Quote:

SEATTLE (Reuters) - U.S. video game sales rose 28 percent in July from a year earlier, boosted by continued strong demand for Nintendo Co Ltd's (7974.OS) Wii console, according to data from research firm NPD on Thursday.
(Advertentie)

U.S. sales of video game hardware, software and accessories totaled $1.19 billion in July, with software sales growing 41 percent and hardware sales rising 17 percent, NPD said.

Helped by a steady flow of blockbuster titles, the video game industry has proved resilient to the economic hardships hitting other industries. A Nintendo representative said the company was seeing no impact from a slowdown in U.S. consumer spending.

Sony Corp's (6758.T) PlayStation 3 outsold Microsoft Corp's (MSFT.O) Xbox 360 game console in July, selling 224,900 PS3 versus 204,800 Xbox 360 machines in the United States. The Wii outsold both systems combined, tallying 555,000 units sold during the month.

Among the handhelds, Nintendo's DS sold 608,400 units in the United States in July, compared with 221,700 units for Sony's PlayStation Portable.

The top selling game in July was Electronic Arts' (ERTS.O) "NCAA Football 09," which debuted during the month. It sold nearly 400,000 units in the United States.

Nintendo's "Wii Fit" exercise game, which comes with a "balance board" that senses tiny shifts in a person's posture and is used to control a cartoonish character on the screen, came in second with 369,600 units.

Activision Blizzard's (ATVI.O) "Guitar Hero" game for the Nintendo DS, Nintendo's "Wii Play" and EA's "NCAA Football 09" for the PS3 rounded out the top five best-selling games.

Yeah, piracy is hurting the industry soooo much... :roll:

But seriously, how far do you think that such successes will hurt PC gaming? If consoles are becoming so economically viable, how long will developers continue to choose to develop for PC when developing for consoles just makes so much money?

I dunno. Hopefully it won't end, though it might get less titles coming out each year. I doubt I'll ever get a consol though. They just don't appeal to me.

Kristus wrote:

I dunno. Hopefully it won't end, though it might get less titles coming out each year. I doubt I'll ever get a consol though. They just don't appeal to me.

I have to admit I'm starting to doubt whether to buy a console, as long as I can hook it up to my wide-screen LCD (and hook up a keyboard and mouse). I have 0% experience with consoles so I don't even know if I can hook up such things. Hell will freeze over before I play an FPS with a controller or WII-mote. Mouse + Keyb. is just superior in all ways.

But it is starting to become a problem for me. There is 1 dedicated games store where I live and up until recently they had a large DVD/PC section. After I returned from holiday they shrunk it down by 90%, only keeping a handful of PC titles in favour of expanding the console sections. The only option I have now to buy PC titles is online.

As an example; they don't even sell Turok for PC, even though they have Turok for all other platforms there. The only titles they have no for PC are ETQW, COD4 and some other AA titles. All the rest was sent back, including all the budget titles.

Consoles are getting bigger and bigger which probably accounts for a large part of the increase in sales.
Piracy has ALWAYS hurt the PC industry, how can it not, but back then it was such a superior platform to consoles (at least for many genres of games) that it didn't have to compete the way it has to now.

Today though that is very different which is pretty obvious when even iD decides to develop on consoles primarily.

efx wrote:

Piracy has ALWAYS hurt the PC industry, how can it not.

There are many (and I do mean A LOT) of independent studies that claim it doesn't hurt the industry and, in fact, helps boost sales. It's really not as clear cut as many would like to believe:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9744037-16.html
http://digg.com/tech_news/Canadian_Stud ... s_CD_Sales
http://karmafan.wordpress.com/2008/01/2 ... elp-sales/
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09 ... cropiracy9
http://paulcanning.blogspot.com/2008/03 ... iness.html
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2008/080317.html
http://www.infopackets.com/news/piracy/ ... llions.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/ ... 02352.html
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ipp ... 1456e.html
http://mises.org/story/2590

I can give you about 250 more links to reports claiming that piracy in fact does not hurt business, so, no. I'd have to strongly disagree to the statement Piracy has ALWAYS hurt the PC industry, how can it not.. And with me, many, many others.

BloodRayne wrote:

Quote:

But seriously, how far do you think that such successes will hurt PC gaming? If consoles are becoming so economically viable, how long will developers continue to choose to develop for PC when developing for consoles just makes so much money?

consoles have ALWAYS been more viable then PC gaming. Only laps in console sales was between atari & NES. Besides then, it's always been a strong seller. Thanks to arcades, people WANTED to play those games @ home on a console. That never happened with PC (did for the C64 though).

