Buying used games equivelent to pirating?

[DrakeRaids]

I was reading one of the Penny Arcade news blogs (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/25/) when they pointed this out, something I found to be an intriguing line of thought. Now I'm not someone who rampantly buys and turns in used games, I've done it a few times, but generally I like to buy new, if only so I know it will work. I know people have been railing against the used buying system for some time, but it was always white noise to me. Perhaps it was because the concept of online piracy has always interested me ( In one way or another :smallredface: No one is perfect ) so this analogue hit me fairly hard.

Stores like Gamestop really are becoming a parasite upon the gaming community as a whole, not really producing anything, simply recycling old waste and constantly reaping the reward. I will admit its a brilliant business model, gamer #1 buys a game at full price, beats it, trades it in, Gamer #2 buys the used game, beats it, turns it, gamer #3 then buys it, and so on and so forth, but with the developer not seeing a cent and still having multiple people buy the game, can this really be healthy? And in the long run can the industry even support something like this?

If I may be so bold I would say this may be a bigger problem then the issue of pirates stealing games, over 100 million used games are sold annually (http://paidcontent.org/article/419-the-u.s.-used-games-market-100-million-units-worth-2-billion/), in the U.S alone. How can this be anything but bad for us? Computer games are already slowly slipping into what can only be described as DRM hell, forcing players to be online at all times with a registered copy in many games just to access basic functions! One of the reasons I like consoles is I don't have to deal with some of that, yet is looks like we're going down the same slippery slope.

I like games, and I like gaming, so seeing the market hurt like this... It worries me. I just hope something happens before we get over our head, because unless something changes soon console gamers may see one of the most brutal game overs ever.

[dsmiles]

Sorry, I'm of the opposite opinion.

For instance: I have a bunch of old games sitting around, that I don't play anymore. Somebody may as well get some use out of them.

Another: I like a game that was produced years ago. It is no longer in production, because the company that produced it was bought out by a corporate machine who cares nothing for the likes/dislikes of the consumers. (Master of Magic and Microprose, anyone?) How would you propose that I get a copy of said game, without buying used (hypothetically, since I already own a copy of MoM)?

I can understand, possibly, a small fee to re-register a game with a new owner, but at full price, I may not buy the game at all (speaking as a buyer of used games). Even as it stands now, I generally wait until a game hits the clearance rack/bargain bin before I buy it. The prices on these things are getting outrageous anymore.

[DrakeRaids]

I understand some of your points, but the main point here, is shouldn't people try and support and industry they care about and want to succeed? If they aren't making the game anymore the whole point is moot of course, but if it is, why would you not want to reward the people who made it for their work and effort? Why not shell of those extra bucks so that there can be a next game you can enjoy, and another game after that? The whole concept of buying used games seems dangerously shortsighted...

[SparkMandriller]

Maybe developers should make games which people will actually want to keep instead of selling?

[dsmiles]

Soooooo...what do you propose we do with old games that aren't used anymore?

I'm saying that a possible solution is a "re-licensing fee" which is significantly less than the full price of the game. Because, honestly, are you going to pay full price for a game that's more than a year or two old?

Personally, I'd rather go without.

EDIT:
@SparkMandriller: Probably never happen. They're too interested in profiting off of what's currently "hot." Some games will never die (MoM, for example, which I still play regularly), but aren't sold anymore, except used or as collector's items.

[Cubey]

I'm sorry DrakeRaids, I disagree completely. This is not piracy - I have full rights to sell a copy I own to someone else, thus transferring ownership rights to them. Just as I can give it away to someone, as a present for example.

It's the publishers who are guilty here. Guilty of greed. Remember when one guy or the other (I am sorry, I really cannot recall his name at the moment) tried to persuade everyone that making a backup copy of a disc for your own personal use is the same as pirating it? This is just greed. DRM is a plague, caused by short-sightedness indeed: but the short-sighted ones are publishers, not the customers.

[TheEmerged]

I understand some of your points, but the main point here, is shouldn't people try and support and industry they care about and want to succeed? If they aren't making the game anymore the whole point is moot of course, but if it is, why would you not want to reward the people who made it for their work and effort? Why not shell of those extra bucks so that there can be a next game you can enjoy, and another game after that? The whole concept of buying used games seems dangerously shortsighted...

Yes, and I do -- by buying them. But my obligation ends with my purchase. It's been pretty obvious to me from the first game I bought back in the mid 80's that they don't trust me, so I feel no obligation to help them beyond the transaction.

