstood you. I've been involved in plenty of conversations with folks who think that once they buy a game that they have every right to do anything and everything with that game. As you and I are both aware, that simply isn't true.
Oh good. I couldn't understand how you took it the way you originally did, so I'm glad to see you just misunderstood.
-
That is what's happening now. We already see creativity in the form of DLC and other additional content. We are also seeing separate charges for multiplayer.
I wouldnt say its creativity, its trying to milk the property as much as they can. Take Starcraft 2 for example. I got it cause I played the first one, its an awesome story, and its been 12 years in the making. Yeah Im going to pay 65 bucks for it, because its an awesome game that I can play FOREVER. People still play the old one. Make a great game, and you wont need to charge for DLC or multiplayer. Thats ridiculous. I would never pay more money to play the game, after I bought the damn thing. Thats why I think people that play WoW are a different breed of animal. I wouldnt pay extra money to download a map pack from MW2 either. Thats absurd. Game companies want more money, because they know people will pay it cause they can afford to. It boils down to their target audience as well. Most kids now-a-days have such bad ADD they need something new constantly, and the game market is trying to bank on that.
I strongly disagree. DLC has made gaming much, much better, not worse.
Take a game like Guitar Hero or Rock Band. When it was released for the PS2, it made a huge splash. People willingly paid for a goofy peripheral and a limited number of songs and played the Hell out of the game. Enough copies were sold that several sequels were made. At the time, most people were happy to play the game with the limited number of songs available. Nobody expected more free songs, bonus content, or anything extra. The game was what it was.
But now with the advent of DLC, people can still purchase a game like Guitar Hero or RockBand and play only the limited songs that come with it OR they can purchase additional songs "a la carte". There are literally hundreds of songs to choose from, and buyers are not forced to purchase an entire disc of games - they can simply pick single songs they like. They can choose to extend the life of a game they enjoy if they choose. It's very possible that DLC content may have it's foundation in corporate greed, but if it leads to more choices for the consumer how is this a bad thing?
The problem as I see it is that there is a percentage of people that, for some reason or another, feel entitled to the DLC because they purchased the game. Even though they got exactly what they expected from the game and were never promised anything additional, they are immediately outraged at the prospect of the developer offering them additional content for a fee. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind it, but there are people who buy a game like MW2, enjoy the game, and dump dozens of hours of gameplay into it. If you ask them what they think of the game, they'd tell you it's great and they got there money's worth. However, as soon as you make DLC content available, they immediately feel entitled. "$15 for maps for a game I already own!! That's ludicrous! The nerve of those greedy ---daisies---!!". It makes absolutely no sense to me but I see it happen time and time again. Go figure.
-
I can honestly say that if this is what you meant than I misunderstood you. I've been involved in plenty of conversations with folks who think that once they buy a game that they have every right to do anything and everything with that game. As you and I are both aware, that simply isn't true.
Oh good. I couldn't understand how you took it the way you originally did, so I'm glad to see you just misunderstood.
I guess I'm not going be shown my "basic usage problems", or what I wrote that was incorrect?
-
I find it easier to quote out the portions of text that I am addressing (as one would carry on a conversation). I do use paragraphs, albeit small ones. Is there a certain length quota (number of words? number of sentences?) that you prefer for each paragraph?
It is easier. It's also extraordinarily lazy, and a generally dishonest way of arguing. The sentences in my paragraphs do not exist in a vaccuum. Pulling them out and responding to them one-by-one, without the benefit of context is not only absurd, but it is extraordinarily tedious to read and impossible to respond to. And if I do respond in kind it very quickly (usually immediately) devolves into a two-way conversation that the rest of the community skips over out of sheer obnoxiousness.
-
I can honestly say that if this is what you meant than I misunderstood you. I've been involved in plenty of conversations with folks who think that once they buy a game that they have every right to do anything and everything with that game. As you and I are both aware, that simply isn't true.
Oh good. I couldn't understand how you took it the way you originally did, so I'm glad to see you just misunderstood.
I guess I'm not going be shown my "basic usage problems", or what I wrote that was incorrect?
I think hes afraid you'll reply with a million quote boxes and give the world a headache, again.
-
As with many forum conversations the devil is in the definition. You say you own the game and you're right, because you define "the game" as the disc and it's packaging. I say you don't own the game and I'm correct . . . blah blah I can't even read beyond this point.
Oh shut up. Yeah . . . I'm sure you thought that I meant that going to Gamestop and paying $60 for God of War transferred ownership of the entire IP.
-
Oh shut up.
:lol
I love how you finally reached this point in the argument. I know the feeling.