If I had a game store, I wouldnt consider selling PC games, because there's just too many bugs, even in the installers.

Target, Best Buy, Circuit City & others have a greater selection of PC games then GameStop/EB. Very sad.

PC game sales figures are seriously flawed because the agencies that report the numbers almost never calculate the number of sales via online sellers (example, direct2drive, steam, etc.) so the figures end up being significantly depreciated. Console games are almost entirely sold through retail distribution which makes tracking sales very easy.

As for the piracy issue it doesn't hurt as much as it might appear. One of the funny things about software is that we seemed to have had an increase in piracy as the shareware phase dropped out of site. I kind of miss that aspect of games from the early/mid 90's.

Bittoman wrote:

PC game sales figures are seriously flawed because the agencies that report the numbers almost never calculate the number of sales via online sellers (example, direct2drive, steam, etc.) so the figures end up being significantly depreciated. Console games are almost entirely sold through retail distribution which makes tracking sales very easy.

Online retailers REFUSE to release sales figures.

It's worth noting that the "indy" scene is doing "well", it's the mainstream companies that complain a lot. IE Introversion says they do great, Activision says they're not.

"well" = happy with sales.

Kristus wrote:

I dunno. Hopefully it won't end, though it might get less titles coming out each year. I doubt I'll ever get a console though. They just don't appeal to me.

I have a Wii and a DS, my son plays Call of Duty and Medal of Honor on the Wii with a Wii Zapper extension, it's pretty darn cool. Although it's been critisized for occasional accuracy problems by some I've never experienced it as long as you stand in the right spot, I'd recommend that FPS fans should try it at least once, it's one of the coolest console FPS control schemes there is in my opinion.

I play the DS probably more than anything else, more than PC games even, I just wish id would make more stuff for the DS. That's kind of strange that in there it says the Wii was outselling the other consoles, I wish developers would take notice of that and bring some better games to it, I think the wiimote scares them off though, it's not for everyone. I've noticed that the most successful games on the Wii have been the ones that allow to you to choose between the wiimote, or a classic, or GC controller.

The Happy Friar wrote:

Target, Best Buy, Circuit City & others have a greater selection of PC games then GameStop/EB. Very sad.

I walked into a Gamestop in a mall that had exactly 0 PC games for sale.

If they wanted to make money in the PC market they'd stop designing their games to depend on the latest graphics technology. One of the things that makes the "Civilization" and "Age of Empires" series so popular is that they don't require a $1,000 video card to play at the highest graphic settings.

TelMarine wrote:

The Happy Friar wrote:

Target, Best Buy, Circuit City & others have a greater selection of PC games then GameStop/EB. Very sad.

I walked into a Gamestop in a mall that had exactly 0 PC games for sale.

I have'nt seen EB or Gamestop in my area carry PC games in years. EB used to have good, cheap, used PC games, I picked up a pre-owned copy of Hexen one time for $15.00 when a lot of stores were still selling it for $50.00. I'm wary to buy used PC games anymore now that we have CD key verification systems, you never know if the person who sold it copied the game and kept his key, that's probably why they stopped selling them probably a lot of people returned their games because the key did'nt work.

Besides it does'nt matter, EB and Gamestop are a big rip-off anymore, last time I went there I was looking at pre-owned DS games in particular and I saw most newer titles were priced at $29.99 which was only $5.00 cheaper than their retail value, most games that retailed at $19.99 were price at $17.99, only a two dollars' savings. It's not even worth it to buy a pre-owned game anymore, $5.00 to $2.00 is an insignifigant amount, if it's pre-owned the price should at least be halved, you never know what the person who owned it before did with it, he could have carried it around in his anus or something, who knows.

CrimsonHead wrote:

I'm wary to buy used PC games anymore now that we have CD key verification systems, you never know if the person who sold it copied the game and kept his key, that's probably why they stopped selling them probably a lot of people returned their games because the key did'nt work. [/i]

That's why. The whole online registrations & cd-key thing killed used PC games. I still buy some used PC games on e-bay/amazon though. As long as it doesn't phone home, it's normally ok.

Quote:

Besides it does'nt matter, EB and Gamestop are a big rip-off anymore, last time I went there I was looking at pre-owned DS games in particular and I saw most newer titles were priced at $29.99 which was only $5.00 cheaper than their retail value, most games that retailed at $19.99 were price at $17.99, only a two dollars' savings. It's not even worth it to buy a pre-owned game anymore, $5.00 to $2.00 is an insignifigant amount, if it's pre-owned the price should at least be halved, you never know what the person who owned it before did with it, he could have carried it around in his anus or something, who knows.