So if I can buy an enjoyable game for $5 and no strings attached, why should I pay $60 for a third of a game? Or participate in a model where I'm only renting the game (unless, like WoW, I feel I'm getting my money's worth)?

We call this capitalism. I'm allowed to make choices based on value, and you'd better believe I will. I don't owe them anything except the purchase price or subsription I'm willing to pay for the value I feel I'm getting.

[SparkMandriller]

It's the publishers who are guilty here. Guilty of greed.

It is pretty impossible to take them seriously when they do stuff like selling DLC which is already on the disc, isn't it? They say secondhand game sales are a huge problem, but they probably think not being able to sell their games for hundreds of dollars each is a problem too.

[dsmiles]

It is pretty impossible to take them seriously when they do stuff like selling DLC which is already on the disc, isn't it? They say secondhand game sales are a huge problem, but they probably think not being able to sell their games for hundreds of dollars each is a problem too.

Clue me in here. DLC?

[Cubey]

DLC == downloadable content.

And even more than that, I am annoyed about DRM. Sure, treat real customers like potential pirates, make them jump through the loops, while the actual pirates disabled their copies' DRM long ago and can play hassle-free.

I cannot take the publishers seriously with happenings like that. I'm still buying original titles because I am not a pirate - but as long as I do not break law (copyright or otherwise), they have no rights to tell me what I can or cannot do with my copy.

[Makensha]

Is reselling furniture the equivalent of stealing? What about houses? What about clothes? Resale is a part of the economy, not just gaming.

[Wardog]

Any second-hand game has to come from someone who bought it new, and buy buying it off them, you are giving them more money to spend on new games.


Buying games second hand only hurts the industry if:
1) every game that you bought second hand you would otherwise have bought new
2) every game you did buy new you would still have bought, even though you would have less money to spend as a result of not getting some of your games second hand / selling your old games.


If there was no second-hand market, I expect some people whould buy some of their games new that they would have otherwise bought second hand, but other people would just not buy them at all, including people who would have bought a new game intending to sell it later.

So you can't say for sure that the second-hand market does much to harm the industry, if it does any at all.

Plus, by buying cheap/second hand games, you may discover a series/genre/developer you otherwise wouldn't have known about, and buy their stuff new in the future.


Besides, I don't see anything moraly different between buying second-hand games and buying second-hand anything else (books, clothes, cars, etc).

[banjo1985]

Got to agree with the rest here I think. If I've bought a game at full price and beat it, I can't see a problem with trading it in for either a bit of cash or another preowned title or even a new one.

The games industry isn't losing out from my point of view. If I'm allowed to trade in a finished game, the game industry benefits as I'll inevitably use the proceeds from that to fuel a future game purchase, most likely a new one. If I can't trade in said game, I'll either wait until the new game I want goes cheap, or not buy it at all. Thus, by not allowing me to trade in the games industry misses out on my hard earned money.

I think a lot of people are like that with their games.

[Coidzor]

Pretty sure it's part of the property rights inherent in purchase of a physical product, at least here.

The unpleasant repercussions of what you say being applied to anything else (because once you apply jurisprudence to one sphere successfully, it sets a judicial precedent which WILL spread it.) is reason enough to oppose this idea as it has cropped up in this thread.

[Xefas]

I understand some of your points, but the main point here, is shouldn't people try and support and industry they care about and want to succeed?

This isn't a charity.

A business makes money by producing a product I want to buy, and then I buy it. If the business is dumb and doesn't produce a product I want to buy, then it doesn't get my money. I don't feed it money for failure. That would only cause stagnation and decline, because there is no incentive to improve when you can just get money for begging.

Maybe they'll evolve eventually past the brick-and-mortar store and needless plastic disks and only sell games online through stuff like Steam. With Steam, I can gift a game to someone, but there is no trading in, and no re-sale. And Steam has some tolerable DRM. Isn't that what the game folk want? Why don't they just do that?

[SparkMandriller]

Clue me in here. DLC?

Downloadable content. Sometimes you pay and you get to download some new missions or whatever, and all is well. Sometimes you pay, and it turns out that what you just bought was really a code to unlock something that you'd had on the disc all along, but that the devs locked just so they could sell it to you later. It's just, guys, seriously?