-
I find it easier to quote out the portions of text that I am addressing (as one would carry on a conversation). I do use paragraphs, albeit small ones. Is there a certain length quota (number of words? number of sentences?) that you prefer for each paragraph?
It is easier. It's also extraordinarily lazy, and a generally dishonest way of arguing. The sentences in my paragraphs do not exist in a vaccuum. Pulling them out and responding to them one-by-one, without the benefit of context is not only absurd, but it is extraordinarily tedious to read and impossible to respond to. And if I do respond in kind it very quickly (usually immediately) devolves into a two-way conversation that the rest of the community skips over out of sheer obnoxiousness.
Wow, I had no idea how polarizing my posts were. Yikes.
It actually takes more time to continually quote out parts of a post, but I'm sure that's not what you meant by lazy. Personally, I consider it lazy to respond to a post by just hitting "quote" and responding to whichever parts seem the easiest to target. Your mileage may very.
Of course your paragraphs don't exist in a vacuum, but some posts are littered with dozens of claims and I prefer to address them individually. (It's a habit I picked up from "debating" with conspiracy theorists who tend to throw a ton of claims on the wall to see what sticks. "Old habits" and all of that.) And although I break up posts, i do not remove content. The context is there for everyone to see.
You are correct that it can quickly devolve into a two-way conversation, and for that reason I've responded with lovely, easy-on-the-eyes, paragraphs. I even threw in an Oxford comma at no extra charge.
-
Vespa...
Depending on the conversation (read: argument), I tend to do the same thing as you. I agree it allows you to address individual points.
Ok, now we've agreed on something. It's a start. ;D
-
As with many forum conversations the devil is in the definition. You say you own the game and you're right, because you define "the game" as the disc and it's packaging. I say you don't own the game and I'm correct . . . blah blah I can't even read beyond this point.
Oh shut up. Yeah . . . I'm sure you thought that I meant that going to Gamestop and paying $60 for God of War transferred ownership of the entire IP.
You certainly wouldn't be the first. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people who don't understand IP at all and assume that a game that they purchase (or firmware, for that matter) is theirs to do whatever they please without any repercussions. I get it. You aren't one of them.
-
Believe it or not, there are plenty of people who don't understand IP at all and assume that a game that they purchase (or firmware, for that matter) is theirs to do whatever they please without any repercussions.
Is it that they don't know, or the more likely scenario, that they don't care?
I know it's both, but I think the latter happens more.
-
No it isn't and no you don't. You own the physical media the game is on, and you own a license to play the game. Sorry, but you don't own the game. You are "buying" the license, not the game. The First-Sale Doctrine protects you [in the situations you described]. However, you still have limitations to what you can and can't do with a video game or a CD because you do not own them. Go ahead and make copies of the music or video games "you own" and sell them and see what happens...
Again, you are purchasing the license to use a certain content and a physical medium to transfer the content. Despite your unfounded claims otherwise, You do not own the game.
[...] You own the disc and every single 1 and 0 on that disc.[...]
Shmokes, I guess this is where most people get foggy about IP and ownership. And usually when I hear a quote like yours, it's followed by "so I can do whatever I want with it." I'm pretty sure we're on the same page. But just to be certain...
Lets say you purchase a video game. The game contains 20 levels of exciting ninja vs. pirate battling action. You beat the game and put it on your shelf to collect dust. You think about selling it, but read that the publisher is releasing 5 more exciting levels! You find out online that it costs $15 for the extra levels, but you read the fine print to discover that the DLC actually exists on your disc! The only thing you are downloading is a key that unlocks that content. Here's where the IP and ownership issues come into play.
Even though you technically own all of those ones and zeros for the extra content that are on the disc, you do not own the license to play them until you pay the additional $15. You own the disc (and the 1s and 0s) but the creator still retains control.
On this we agree?
-
Vespa...
Depending on the conversation (read: argument), I tend to do the same thing as you. I agree it allows you to address individual points.
Ok, now we've agreed on something. It's a start. ;D
I've been chastised for the same thing...
-
I know it's both, but I think the latter happens more.
It most certainly is not both. It just isn't. You're probably talking about one in ten thousand who think that purchasing a videogame or book or CD gives you the legal right to copy said material and sell it. One in ten thousand is generous. This is a ginormous meaningless digression.
-
So you're saying there aren't stupid people out there who think it's theirs to do with as they wish? I'm talking about a very small minority, but you can't say 100% they don't exist.
-
Even though you technically own all of those ones and zeros for the extra content that are on the disc, you do not own the license to play them until you pay the additional $15. You own the disc (and the 1s and 0s) but the creator still retains control.