The advantage of pre-owned is that you can return them for a full refund. FOR ANY REASON. So if you buy a copy of GTA4 used for $55.00 & there's new for $59, you can buy the pre-owned, realize it sucks & return it. If it doesn't work, return it. If you want that hooker really really really bad, return it.

Pre-owned are better. If you buy a new game & it doesn't work, you need to deal with the publisher, no store will even look at it. Plus you can actually SEE the disc for a pre-owned BEFORE you buy. You can't see the disc for a new. So if there is no disc or it's already broken/scratched/etc. you're SOL. With an edge card you get 10% off too (basically, no sales tax in many states).

The Happy Friar wrote:

You can't see the disc for a new. So if there is no disc or it's already broken/scratched/etc. you're SOL.

How often does that happen then? I've been buying games on optical discs since the early nineties and I have yet to experience any problem like this.

not so much any more. In college people I'd be in school with would brag they'd open up new games & copy them, use the CD-key's & then put it back in the box, on the shelf as new. So it happens. But buying used console games (from gamestop/eb) you're 99% guarantied you'll be satisfied vs 98%. Plus you save $5.

[quote=asmodeus]If they wanted to make money in the PC market they'd stop designing their games to depend on the latest graphics technology. One of the things that makes the "Civilization" and "Age of Empires" series so popular is that they don't require a $1,000 video card to play at the highest graphic settings.[/quote]

Right on! Same reason CS is still so popular!

Every time I buy a game and it's closed disc, then I check it immediately in the store where I bought it; hold it up to the light and check for scratches or misprints. Every so often I get one and demand a new disc. I always like the look on the faces of the salespeople. They don't have any arguments to deny me, it's not like I could copy it quickly, or they can refuse to give me a new one when the damage is clearly visible.

leifhv wrote:

How often does that happen then? I've been buying games on optical discs since the early nineties and I have yet to experience any problem like this.

Never happened to me either. But people who bought the tin box version of Halo 3 apparently had a lot of fun with this.

So where is the research for the profit loss due to used game sales? You're saving $5 by giving nothing to the game companies and all your cash to some store?

It's like piracy, but you're paying someone to pirate it for you.

I'd never buy something used unless it's over 2 years old.

stabinbac wrote:

Used games are great from a selfish point of view, but horrible from an industry point. You're basically not supporting the industry that provided the product.
To developers a used sale is a lost sale.

leifhv wrote:

While buying/selling used games it not illegal (not in my part of the world at least) there is no question that it's hurting the companies that produce the games. Less money going into the system leads to less quality games coming out of the system.
I buy all my games new...games aren't that expensive.

you both COMPLETELY missed the point I was making.

Game companies sell in the US. They sell to US consumers. Once bought the consumer can re-sell. That's the RULES of the "game" the game companies work in. Doesn't matter if it's fair, that's the rules & they know it when they sell something. If they don't like it they don't need to sell. They do the exact SAME THING. They buy equipment, use it, then they don't need it & they re-sell it. Saying people buying used games is "selfish" or "takes $$ out of the system" is BS. It's like saying Carmack is screwing "the system" because he takes $$ brought in from games to build a rocket. Or a car. Or food!

The Happy Friar wrote:

you both COMPLETELY missed the point I was making.

Not at all.

The Happy Friar wrote:

Game companies sell in the US. They sell to US consumers. Once bought the consumer can re-sell. That's the RULES of the "game" the game companies work in. Doesn't matter if it's fair, that's the rules & they know it when they sell something. If they don't like it they don't need to sell. They do the exact SAME THING. They buy equipment, use it, then they don't need it & they re-sell it.

Yes, all very obvious observations. I just said that the used-games market _is_ affecting the game companies in a negative way...but that opinion is not in any way in conflict with your quoted statements above.

The Happy Friar wrote:

Saying people buying used games is "selfish" or "takes $$ out of the system" is BS. It's like saying Carmack is screwing "the system" because he takes $$ brought in from games to build a rocket. Or a car. Or food!

Well, I don't think I've said anything like this. Still, calling those opinions BS it fairly immature. Both of the first statements are valid opinions; you might not agree (I'm not even saying that I agree with them) but we all have different values and use different considerations for our actions.

Your Carmack analogy is weak.

Quote:

SEATTLE (Reuters) - U.S. video game sales rose 28 percent in July from a year earlier, boosted by continued strong demand for Nintendo Co Ltd's (7974.OS) Wii console, according to data from research firm NPD on Thursday.
(Advertentie)

U.S. sales of video game hardware, software and accessories totaled $1.19 billion in July, with software sales growing 41 percent and hardware sales rising 17 percent, NPD said.