[dsmiles]

Downloadable content. Sometimes you pay and you get to download some new missions or whatever, and all is well. Sometimes you pay, and it turns out that what you just bought was really a code to unlock something that you'd had on the disc all along, but that the devs locked just so they could sell it to you later. It's just, guys, seriously?

Ah. Got it. You'll have to excuse me, I'm old and cranky, and haven't head all of these ak-ro-nim thingies you whippersnappers are using these days. On that note...

DLC is all well and good, if it wasn't on the disk to begin with. Paying a separate price to fully utilize the data on the disk that I already paid for is a load of crap. And to this I say, "Raise the B.S flag, mateys! We're gonna pirate our already-paid-for ones and zeroes!"

[endoperez]

When people talk about used games, it's actually used CONSOLE games. Used PC game market is tiny compared to used console market. I made the same mistake a while ago, but was corrected.

A small re-licensing fee was suggested in this thread. Some companies are starting to use something like that in their console games. When you buy a new game, you get a code that you can use to download extra stuff. If you buy the game used and the code was used already, you don't get the extra content unless you pay few dollars, the amount depending on the game. Some companies use something like this, except that the actual game data is stored on the discs themselves; that way those with poor connection only need to register, and not download, the extra data.


DRM isn't necessarily made to protect against professional pirates.
Copying games for friends can be a big loss for game developers, especially if it's a LAN game or something. Preventing even some of that may be enough to more than offset the lost customers.
Another thing DRM may help with, is preventing zero-day piracy. Most games unfortunately get like 90% of their sales soon after release. If the game's available at torrent sites a week after release, many of those who want to try it have already bought it before they had the other option. If the game's available at torrent sites a week before release, many of those who want to buy it have already tried it before, perhaps even completed it if it wasn't a long game and they liked it a lot...


It's a rather recent trend, but companies have started noticing that game may turn profitable if it sells LONG ENOUGH, even if it didn't start with a bang. Titan's Quest is one such game; it had a very long tale. It even made profit! That's quite good, when you consider that 80% of released games don't make profit. My source is the Grim Dawn promo interview (http://news.bigdownload.com/2010/07/14/interview-crate-entertainments-co-founder-talks-about-grim-daw/).

One way this trend can be seen is the fact that Planescape: Torment and many other classics have been re-released. Another example is Good Old Games. They are the answer to the rhetorical question of "where would I get Master of Magic without used games", and also to the more common, definitely non-rhetorical question of "how can I get Master of Magic to work on my new computer?" With the PC games moving towards digital publishing, there are no more costs for storing the physical copies, and there's no need for costly new printing runs. It won't be perfect. Some problems will undoubtedly surface, if not soon then a decade to the future, but at least we'll be able to BUY the games we want to play, in the meantime.

[Mystic Muse]

If game companies want me to pay $60 for a new game Then they have to make me want to buy the new game. I don't think I've gotten a new game since the legend of Zelda Twilight princess because nothing appeals to me. The only game I know that I'll enjoy for sure is The new legend of Zelda game.


Plus, if used games go away I can no longer buy some of my favorites because they've since been discontinued.

[dsmiles]

non-rhetorical question of "how can I get Master of Magic to work on my new computer?"

Tried DOSBox?

EDIT:
@Kyuubi: Your interest in Zelda games is pretty obvious. Be careful, your Link is showing. :smallbiggrin:

[Zevox]

I'm sorry DrakeRaids, I disagree completely. This is not piracy - I have full rights to sell a copy I own to someone else, thus transferring ownership rights to them. Just as I can give it away to someone, as a present for example.

Is reselling furniture the equivalent of stealing? What about houses? What about clothes? Resale is a part of the economy, not just gaming.
These. Buying things used is a part of how our little capitalist economy works. Once you buy something, it's yours, and you can sell it to someone else, including a store willing to buy it back for resale, if you please. I'm pretty darn sure this hasn't killed any other industries yet, and I know I don't see it killing the video game industry. All those used games have to have been bought new by someone to begin with in order to be used, after all.

Besides, personally, if I'm buying a game used, it means I either cannot get it new anymore (mostly old games, such as for the PS2 I picked up only after the new generation of consoles hit) or I would not be willing to buy it at full price either because I don't believe it's worth that (for instance, Too Human) or I'm not certain I will like it but don't have the chance to rent it to see (the first BlazBlue game, for example - which, since I found I liked it quite a bit, prompted me to then go and buy the second new).

