Take-Two hates second-hand sales
Take-Two has expressed dissatisfaction at stores like GameStop and GameStation and is moving to prevent further second-hand sales.
Fucking cunts should be honoured that people want to play their games even when they're old. Also, people will buy less new games if they have to do without the money they get from selling the old ones.
I still buy games second hand that are ten years old - timeless classics I missed the first time around. These people want a world where everything is tossed in the bin after a month and people only own the game while the publisher's authentication servers are still running and profit is being made. Stores will sell the five latest games only, from the five largest publishers. Any game that is outside this is therefore an utter failure and never deserves to be played.
They should try doing something that benefits a second-hand customer at maybe a nominal fee for, rather than something which only benefits themselves.
I'm not quite grasping where this greed is coming from actually, as by law, once an item is sold at retail (items that are for general public consumption) it can be shifted on and on again.
The record companies only get arsey occasionally when new promotional items get sold on, which is fair enough as they're not actually saleable goods.
It's a whole secondary cottage industry which, under the loverly laws of capitalism which allow companies like Take-Two to exist and make money, are perfectly fine and to be expected.
For the retail chains that deal with secondary games, like budget ones, they're an important part of their income, T2 seem be biting their nose off to spite their face, as if these companies lose a valid form of income, T2 will lose out on money if they go under as there will be a lack of retail locations to sell their games.
And if they do go, dedicated shops will spring up, or people will just trade manually, like that used to do before pre-owned games became big business after consoles became big.
I know for a fact that I've bought quite a few games second hands, probably close to 100, granted I sold most of them off again as they were mostly part of Commodore/Amiga packages on ebay and I only wanted certain bits, but my CD32 collection is made up of easily ~50% preowned games if not more, and my Wii collection is 2/3rd's preowned (cheers Lat!).
Silly greedy people ignoring the rules of commerce.
buzzmong wrote:I'm not quite grasping where this greed is coming from actually, as by law, once an item is sold at retail (items that are for general public consumption) it can be shifted on and on again.
Well for PC games at least, this doesn't apply, but I don't think any console game requires you to agree to a EULA.
EULA's arn't legally binding as such, they've been sucessfully challenged in court before now.
And, it actually does apply for PC games, as you're selling the media the game is on, not the game or the software. And I've not read a game EULA that states that the game isn't for resale, because legally they can't stop individuals afaik. The EULA does state you can't sell the software on while passing it off as yours, but not to actually selling ownership of the media.
I've not read GTA4's though, but I'd be willing to stick my neck out and say there's nothing about normal resaleing in it.
buzzmong wrote:
I've not read GTA4's though, but I'd be willing to stick my neck out and say there's nothing about normal resaleing in it.
I did try to trade this in at a game shop about a month after its release and they told me 'We can't take any more of that shit, everyone wants rid of it' if that counts?
I think they're saying that instead of selling 1mil new product which they get all the profit...they're are selling less like say .75mil and people reselling .25mil which totals 1mil sold...but only get profit from the original .75mil
Its not so much about older games...but for the ones that are being sold for the first year.
MORDETH LESTOK wrote:I think they're saying that instead of selling 1mil new product which they get all the profit...they're are selling less like say .75mil and people reselling .25mil which totals 1mil sold...but only get profit from the original .75mil
Its not so much about older games...but for the ones that are being sold for the first year.
buzzmong wrote:EULA's arn't legally binding as such, they've been sucessfully challenged in court before now.
And, it actually does apply for PC games, as you're selling the media the game is on, not the game or the software. And I've not read a game EULA that states that the game isn't for resale, because legally they can't stop individuals afaik. The EULA does state you can't sell the software on while passing it off as yours, but not to actually selling ownership of the media.
I've not read GTA4's though, but I'd be willing to stick my neck out and say there's nothing about normal resaleing in it.
Certain aspects of EULA have been challenged, but the EULA as an entity is very much legally binding. You don't own anything but permission to use the software. The software isn't yours to sell. Typically the publishers don't restrict re-sale because the idea of it is stupid but the license is typically non-transferable, meaning whoever you sell the media to needs to make a similar agreement. The publisher can choose to not make the agreement though.
Ah, basically they're getting arsey because people are wallet savvy and would rather wait for a couple of months to buy a second hand copy at 2/3rd's of the price rather than buy a new retail at full price, and because of that they're losing the profit on the people who're first playing the game by having a used copy.
I wonder why that is then, perhaps because new games at £40 for the PC and £45 for consoles is taking the piss.
They'd sell a lot more if it was still £30 for a new title, especially as the vast demographic is teens without vast amounts of income where £30 and above is a fair bit of cash.
buzzmong wrote:I wonder why that is then, perhaps because new games at £40 for the PC and £45 for consoles is taking the piss.
They'd sell a lot more if it was still £30 for a new title, especially as the vast demographic is teens without vast amounts of income where £30 and above is a fair bit of cash.
Or they could quit putting shit out and then possibly be worth the price. But then again...it is all about the money.
The concept might start with enthusiasm and creativity...but just like the movies...doesn't get done in time, not enough money, can't quite get it right, etc...but, as a "business", they still have to put it out and try to recoup what money can be had.
I still say they should have guarantees not to suck...
deject wrote:I agree they'd sell more without the ridiculous prices.
I conker.
Far Cry 2 is a good game, it cost me about £25 new. If I'd bought a slightly graphically inferior version for my 360 it was another £10/15 despite the 360 being the primary development console.
Surely they sell more console games because the gaming pc is dying? Surely they should then charge more for pc versions because of the extra work making games run well? Surely their pricing systems are backward? Or maybe they realised that charging a shit-load of money for a pc game will leave them watching their new title played by pirates.
The top comment on the article is about right for my view on take 2. Make a game with re-playability and no one will sell it on! Stop blaming other people for your short comings or your loss in profits and look at yourself. Being dicks about re-sale and charging more for games will end up with people being really picky about what they pay for and less picky about what they sweep.
I'm torn on the issue of pre-owned games. On the one hand I can't afford to be buying console games full price whenever a good one comes out. On the other hand I don't agree with the mahoosive chains making profit after profit after profit, money that could go directly to the studios that develop the games. They only make their profit once, any profit from reselling goes directly to the shop.
In the long term the games shops will always have more money than the studios which will inevitably lead to less money in the games industry.
I've always wondered about that. You see copies of big name games floating about for the 360/PS3 but not many. I think they've done quite a good job of stopping cracked/chipped stuff working by being shits and banning accounts if they detect sweepings. I possibly read they can shut down chipped 360's remotely if they connect to live, but I find that a little hard to believe.
HereComesPete wrote:Surely they sell more console games because the gaming pc is dying?
I'm reasonably sure that this is an urban myth based on the fact that pc games sales from shops have gone way down. It doesn't take into account the hueg popularity of buying games online, or the fact that mmo's charge monthly fees. Whilst both of these have, I think, happened on consoles, they are far from the norm.
In the long term the games shops will always have more money than the studios which will inevitably lead to less money in the games industry
Again, hooray online distribution. Get the shops the fuck out of the equation.
Joose wrote:I'm reasonably sure that this is an urban myth based on the fact that pc games sales from shops have gone way down. It doesn't take into account the hueg popularity of buying games online, or the fact that mmo's charge monthly fees. Whilst both of these have, I think, happened on consoles, they are far from the norm.
I was assuming that was sarcastic. PC gaming is only ever touted as dead when a next-gen console comes out, and for a year or so after. So far it's never been true.
Take-Two hates second-hand sales