Helped by a steady flow of blockbuster titles, the video game industry has proved resilient to the economic hardships hitting other industries. A Nintendo representative said the company was seeing no impact from a slowdown in U.S. consumer spending.

Sony Corp's (6758.T) PlayStation 3 outsold Microsoft Corp's (MSFT.O) Xbox 360 game console in July, selling 224,900 PS3 versus 204,800 Xbox 360 machines in the United States. The Wii outsold both systems combined, tallying 555,000 units sold during the month.

Among the handhelds, Nintendo's DS sold 608,400 units in the United States in July, compared with 221,700 units for Sony's PlayStation Portable.

The top selling game in July was Electronic Arts' (ERTS.O) "NCAA Football 09," which debuted during the month. It sold nearly 400,000 units in the United States.

Nintendo's "Wii Fit" exercise game, which comes with a "balance board" that senses tiny shifts in a person's posture and is used to control a cartoonish character on the screen, came in second with 369,600 units.

Activision Blizzard's (ATVI.O) "Guitar Hero" game for the Nintendo DS, Nintendo's "Wii Play" and EA's "NCAA Football 09" for the PS3 rounded out the top five best-selling games.

Yeah, piracy is hurting the industry soooo much... :roll:

But seriously, how far do you think that such successes will hurt PC gaming? If consoles are becoming so economically viable, how long will developers continue to choose to develop for PC when developing for consoles just makes so much money?

I dunno. Hopefully it won't end, though it might get less titles coming out each year. I doubt I'll ever get a consol though. They just don't appeal to me.

Kristus wrote:

I dunno. Hopefully it won't end, though it might get less titles coming out each year. I doubt I'll ever get a consol though. They just don't appeal to me.

I have to admit I'm starting to doubt whether to buy a console, as long as I can hook it up to my wide-screen LCD (and hook up a keyboard and mouse). I have 0% experience with consoles so I don't even know if I can hook up such things. Hell will freeze over before I play an FPS with a controller or WII-mote. Mouse + Keyb. is just superior in all ways.

But it is starting to become a problem for me. There is 1 dedicated games store where I live and up until recently they had a large DVD/PC section. After I returned from holiday they shrunk it down by 90%, only keeping a handful of PC titles in favour of expanding the console sections. The only option I have now to buy PC titles is online.

As an example; they don't even sell Turok for PC, even though they have Turok for all other platforms there. The only titles they have no for PC are ETQW, COD4 and some other AA titles. All the rest was sent back, including all the budget titles.

Consoles are getting bigger and bigger which probably accounts for a large part of the increase in sales.
Piracy has ALWAYS hurt the PC industry, how can it not, but back then it was such a superior platform to consoles (at least for many genres of games) that it didn't have to compete the way it has to now.

Today though that is very different which is pretty obvious when even iD decides to develop on consoles primarily.

efx wrote:

Piracy has ALWAYS hurt the PC industry, how can it not.

There are many (and I do mean A LOT) of independent studies that claim it doesn't hurt the industry and, in fact, helps boost sales. It's really not as clear cut as many would like to believe:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9744037-16.html
http://digg.com/tech_news/Canadian_Stud ... s_CD_Sales
http://karmafan.wordpress.com/2008/01/2 ... elp-sales/
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09 ... cropiracy9
http://paulcanning.blogspot.com/2008/03 ... iness.html
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2008/080317.html
http://www.infopackets.com/news/piracy/ ... llions.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/ ... 02352.html
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ipp ... 1456e.html
http://mises.org/story/2590

I can give you about 250 more links to reports claiming that piracy in fact does not hurt business, so, no. I'd have to strongly disagree to the statement Piracy has ALWAYS hurt the PC industry, how can it not.. And with me, many, many others.

BloodRayne wrote:

Quote:

But seriously, how far do you think that such successes will hurt PC gaming? If consoles are becoming so economically viable, how long will developers continue to choose to develop for PC when developing for consoles just makes so much money?

consoles have ALWAYS been more viable then PC gaming. Only laps in console sales was between atari & NES. Besides then, it's always been a strong seller. Thanks to arcades, people WANTED to play those games @ home on a console. That never happened with PC (did for the C64 though).

If I had a game store, I wouldnt consider selling PC games, because there's just too many bugs, even in the installers.

Target, Best Buy, Circuit City & others have a greater selection of PC games then GameStop/EB. Very sad.

PC game sales figures are seriously flawed because the agencies that report the numbers almost never calculate the number of sales via online sellers (example, direct2drive, steam, etc.) so the figures end up being significantly depreciated. Console games are almost entirely sold through retail distribution which makes tracking sales very easy.