On this we agree?
I'll start out by pointing out that this has nothing to do with the original conversation. To answer your question, I don't know for sure. Clearly you own the material, in as much as you own the right to unlock it. Whether you could circumvent the protections to access the content for free . . . I dunno if that's ever been answered, but I don't think it's an open and closed case. Obviously a person couldn't sell you a house, intending to tell you later that hidden in the wall was a valuable treasure but you'd have to pay him more for him to tell you where it is. I mean . . . he could do this, of course, but if you opened the wall yourself and found it, it's yours. The DMCA gives me pause with its prohibitions of circumventing copy protection, but I don't know if they'd consider this copy protection, so I don't know if the DMCA applies. I mean . . . I don't really know the DMCA at all, frankly.
So, yeah, if the extra content is on the disc and you manage to access it without paying the company more . . . I don't know. I tend to think that the customer would end up winning, but that's just my gut talking. As far as I know that hasn't been answered difinitively, and if it has it may have gone the other way.
God knows Take Two and Rockstar paid out the ass for Hot Coffee, even though you actually had to modify your console, and then modify the software in order to get at it. If that's all we have to go on I'd tend to consider everything on the disc as owned and available to the consumer, even if the developer/publisher did not intend it to be.
-
So you're saying there aren't stupid people out there who think it's theirs to do with as they wish? I'm talking about a very small minority, but you can't say 100% they don't exist.
Well . . . one in ten thousand isn't 100%. These bombastically stupid people might exist. But for all intents and purposes they're entirely hypothetical or no older than 14.
-
for the OP and what is more sickining is what they bought that $55.00 used game for from another person of the street that just paid the same $60.00 1 week prior.
funcoland, ebgames, and babbage's were all better then gamestop and once they monopilized them all into gamestop it all becam scantless and a joke pretty much.
I have never and will not ever buy a game from gamestop new or used period there the satan of video game stores or video game anything for that matter >:D
even there pre-release code crap is a joke they do that just some some get tricked into paying top dollar for the game at there store while others have them for $10.00-$20.00 less.
-
Wow. Babbages. Completely forgot they existed. Thank god for good ol CL... Stupid Gamestop. Power to the players ---my bottom---. :timebomb:
-
I used to love Babbages back in the C64 days. ;D
-
I'm in Shmokes camp in this regard. I grew up poor, certainly never had any computer games. Now I can afford it, unless something is really, really discounted i prefer to buy stuff new. For that extra 5 bucks, i get to be the one to rip open the cellopane :)
-
Yeah, if it's only 5 bucks I'd buy new. Othewise I'd wait 3 to 6 months and get it for $20. I've found that ebay usually has lower used prices.
-
on gametz newly released games that become used sell for around $30.00 two weeks after there realeased and good deals can be had there becuse everyone use's ebay and amazon for price comparison's..
them first few weeks though some try to sell them for $3-5 less then what they paid new and just try to beat it as fast as possible and assume the quiker they beat it the more its worth but 2 weeks later everyone wants to sell that new popular game but have to keep lowering there price becuase everybody and there brother has the same game to get rid of during the same time frame.
-
I don't support gamestops used gaming department out of principle. The fact that the buyer doesn't really get much of a deal (this is 100% true btw) is irrelevant. The fact that gamestop gives the person that traded it in next to nothing for it is. Gamestop has made a business out of stupid kids that want immediate satisfaction. It's an evil and endless loop.
Here's how it works:
1. Consumer buys game for 60 bucks. Gamestop gets 60 bucks from consumer.
2. Consumer gets sick of game, trades it into gamestop for a mere 15 bucks. Gamestop now has 75 bucks from consumer.
3a. Gamestop sells traded game for 55 bucks. Gamestop has now made a staggering 115 bucks from a single game!
3b. Our original consumer takes his 15 bucks credit (which is worthless) and uses it to buy another 60 dollar game. Gamestop now has grossed 175 bucks from this transaction.
..... and repeat till infinity.
There's nothing illegal about this process at all, but it sure seems immoral to me. Also it's a stupid business practice on their part. By selling used games, it makes for less sales of new games, which the developers are compensated for, which means developers get less money and thus they can make less games for gamestop to endlessly sell and re-sell.
-
Getting back to the quesiton at hand though... typically you can find really cheap NEW games in big box stores and online after the game gets a little old. Usually the deal is better than gamestops used price. So to answer your question, I don't have any clue why people buy used games from gamestop.
-
There's nothing illegal about this process at all, but it sure seems immoral to me. Also it's a stupid business practice on their part. By selling used games, it makes for less sales of new games, which the developers are compensated for, which means developers get less money and thus they can make less games for gamestop to endlessly sell and re-sell.