Zevox

[DrakeRaids]

Well well, you all have mad several good points, which I will respond to in the best of my ability. The outcry against this is interesting, and its made me rethink my opinion on the matter as well. Nevertheless, I'll remain the Devils Advocate in this case.



It's the publishers who are guilty here. Guilty of greed. Remember when one guy or the other (I am sorry, I really cannot recall his name at the moment) tried to persuade everyone that making a backup copy of a disc for your own personal use is the same as pirating it? This is just greed. DRM is a plague, caused by short-sightedness indeed: but the short-sighted ones are publishers, not the customers.

Blaming DRM entirely on Publishers and Developers is silly an immature. DRMs often hurt sales, Publishers know this. If it wasn't enough of an issue to warrant losing customers they already had, why would they do it? Despite public opinion, they aren't stupid, simply, as you said, greedy, and will take the route that will lead to the most sales. Piracy, has unfortunately made this route DRMs. And from a sales point of view, how is buying it used any different from pirating it?



So if I can buy an enjoyable game for $5 and no strings attached, why should I pay $60 for a third of a game? Or participate in a model where I'm only renting the game (unless, like WoW, I feel I'm getting my money's worth)?

We call this capitalism. I'm allowed to make choices based on value, and you'd better believe I will. I don't owe them anything except the purchase price or subsription I'm willing to pay for the value I feel I'm getting.

This has nothing to do with what you owe them. There is a difference between not supporting a game beyond buying, then reselling it, reaping your own profits and hurting they're own sales. If you're willing to choose to a cheaper game used on the basis of "Capitalism," regardless of the effect on the industry as a whole, then all you're doing is creating a self destructive system that in the end, will help no one.


It is pretty impossible to take them seriously when they do stuff like selling DLC which is already on the disc, isn't it? They say secondhand game sales are a huge problem, but they probably think not being able to sell their games for hundreds of dollars each is a problem too.

The on the disc DLC is often misinterpreted badly. Its not an effort to make you pay for the game twice, its a few, extra bonus features that while totally unnecessary to the game some people may enjoy. Why would you be happier if you your forced to download all the content online when, instead, you could have it in a fraction of the time by simply getting an unlock?



If there was no second-hand market, I expect some people whould buy some of their games new that they would have otherwise bought second hand, but other people would just not buy them at all, including people who would have bought a new game intending to sell it later.

So you can't say for sure that the second-hand market does much to harm the industry, if it does any at all.


At first, this was my thoughts, but after seeing the statistics for how many used games where sold, I can't help but sing a different tun. While only roughly five percent of brand new games are bought used, roughly 1/3 of all games sold in the U.S are.


Is reselling furniture the equivalent of stealing? What about houses? What about clothes? Resale is a part of the economy, not just gaming.

Those products degrade. A old house or car will continue to fuel the economy, a used shirt may need to be mended, but a used game, just by putting it in your case after your done, will last for a very long time, all the while offering nothing back to the people who made it, or the economy as a whole.

Note: Do not get me wrong, I'm not arguing against buying used copies of games that are no longer produced, this argument is specifically for picking up a game used when a new one is sitting idly on the shelf.

[factotum]

Those products degrade. A old house or car will continue to fuel the economy, a used shirt may need to be mended, but a used game, just by putting it in your case after your done, will last for a very long time, all the while offering nothing back to the people who made it, or the economy as a whole.


Except, as already pointed out, the money you spend on the second-hand game is probably used by the person you bought it from to buy new stuff. As for the length of time they last, I don't see what that has to do with it--my car is seven years old (can't afford to replace it), but there won't be many people around still playing games from 2003!

I also agree with those who say this hasn't killed any other industry yet. In particular, you don't hear film companies saying that people who sell second-hand DVDs are tantamount to pirates for not buying the things new--why are videogames somehow special in this regard?

[Mystic Muse]

Well, like I said, make me want to buy your game new if you want me to buy it new. If you're going to produce stuff I'm not interested in then you shouldn't expect me to buy the game.

I'm remaining cautiously optimistic about Fable 3 though. Also, hoping an elder scrolls 5 comes out and they fix what was wrong with oblivion.

[endoperez]

Tried DOSBox?

Yes. That's actually what Good Old Games uses (at least for some games). The point was, if you're buying it to play, why not buy the version already set up to work on modern computers?