As for the piracy issue it doesn't hurt as much as it might appear. One of the funny things about software is that we seemed to have had an increase in piracy as the shareware phase dropped out of site. I kind of miss that aspect of games from the early/mid 90's.

Bittoman wrote:

PC game sales figures are seriously flawed because the agencies that report the numbers almost never calculate the number of sales via online sellers (example, direct2drive, steam, etc.) so the figures end up being significantly depreciated. Console games are almost entirely sold through retail distribution which makes tracking sales very easy.

Online retailers REFUSE to release sales figures.

It's worth noting that the "indy" scene is doing "well", it's the mainstream companies that complain a lot. IE Introversion says they do great, Activision says they're not.

"well" = happy with sales.

Kristus wrote:

I dunno. Hopefully it won't end, though it might get less titles coming out each year. I doubt I'll ever get a console though. They just don't appeal to me.

I have a Wii and a DS, my son plays Call of Duty and Medal of Honor on the Wii with a Wii Zapper extension, it's pretty darn cool. Although it's been critisized for occasional accuracy problems by some I've never experienced it as long as you stand in the right spot, I'd recommend that FPS fans should try it at least once, it's one of the coolest console FPS control schemes there is in my opinion.

I play the DS probably more than anything else, more than PC games even, I just wish id would make more stuff for the DS. That's kind of strange that in there it says the Wii was outselling the other consoles, I wish developers would take notice of that and bring some better games to it, I think the wiimote scares them off though, it's not for everyone. I've noticed that the most successful games on the Wii have been the ones that allow to you to choose between the wiimote, or a classic, or GC controller.

The Happy Friar wrote:

Target, Best Buy, Circuit City & others have a greater selection of PC games then GameStop/EB. Very sad.

I walked into a Gamestop in a mall that had exactly 0 PC games for sale.

If they wanted to make money in the PC market they'd stop designing their games to depend on the latest graphics technology. One of the things that makes the "Civilization" and "Age of Empires" series so popular is that they don't require a $1,000 video card to play at the highest graphic settings.

TelMarine wrote:

The Happy Friar wrote:

Target, Best Buy, Circuit City & others have a greater selection of PC games then GameStop/EB. Very sad.

I walked into a Gamestop in a mall that had exactly 0 PC games for sale.

I have'nt seen EB or Gamestop in my area carry PC games in years. EB used to have good, cheap, used PC games, I picked up a pre-owned copy of Hexen one time for $15.00 when a lot of stores were still selling it for $50.00. I'm wary to buy used PC games anymore now that we have CD key verification systems, you never know if the person who sold it copied the game and kept his key, that's probably why they stopped selling them probably a lot of people returned their games because the key did'nt work.

Besides it does'nt matter, EB and Gamestop are a big rip-off anymore, last time I went there I was looking at pre-owned DS games in particular and I saw most newer titles were priced at $29.99 which was only $5.00 cheaper than their retail value, most games that retailed at $19.99 were price at $17.99, only a two dollars' savings. It's not even worth it to buy a pre-owned game anymore, $5.00 to $2.00 is an insignifigant amount, if it's pre-owned the price should at least be halved, you never know what the person who owned it before did with it, he could have carried it around in his anus or something, who knows.

CrimsonHead wrote:

I'm wary to buy used PC games anymore now that we have CD key verification systems, you never know if the person who sold it copied the game and kept his key, that's probably why they stopped selling them probably a lot of people returned their games because the key did'nt work. [/i]

That's why. The whole online registrations & cd-key thing killed used PC games. I still buy some used PC games on e-bay/amazon though. As long as it doesn't phone home, it's normally ok.

Quote:

Besides it does'nt matter, EB and Gamestop are a big rip-off anymore, last time I went there I was looking at pre-owned DS games in particular and I saw most newer titles were priced at $29.99 which was only $5.00 cheaper than their retail value, most games that retailed at $19.99 were price at $17.99, only a two dollars' savings. It's not even worth it to buy a pre-owned game anymore, $5.00 to $2.00 is an insignifigant amount, if it's pre-owned the price should at least be halved, you never know what the person who owned it before did with it, he could have carried it around in his anus or something, who knows.

The advantage of pre-owned is that you can return them for a full refund. FOR ANY REASON. So if you buy a copy of GTA4 used for $55.00 & there's new for $59, you can buy the pre-owned, realize it sucks & return it. If it doesn't work, return it. If you want that hooker really really really bad, return it.