I wonder how much money THIS takes a way from developers as compared to classic software piracy. Yes, at least the software was paid for once per physical copy, however I would imagine that the people buying the used copies, particularly at only $5 from retail, would much more likely be customers of the original product without being tempted by the discount. I suspect that the far greater majority of traditional software pirates would never have purchased the software given the opportunity and ability.
-
Here's how it works:
1. Consumer buys game for 60 bucks. Gamestop gets 60 bucks from consumer.
2. Consumer gets sick of game, trades it into gamestop for a mere 15 bucks. Gamestop now has 75 bucks from consumer.
3a. Gamestop sells traded game for 55 bucks. Gamestop has now made a staggering 115 bucks from a single game!
3b. Our original consumer takes his 15 bucks credit (which is worthless) and uses it to buy another 60 dollar game. Gamestop now has grossed 175 bucks from this transaction.
I think step 2 is a little bit backwards.
-
1. Consumer buys game for 60 bucks. Gamestop gets 60 bucks from consumer.
Wow, gamestop doesnt have to pay any money out of pocket to stock new games? 100% profit and they'll never go out of business.
-
I think step 2 is a little bit backwards.
Yeah, I noticed that right off.
-
I don't have any clue why people buy used games from gamestop.
I bought Metroid Prime for $3.99. I bought Pinball Hame of Fame: The Williams Collection for xbox360 for $4.99.
If you're not after the newest stuff, you can get some good buys.
The whole $55 vs $60 thing.....I don't get why anyone would buy used at that price (but this already been discussed to death...)
-
I love Metroid Prime. I just got the trilogy for free on the wii, stoked to play em, but Other M came out soo....I dont know. Im in game debt... :P
-
gamestop doesn't make 60 (or 50 for wii) on the initial sale. Selling the used game on the other hand is all profit.
-
gamestop doesn't make 60 (or 50 for wii) on the initial sale. Selling the used game on the other hand is all profit.
just an effort to get my post count up, its not all profit. you have to deduct the price they paid to get the used copy form the customer first (which isnt much, but its something) and they do have to pay stuff like rent and wages to employees =)
-
1. Consumer buys game for 60 bucks. Gamestop gets 60 bucks from consumer.
Wow, gamestop doesnt have to pay any money out of pocket to stock new games? 100% profit and they'll never go out of business.
I didn't say they MADE 60 bucks, I said they HAD 60 bucks. Pay attention!!!
-
I remember funcoland had great deals on used classic's & even collector's like the nes gameboy snes etc. and alway's getting steal's at eb games on used pc games compared to anywhere else.
Now there is no getting deals on anything in a gamestop once again they are the satan of video games in my opionin and would not mind seeing them go but it will never happen >:D
anyone remember funcolands price sheet / new's paper becket type deal and the checklist your imagination went wild on?
-
Haha yeah there was a Funcoland down the street from me. Was bummed When gamestop set up shop. :angry: They had all kinds of good deals on NES games, SNES games, everything. The guys were cool there too. The guys at my local gamestop are those elitest nerds that think they are better than everyone, and scoff cause I dont know when the latest games are supposed to come out. Then my GF walks in and all of a sudden they have the urge to shut their mouths. ;D
I hate everything about that store.
On a side note, why do people feel compelled to try and bargain with you when you sell stuff on Craigslist? Some guy tried to talk me down off a pristine copy of Fallout 3 for 360. :tool:
-
I used to work for funcoland when I was in high school. I actually liked that job except the trying to sell cleaning kits to everyone.
-
Better than being hounded about reserving games.
-
The question here has been answered. Why buy used? It's cheaper.
There's a more important question: Who would SELL used games to EB Games?
I remember when Smash Brothers Brawl came out. We had preordered a copy to use at a tourny and give away as a prize. Some kids were at the EB When I went to pick up my copy and they were trading in their old games to get credit for it. Behind the kids was their dad with this silent 'I paid $60 for those!!!' as the clerk priced the games trade in values between $1-$5 each. (They were mostly old Gamecube and PS2 games)
-
I used to work for funcoland when I was in high school. I actually liked that job except the trying to sell cleaning kits to everyone.
I actually typed up and then deleted a long childhood rant a couple weeks ago about Funcoland and those damned cleaning kits.
But, in short:
Basically, no matter what your gaming habits, you needed a cleaning kit!
And more than once I was handed a cartridge with a filthy edge connector from that place!