[SparkMandriller]

The on the disc DLC is often misinterpreted badly. Its not an effort to make you pay for the game twice, its a few, extra bonus features that while totally unnecessary to the game some people may enjoy. Why would you be happier if you your forced to download all the content online when, instead, you could have it in a fraction of the time by simply getting an unlock?

I wouldn't be that much happier with that. I'd be happier if developers didn't deliberately cut content from their games just so they could sell it for extra later. It's not like it's not finished or ready to go if it's already on the disc. I dunno, maybe I'm weird, but when I buy a game I actually expect to get the game, not the game minus whatever the devs felt like.

Are you being paid by EA or something? :/


As for the length of time they last, I don't see what that has to do with it--my car is seven years old (can't afford to replace it), but there won't be many people around still playing games from 2003!

Hey, hey, you must be forgetting Big Rigs! Can't put it down.

[valadil]

Used book stores are killing the publishing industry!

FACT: Profit made off of used books goes to the store who sold you the book, not the publisher or even the author. Used book store owners are greedy swine exploiting capitalism for their own benefit.

And if you think used book stores are bad, take a look at the local library. They whore out books and don't even take a profit.

Save reading! Burn a public library!

--

Seriously, if you think buying used games is the same as piracy, you're sipping the EA kool-aid. They're the ones exploiting you, not GameStop (although GS exploits you in other ways, but that's another matter). Video games are no different than any other property you purchase. If buying used games is the same as pirating, buying a used car is grand theft auto (game reference not intended).

I could list examples all day, but that won't get us anywhere. Look at it this way. If you're buying a used game, somebody must have sold that game, right? The person who sold it more than likely used the profit to buy another game. That's what people do. They go to GameStop and trade in their used games and get a little cash to spend on new games. When GameStop sells you a used game, that money eventually winds up going to the person who sold GameStop the game and then it goes towards a new game. If people stopped buying used games, other people would no longer be able to sell used games, and therefore have less cash around for buying new games.

[Zevox]

I wouldn't be that much happier with that. I'd be happier if developers didn't deliberately cut content from their games just so they could sell it for extra later. It's not like it's not finished or ready to go if it's already on the disc. I dunno, maybe I'm weird, but when I buy a game I actually expect to get the game, not the game minus whatever the devs felt like.
I can agree with this. DLC is a good idea - when it's content being added to the game after it is released. When the developers are creating the content during the main game creation and consciously leaving it out of the main game, especially if it's actually on the disk but just locked, in order to sell it as DLC shortly after the release, that's a problem.

Zevox

[shadow_archmagi]

1. If I get a free copy of a game from my pirate friend, that's evil piracy because the devs get no money

2. If I get a free copy of a game from my just-became-amish friend, that's evil piracy because the devs get no money

3. If I get a $20 copy of the game from my used game store, that's evil piracy because the devs get no money

4. If I make a backup copy of the game so that I don't have to buy a second when my original one gets stepped on by accident, that's evil piracy because the devs get no money

5. If I don't buy a game because my friend said wasn't very good, that's evil piracy because the devs get no money

[dsmiles]

1. If I get a free copy of a game from my pirate friend, that's evil piracy because the devs get no money

2. If I get a free copy of a game from my just-became-amish friend, that's evil piracy because the devs get no money

3. If I get a $20 copy of the game from my used game store, that's evil piracy because the devs get no money

4. If I make a backup copy of the game so that I don't have to buy a second when my original one gets stepped on by accident, that's evil piracy because the devs get no money

5. If I don't buy a game because my friend said wasn't very good, that's evil piracy because the devs get no money

You...you...evil pirate, you!

[shadow_archmagi]

You...you...evil pirate, you!

Not only do I do ALL OF THE ABOVE, but I also sometimes refrain from taking my existing games and smashing them with a hammer, thus denying developers the replacement money!

[Ignition]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you treat your customers like criminals, they will become criminals. If your business model relies on your customers being too afraid to not buy your products, then you have a faulty business model. If your product isn't good enough for you to make enough profit on sales, then produce a better product.

This isn't a matter of supporting an industry. It's a matter of encouraging poor business practices and outdated design methodology.

Ultimately? It doesn't matter. They're bloody games, a luxury item; if you're not making enough money off of a luxury item, it's time to re-evaluate your design decisions, not manipulate your customers/accounting practices to make your current products look better than they actually are. What's that quote I saw in a sig line? "Quitters never win, and winners never quit, but people who never win and never quit are morons"? Yeah. I think that applies here.