Pre-owned are better. If you buy a new game & it doesn't work, you need to deal with the publisher, no store will even look at it. Plus you can actually SEE the disc for a pre-owned BEFORE you buy. You can't see the disc for a new. So if there is no disc or it's already broken/scratched/etc. you're SOL. With an edge card you get 10% off too (basically, no sales tax in many states).

The Happy Friar wrote:

You can't see the disc for a new. So if there is no disc or it's already broken/scratched/etc. you're SOL.

How often does that happen then? I've been buying games on optical discs since the early nineties and I have yet to experience any problem like this.

not so much any more. In college people I'd be in school with would brag they'd open up new games & copy them, use the CD-key's & then put it back in the box, on the shelf as new. So it happens. But buying used console games (from gamestop/eb) you're 99% guarantied you'll be satisfied vs 98%. Plus you save $5.

[quote=asmodeus]If they wanted to make money in the PC market they'd stop designing their games to depend on the latest graphics technology. One of the things that makes the "Civilization" and "Age of Empires" series so popular is that they don't require a $1,000 video card to play at the highest graphic settings.[/quote]

Right on! Same reason CS is still so popular!

Every time I buy a game and it's closed disc, then I check it immediately in the store where I bought it; hold it up to the light and check for scratches or misprints. Every so often I get one and demand a new disc. I always like the look on the faces of the salespeople. They don't have any arguments to deny me, it's not like I could copy it quickly, or they can refuse to give me a new one when the damage is clearly visible.

leifhv wrote:

How often does that happen then? I've been buying games on optical discs since the early nineties and I have yet to experience any problem like this.

Never happened to me either. But people who bought the tin box version of Halo 3 apparently had a lot of fun with this.

So where is the research for the profit loss due to used game sales? You're saving $5 by giving nothing to the game companies and all your cash to some store?

It's like piracy, but you're paying someone to pirate it for you.

I'd never buy something used unless it's over 2 years old.

stabinbac wrote:

So where is the research for the profit loss due to used game sales? You're saving $5 by giving nothing to the game companies and all your cash to some store?
It's like piracy, but you're paying someone to pirate it for you.
I'd never buy something used unless it's over 2 years old.

US citizens "right of first sale". Once you buy something, you can re-sell it for however much you want to whomever you want (unless they're on a US terror list or something). People are selling Liesure Suit Larry collections, mint, for $200. $200 for a $50 game pack ~10 years ago.

I normally buy/sell used games on e-bay/amazon. Get more $$ & buy cheaper too. Over the past 10 or so years I've gotten burned once for $17. Saved hundreds.

The Happy Friar wrote:

US citizens "right of first sale". Once you buy something, you can re-sell it for however much you want to whomever you want (unless they're on a US terror list or something). People are selling Liesure Suit Larry collections, mint, for $200. $200 for a $50 game pack ~10 years ago.

I normally buy/sell used games on e-bay/amazon. Get more $$ & buy cheaper too. Over the past 10 or so years I've gotten burned once for $17. Saved hundreds.

All of which completely ignores my point. I never questioned it's legality, they don't expect to make money off old games (unless they re-release it), and nothing you pay for a used game goes towards supporting the developers. You save a few bucks per game, but they're out the entire cost of it.

Used games are great from a selfish point of view, but horrible from an industry point. You're basically not supporting the industry that provided the product.

To developers a used sale is a lost sale.

The Happy Friar wrote:

stabinbac wrote:

So where is the research for the profit loss due to used game sales? You're saving $5 by giving nothing to the game companies and all your cash to some store?
It's like piracy, but you're paying someone to pirate it for you.
I'd never buy something used unless it's over 2 years old.

US citizens "right of first sale". Once you buy something, you can re-sell it for however much you want to whomever you want (unless they're on a US terror list or something).

While buying/selling used games it not illegal (not in my part of the world at least) there is no question that it's hurting the companies that produce the games. Less money going into the system leads to less quality games coming out of the system.

I buy all my games new...games aren't that expensive.

leifhv wrote:

While buying/selling used games it not illegal (not in my part of the world at least) there is no question that it's hurting the companies that produce the games. Less money going into the system leads to less quality games coming out of the system.

Got a link that backs that up or is it just an opinion?

leifhv wrote:

Less money going into the system leads to less quality games coming out of the system.

I don't know.. 15+ years back the Games Industry wasn't as Dollar-Bill flooded as it is now, and it still produced quality games.

leifhv wrote:

While buying/selling used games it not illegal (not in my part of the world at least) there is no question that it's hurting the companies that produce the games. Less money going into the system leads to less quality games coming out of the system.

