Stop buying used games. You’re HURTING publishers!

December 3rd, 2008 at 3:55 pm · 16 Comments

You bastards.  Over the years you have sold your used game property at the expense of the video game industry.  Finished with Fable 2?  If you were a DECENT human being you would put that game on the shelf and look at it for years to come.  But no.  Not you.  Your greedy ass took that 60 dollar investment and traded it or sold it away to someone else, thus defrauding the video game companies of another well-deserved 60 dollars.

Seriously, where do you get the nerve?  What gives you the right to sell your game?

Phil Harrison and David Garnder weighed in on the issue recently (see original post at gameindustry.biz), as they justifiably lamented the game publisher’s disdain for the loathsome practice of trading in games.

My favorite line was Dave’s.  He’s really in tune with what real and honest gamers think.

Second hand game sales represent consumer choice and desire. Obviously, it has economically been extremely painful for the industry… the publishers don’t benefit.”

Hear that gang?  I hope that’s a lesson for you thieving jerks.  Stop trading in your games.  It’s too painful for the publishers.

And don’t come screaming to me that it’s painful for you to fork over 60 dollars apiece for video games.  That’s YOUR JOB.

If you respect yourself in any way, I implore you to regain some of your self respect and STOP trading away your games.  Put them in a box and hide them away, and go to the store and pay FULL RETAIL likeyou’re supposed to.

Never mind that most people trade in used games to get money to buy the newer titles, thus actually selling more games than would otherwise occur.  That’s beside the point.

SOURCE:  Atari’s Phil Harrison Weighs in on Used Game Trade Debate [GAMEPOLITICS]




Related posts:

  1. 38. Stop Saying “The Cake Is A Lie.” Stop It. Stop It. Stop It!
  2. Harrison hates single player games… and seeming intelligent
  3. Phil Harrison: Make up your mind!
  4. An open letter to game developers and publishers
  5. Next Gen Victory: Who Gives A S***?

Tags:
Categories: News

16 responses so far ↓

  • Cookie says:

    Darn.

    No more Playswitch.

  • Kevmaster says:

    aren’t you supposed to be endorsing playswitch, not giving reasons to not use playswitch?

  • Whodini1 says:

    Hmm, support the games companies, who are even now coming up with new and exciting ways of charging us more money for things that should have been in the game anyway…

    Or supporting “Mark”.

    Who’s Mark? He’s my friendly independent local games retailer…

    Well Mark is an Arsenal fan… so maybe I should be looking out for Atari… Nah, sod ‘em!

  • Ha Ha Ha! Oh wow. says:

    @Kevmaster
    Missed the joke by a mile, or you’re trollan good.

    That being said, by PIRATING, no BUYING USED GAMES, you are killing PC, no CONSOLE gaming, you human scum. By pirating Gears 1 on the PC, no, BUYING GEARS 2 USED, you are depriving CliffyB of his private jet and a cigar made out of $100 bills. Shame on you.

  • Apex8 says:

    @ kevmaster

    im hoping you were being sarcastic, because its quite obvious that this article is

  • randomperson says:

    HYPOCRITES You are against trading yet you endorse playswitch lol

  • Ch1cken X says:

    Is it Friday?? I’m confused. Now my head hurts.

  • PaynTrainSG says:

    Filthy Bastards. I can’t believe, i did the same when I was finished with 12 or so of my PS2/Wii/360 titles.

  • SergeantCarnage says:

    Wow look at the comments…you would think we were on SeriousGamer.com.

    In the end I think it all evens out. People trade games and use store credit to buy new games. So the dev gets their money, it just happens to be Gamestops money, not the consumers. But a dollar is still a dollar. Sometimes the customer might opt for a used game over a new one. But the cases where this happens a day or two after the release like developers claim are not as oftern as with older games. So a develper might lose some sales to used games. But how many sales would they lose if some one didn’t have that extra $20 they got from trading in?

    If they really want to fix it let developers cut out the retailer and let us buy order games from them. Cut out the few dollars the retailer gets. They still get their piece and we get some savings.

  • Artemas says:

    Maybe sooner or later they will get the message and drop the price per game another 10 or 20$

  • Saccia says:

    So, let me get this right….. publishers like EA put up garbage DLC. When some people complain, they smile and say, “Well, people bought it so therefore the consumers want it.”

    Then the situation reverses where consumers trade used games because, *surprise*, people can’t afford to buy every game out there at $60 a pop. Now the publishers want to complain that consumers are “voting with their wallet” and trading used games so they can play games and still afford to eat. Screw publishers. Perhaps they should look at this and try to understand what the consumers want. After all, they so readily want to claim that crappy DLC is something people want.

  • outcast6 says:

    Guys, think of it this way: This DLC that “should of been of been on the game” that you put it, is the companys way of getting at least SOME money from consumers that bought the second hand games.

    You buy second hand games, the game company get little to no money, you then buy DLC for it and bam, they get some money from that game sale. You complain about DLC being expencive, etc when you need to look at it from the company trying to get some lost money,

    less second hand sales should (In theory) = cheeper/better DLC

  • profcory says:

    @outcast6

    I think what you’re saying makes sense. I still think, though, that it boils down to property rights.

    I bought the game. It belongs to me, to play on a console or throw like a frisbee. Or trade, as appears to be the case.

    As long as there isn’t any law against resale of video games (and I don’t think there is, since retailers like Gamestop engage in trading used games), then the publishers will have to suck it up and stop complaining about second-hand competition.

    In a sense, the ability to resell games should encourage developers to release more new games than they might if there were no second-hand sales. If they made the extra money by selling everything first-hand, they might not feel compelled to frequently publish products. And of course, they have to be good games, if they want people to buy them.

  • Doc says:

    complaining about resale of games would be like Ford saying that you trading in your clunker F150 at CarMax is hurting them.

    Frickin corporate goobs. One of the main times I trade in a game is when I want a new one and cant afford it.

  • caffeinedisaster says:

    @ Doc
    Totally agree. Most of my games are secondhand, simply because it’s far more economical for me to pay $15 @ a pawn shop to get a game that is $60 brand new. AND it takes forever for them to drop the price.

  • kim andre says:

    doc playswich your hypocrith don’t post a post like this when you like playswich!

Leave a Reply