[valadil]

I understand some of your points, but the main point here, is shouldn't people try and support and industry they care about and want to succeed?

I support companies who treat me like a person and not like a cash mine. If EA wants to sell me a game for $60 and then tell me "no sellbacks" I don't want to support them. I especially don't want to support them if they expect me to pay them to register a used game I bought.

I will support companies who do things right. Valve lets me gift away my digital copies. I've never actually done this, but I like having the option.

Why haven't I had to do this? Because Valve has figured out how to sell me new copies of older games. Yesteryear's games can usually be had for less than $20 with Valve. And they have frequent sales. I think I just saw Borderlands for $10. They've undercut the used game option. I'd rather give Valve $10 directly than $5 to GameStop and $5 to EA to register. It's still greedy of Valve to undersell the used game competition, but it doesn't hurt the consumer and so I support that business model.

[Ranielle]

Seems like you're all getting trolled. So it's pirating when you lend your books to someone? Libraries are stealing the work of authors?

[valadil]

Seems like you're all getting trolled. So it's pirating when you lend your books to someone? Libraries are stealing the work of authors?

Nah, Penny Arcade insulted people who buy used games so people all over the netterwebs are making this argument.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8/25/

[shadow_archmagi]

Steam rules!

True. My friend bought me the Star Wars pack and I got five older games for the price of 10 dollars. One of which I am playing (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156162) at the moment.


Gift Digital Copies!

I don't think you can, actually. I know you can purchase something as a gift, and then send it to someone, but you can't say "I'm done playing civ4. Carl can have it now"

[John Cribati]

Maybe developers should make games which people will actually want to keep instead of selling?

Replay value only goes so far. Take the Fire Emblem games for the GBA. After you unlock all the characters and the music files, and get a 5 star rating in everything, all that's left is to play the game for the sake of the Support conversations, which would more or less be "sit in this one place and do nothing for X amount of turns." And then what? Female only Runs. No Magic-user runs, Horses Only Runs. All with the same exact plot.

[Murska]

Replay value only goes so far. Take the Fire Emblem games for the GBA. After you unlock all the characters and the music files, and get a 5 star rating in everything, all that's left is to play the game for the sake of the Support conversations, which would more or less be "sit in this one place and do nothing for X amount of turns." And then what? Female only Runs. No Magic-user runs, Horses Only Runs. All with the same exact plot.

But, as is the case with good games and should be the case with all games, there's enough replay value that once you're done playing the game and willing to sell it, enough time has already passed that almost all people who were going to buy the game new have already done so.

[Blayze]

Not only do I do ALL OF THE ABOVE, but I also sometimes refrain from taking my existing games and smashing them with a hammer, thus denying developers the replacement money!

And I have a habit of copying my game discs to .iso files, in order to preserve the physical copy for as long as possible!

I know, I know. I'm a horrible, horrible person for taking care of my property. I suggest we ban MoTs! Make car maintenance illegal! Let's see how smug the devs are when their cars fall apart.

[Fri]

This... makes me sad. Really.

Closest thing I could compare with games is books. They're kinda similar, mainly it's not actually the 'physical' thing that's sold/traded, but the idea/intelectual things. They're not played in the cinema first like movies on dvds. They got most of their money from those 'first week buying' or what you call it (maybe. I'm not sure).

This would means that I pirated about 90% of the novels I own... Sure, from the publisher's/author's point of view none of the moneys actually go to their pocket, but... sigh. Technically they're true about used game buyers aren't actually the developer's customers but...

will buying used books will be considered piracy in the future?

[Triaxx]

Here's the problem though. New games cost money to develop, even Madden which consists mainly of updating the stats for new players. Developed and released games can now consist of pure profit.

I don't object to companies wanting to make money. I have no problem with effective and non-invasive anti-piracy measures. Disc checks, features that let you have good things for registering, and having a legal copy. Even if it's no more than disallowing you from downloading DLC without one.

Ubisoft and EA have taken it too far, and I'm not buying anything from them until it goes away. If it never goes away, well...

[valadil]

I don't think you can, actually. I know you can purchase something as a gift, and then send it to someone, but you can't say "I'm done playing civ4. Carl can have it now"

Are you sure? I don't actually use Steam that often (I'm a linux user), but I definitely have giftable copies of games that I never purchased as gifts. The other forum I spend most of my time on, reddit, gets a lot of posts about people trading or gifting games to each other.

-edit-

Looked it up, you're right.