It's very capitalistic viewpoint that does well in many countries, but there are some fundamentals flaw in this argumentation.

1 - There are no figures, or arguments known, that suggest that people that buy the games second hand would have bought the games new if it wouldn't have been available second hand.
2 - There is nothing to say that more money equals better quality. In fact there are many arguments that suggest that there is not a distinct correlation between how much money is invested and what quality a products has. As an example I'd like to give all the free software available these days in the form high quality TC's and open source software.

rebb wrote:

I don't know.. 15+ years back the Games Industry wasn't as Dollar-Bill flooded as it is now, and it still produced quality games.

15+ years ago a development time of a year was considered very long time.

Kristus wrote:

rebb wrote:

I don't know.. 15+ years back the Games Industry wasn't as Dollar-Bill flooded as it is now, and it still produced quality games.

15+ years ago a development time of a year was considered very long time.

And a 256 colour palette was considered rich.

BloodRayne wrote:

leifhv wrote:

While buying/selling used games it not illegal (not in my part of the world at least) there is no question that it's hurting the companies that produce the games. Less money going into the system leads to less quality games coming out of the system.

It's very capitalistic viewpoint that does well in many countries, but there are some fundamentals flaw in this argumentation.

1 - There are no figures, or arguments known, that suggest that people that buy the games second hand would have bought the games new if it wouldn't have been available second hand.

Strawman argument. I never said that every used game that was sold caused exactly one lost sale of a new game.

BloodRayne wrote:

2 - There is nothing to say that more money equals better quality. In fact there are many arguments that suggest that there is not a distinct correlation between how much money is invested and what quality a products has. As an example I'd like to give all the free software available these days in the form high quality TC's and open source software.

You misunderstood. I'm not saying that pumping money into one game will ensure it's quality. I'm saying that the industry as a whole will produce more games if you put more money into it. It is probable that more games produced will also lead to more quality games being produced. (At least up to a point where lack of talent and other scarce resources will take effect.)

Also, the comparison with TCs and open source software is weak. Creating a TC is possible just because you start out with a full game (that has been funded by people buying new games). Also, it could be argued that we don't see that many TCs released these days...lots of projects start up but few are ever released. Creating a game/TC these days it a lot more work than it was a couple of years ago.

Open source software is not comparable either because the work process is so different. This is probably the reason we see so few 'big' open source games released.

leifhv wrote:

While buying/selling used games it not illegal (not in my part of the world at least) there is no question that it's hurting the companies that produce the games.

that's hogwash.

a lot of people buy games knowing that they can trade them in or sell them and then use that money towards another new game.

when will people learn that LESS restrictions are a good thing?

leifhv wrote:

[Also, the comparison with TCs and open source software is weak. Creating a TC is possible just because you start out with a full game (that has been funded by people buying new games). Also, it could be argued that we don't see that many TCs released these days...lots of projects start up but few are ever released. Creating a game/TC these days it a lot more work than it was a couple of years ago.

Weak? I don't think so. There are currently many open source 3d engines that are being used for TC's and stand alone games. In fact, open source 3d engines are getting hotter and hotter and being used more and more. None of them are based on commercial code.

But instead of trying to debunk arguments as to why (more money != more quality), how about providing arguments as to why second buying hand games hurts the quality of new games? I've not seen many arguments that 'stick'.

If people know they can sell it used, it might bring more sales first hand. After all the "screwed" person is the second hand buyer for let's say 35 rather than 55 USD. The first person shells out 20 USD permanently, the second hand buyer 35 USD, therefore 75% more.

I still prefer a game like Doom3. Buy once, built a forum around it and be happy for half a decade.

BloodRayne wrote:

Weak? I don't think so. There are currently many open source 3d engines that are being used for TC's and stand alone games. In fact, open source 3d engines are getting hotter and hotter and being used more and more. None of them are based on commercial code.

We're not talking about 3d engines...we're talking about games. 3d engines lend themselves well to the open-source model; full games do not. Hence we see lots of open-source game engines but few games.

Your theory is that the gaming industry will produce an equal amount of quality titles regardless of the (economic) size of said industry. Clearly that is not true unless the majority of game companies is not interested in making money.

BloodRayne wrote:

But instead of trying to debunk arguments as to why (more money != more quality), how about providing arguments as to why second buying hand games hurts the quality of new games? I've not seen many arguments that 'stick'.

I think I've made my point quite clear now...this isn't exactly high-level business theory.

BNA! wrote:

If people know they can sell it used, it might bring more sales first hand.