And the price was the same, even if you didn't get a box or manual! (at least Gamestop will sometimes mark them down a little)
I always wondered if Target was somehow involved with Funcoland. I'm not sure I ever saw one that wasn't next door to a Target.... :droid
hmm.. you may be onto something becuase the one I speak of was exactly right next store to a target :laugh:
-
On a side note, why do people feel compelled to try and bargain with you when you sell stuff on Craigslist? Some guy tried to talk me down off a pristine copy of Fallout 3 for 360. :tool:
This strikes me as perfectly normal behavior.
-
That's the best thing about Craigslist. If you don't haggle, why bother?
-
On a side note, why do people feel compelled to try and bargain with you when you sell stuff on Craigslist? Some guy tried to talk me down off a pristine copy of Fallout 3 for 360. :tool:
You would be stupid to NOT try and haggle on Craigslist.
-
Yeah but I said "firm". That should nullify any type of haggle. And Im a huge guy, so why even bother? :lol
I say that cause over here why I live there are all kinds of weird CL mishaps involving people getting jumped etc...
-
No it isn't and no you don't. You own the physical media the game is on, and you own a license to play the game. Sorry, but you don't own the game. You are "buying" the license, not the game. The First-Sale Doctrine protects you [in the situations you described]. However, you still have limitations to what you can and can't do with a video game or a CD because you do not own them. Go ahead and make copies of the music or video games "you own" and sell them and see what happens...
Again, you are purchasing the license to use a certain content and a physical medium to transfer the content. Despite your unfounded claims otherwise, You do not own the game.
I don't know if you are a lawyer or are pretending to be one, but either way (and especially if you are a lawyer) you should learn to write in paragraphs. Look at the quoted text to see how easy it is.
Aside from basic usage problems, though, everything you wrote is complete nonsense. Everyone, including you, knows that when I say that you own the game you buy I don't mean you own the intellectual property. Don't be absurd. I said that you can sell the game you own. And you can. The fact that you have a license to use the product is a distinction without a difference because the license is irrevocable and freely transferrable forever and ever. It is no restraint whatsoever on transferrability (such as is the case with the license you get when you rent a game from Blockbuster). You own the disc and every single 1 and 0 on that disc. And yes, only the ones on that disc. But that's all we were ever talking about so coming in and pointing out that I can't make copies of it and then sell them is entirely irrelevant because, and I shouldn't have to point this out to you, but, once you sell it you no longer have any right to possession You sold that. That doesn't just apply to games. It applies to anything involving protected intellectual property.
At any rate, I didn't say that you can do anything you want with it. I said you can sell it. Which we both know is true. And whether you know it or not, you do own that game--the copy of the game that you purchased. You own the physical media and you own the right to use it and you own the right to sell it. And the person who owned it previously can do absolutely nothing to affect those rights in any way.
You don't own a right to make copies of it and sell those or to keep copies and sell the original. But who was ever talking about that?
edit: fixed tags
Not to bump a thread that's probably better left to die, but this article certainly puts a new spin on the subject of selling software:
http://gizmodo.com/5635269/guess-what-you-dont-own-that-software-you-bought (http://gizmodo.com/5635269/guess-what-you-dont-own-that-software-you-bought)
I can definitely seeing that go to the Supreme Court to see if it stands. That'll take a few years though so we'll have to wait and see if software companies do start putting clauses in stating that the software can't be resold.
-
Yeah but I said "firm". That should nullify any type of haggle. And Im a huge guy, so why even bother? :lol
I say that cause over here why I live there are all kinds of weird CL mishaps involving people getting jumped etc...
It's always worth to try. Especially as some people say a price is 'firm' but find their idea of a price suddenly becomes more flexable if there are no takers for the rate they are asking for.
-
It's always worth to try. Especially as some people say a price is 'firm' but find their idea of a price suddenly becomes more flexable if there are no takers for the rate they are asking for.
I suppose youre right. I do it sometimes too, but usually at the Swap Meet or places like that, not really on CL. I talked a dude down this weekend 20 bucks off a vacuum cleaner for my girlfriend. She was REALLY grateful hehe... ;D
-
I miss Funcoland
-
I miss Funcoland
you miss buying games for $60 and trading it in a week later for $6 store credit... ???
-
Lol the good old days.... I sometimes buy 2nd hand, but only really games that are a few years old.
-
I miss Funcoland
you miss buying games for $60 and trading it in a week later for $6 store credit... ???
I would trade my baseball cards for games and get $6 cash LOL
Cubs fans here in chicago would trade games for losers Cub players haha
-
I remember once a guy traded me some crappy game where you get out of a mech and shoot stuff for my beloved mario bros 3 =(.. what was I thinking?
-
you cant be old and wise without being young and stupid lol