Yes, this is true...so buying a used game is better than pirating it.

pbmax wrote:

leifhv wrote:

While buying/selling used games it not illegal (not in my part of the world at least) there is no question that it's hurting the companies that produce the games.

that's hogwash.

What is?

pbmax wrote:

a lot of people buy games knowing that they can trade them in or sell them and then use that money towards another new game.

This is true...I've never claimed otherwise?

pbmax wrote:

when will people learn that LESS restrictions are a good thing?

Not sure where this statement fits in?

leifhv wrote:

Your theory is that the gaming industry will produce an equal amount of quality titles regardless of the (economic) size of said industry. Clearly that is not true unless the majority of game companies is not interested in making money.

No, no, no, no.. that's not what I'm saying at all. I am saying is that there is not a clear correlation between second hand sales and quality of games, that's your initial statement.

I would far quicker believe there is a correlation between 'quantity' and the economic size of the industry than 'quality' and the economic size of the industry.

e.g. the film industry.

I initially understood it that way too, now i think he really means that more money in the industry leads to a greater quantity, and thus ( if it could be said that a certain percentage of all games is of good quality ) a higher quantity of games that are "good".

rebb wrote:

I initially understood it that way too, now i think he really means that more money in the industry leads to a greater quantity, and thus ( if it could be said that a certain percentage of all games is of good quality ) a higher quantity of games that are "good".

Yes, that's what I meant....sorry if I was unclear.

BloodRayne wrote:

There are currently many open source 3d engines that are being used for TC's and stand alone games. In fact, open source 3d engines are getting hotter and hotter and being used more and more. None of them are based on commercial code.

I'll believe they are hot when a company uses them on the Xbox360 or PS3, otherwise they are just attractive to small projects because they share some of the features of the commercial engines which translates to less code work needing to be done (and less QA on the various video cards).

Quote:

But instead of trying to debunk arguments as to why (more money != more quality), how about providing arguments as to why second buying hand games hurts the quality of new games? I've not seen many arguments that 'stick'.

I don't think that will happen, it is just an opinion of leifhv's.

asmodeus wrote:

BloodRayne wrote:

There are currently many open source 3d engines that are being used for TC's and stand alone games. In fact, open source 3d engines are getting hotter and hotter and being used more and more. None of them are based on commercial code.

I'll believe they are hot when a company uses them on the Xbox360 or PS3, otherwise they are just attractive to small projects because they share some of the features of the commercial engines which translates to less code work needing to be done (and less QA on the various video cards).

It's not a terribly smart idea to use an open source engine as base for a commercial game, mainly due to licensing issues. So by your definition it wouldn't be impossible for any free or open source engine to be 'hot'.

stabinbac wrote:

Used games are great from a selfish point of view, but horrible from an industry point. You're basically not supporting the industry that provided the product.
To developers a used sale is a lost sale.

leifhv wrote:

While buying/selling used games it not illegal (not in my part of the world at least) there is no question that it's hurting the companies that produce the games. Less money going into the system leads to less quality games coming out of the system.
I buy all my games new...games aren't that expensive.

you both COMPLETELY missed the point I was making.

Game companies sell in the US. They sell to US consumers. Once bought the consumer can re-sell. That's the RULES of the "game" the game companies work in. Doesn't matter if it's fair, that's the rules & they know it when they sell something. If they don't like it they don't need to sell. They do the exact SAME THING. They buy equipment, use it, then they don't need it & they re-sell it. Saying people buying used games is "selfish" or "takes $$ out of the system" is BS. It's like saying Carmack is screwing "the system" because he takes $$ brought in from games to build a rocket. Or a car. Or food!

The Happy Friar wrote:

you both COMPLETELY missed the point I was making.

Not at all.

The Happy Friar wrote:

Game companies sell in the US. They sell to US consumers. Once bought the consumer can re-sell. That's the RULES of the "game" the game companies work in. Doesn't matter if it's fair, that's the rules & they know it when they sell something. If they don't like it they don't need to sell. They do the exact SAME THING. They buy equipment, use it, then they don't need it & they re-sell it.

Yes, all very obvious observations. I just said that the used-games market _is_ affecting the game companies in a negative way...but that opinion is not in any way in conflict with your quoted statements above.

The Happy Friar wrote:

Saying people buying used games is "selfish" or "takes $$ out of the system" is BS. It's like saying Carmack is screwing "the system" because he takes $$ brought in from games to build a rocket. Or a car. Or food!

Well, I don't think I've said anything like this. Still, calling those opinions BS it fairly immature. Both of the first statements are valid opinions; you might not agree (I'm not even saying that I agree with them) but we all have different values and use different considerations for our actions.

Your Carmack analogy is weak.