At any rate I still say Steam does it better. Instead of charging used game purchasers extra, they undercut the used games resellers. This rewards customers instead of punishing them. I'm okay with cutting GameStop out of the used games loop.

[MrPig]

At any rate I still say Steam does it better. Instead of charging used game purchasers extra, they undercut the used games resellers. This rewards customers instead of punishing them. I'm okay with cutting GameStop out of the used games loop.

My only beef with Steam is that they charge you the same price as GameStop does (sales excluded), without actually providing you with the physical media. However, given their colosal bandwith costs, I suppose it's a small price to pay for essentially unlimited installs as well as having the peace of mind of never losing your product key.

[valadil]

My only beef with Steam is that they charge you the same price as GameStop does (sales excluded), without actually providing you with the physical media. However, given their colosal bandwith costs, I suppose it's a small price to pay for essentially unlimited installs as well as having the peace of mind of never losing your product key.

Only for new games. Old stuff is pretty cheap and they frequently have sales.

[MrPig]

Only for new games. Old stuff is pretty cheap and they frequently have sales.

Yeah, I was referring to new games. It's minor beef. I love Steam in it's current state and that's comeing from someone who absolutely despised it when it first came out.

[shadow_archmagi]

Only for new games. Old stuff is pretty cheap and they frequently have sales.

Yeah; I remember one Christmas Half Life 1 was going for a dollar each.

Someone bought 50 copies and gifted them all out

[Zevox]

At any rate I still say Steam does it better. Instead of charging used game purchasers extra, they undercut the used games resellers. This rewards customers instead of punishing them. I'm okay with cutting GameStop out of the used games loop.
Considering GameStop's used games are pretty much all console ones and Steam is a PC gaming distributor, I somehow doubt they impact each other very much.

Zevox

[KBF]

People get really defensive about this subject. People hate being told that what's easy and best for them is not actually best for them. Or everyone.

A lot of people here are calling on 'capitalism' like it works in a system where everyone trades games around so that a game can be sold and played and enjoyed and be recommended and wanted but only pay the people responsible 1/6th of the time that happens. I disagree that reselling the old stuff is okay, because you are still perpetuating a system where developers don't get paid. There is no guarantee that you will use that money for another game, but even so you're still letting someone else not pay the developers. The used game trade in system is horribly broken in favor of Gamestop. And I admit it's wrong. Is it really so hard to admit you're wrong? That what you do is not in the best interest of the industry that's providing you with games? I'm sure it's so easy to demonize the other side. It's so easy to call them greedy.

But we're the one who's avoiding paying them. We did not pay the ones who did most of the work.

I bought Blazblue used. I then bought the newer Blazblue. Not gonna lie, I would have bought the latter anyway. Aksys Games should be getting some of that profit, but guess what? I bought it, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and they got none of my cash. It's wrong. Gamestop should be sharing some of that profit, but they have no incentive. I will not be selling it.

Hell, I thought games were software? Software ownership doesn't even work like property ownership. You 'buy' software, you're buying a license to use that software. Just pondering it now, it's kind of odd that console games can be resold at all, but I guess there is no installation or anything..

But you know, I have all this music lying around. And hey, I can copy it infinitely. Someone should get some use out of that. I guess selling it should be okay. /poorlyconstructedstrawman???

[warty goblin]

I get the picture, reading this thread, that people are really missing the point of what's going on here.

THQ wants to stop people who buy used games from using multiplayer. The reasons for this should be obvious: running servers costs money. It's a service for which the used game buyer did not pay the provider. Furthermore it's clearly an additional expense for the game manufacturer because the person who sells their game is done with it, they've decided they aren't going to play the multiplayer anymore. The publisher has, at this point, paid all the overhead for the multiplayer service for the original costumer who's money they actually got. But when the person who rebuys they game starts to play, they force the publisher to cough up to continue to provide the multiplayer without paying them a cent.

The consumer of used games therefore directly costs the publisher money. In short the publisher isn't losing the hypothetical money the used purchaser would have paid them for the new game - even on sale - but the used purchaser is a net expense.

So I really don't see a problem with the publishers deciding that they aren't going to provide services to people who don't pay them for the privilege. It's possible that the publishers could make money by selling multiplayer codes independently of the game itself and so as to re-monitize the used games market, but it could also be that the overhead of such a system is not worth it.

[dsmiles]

Only for new games. Old stuff is pretty cheap and they frequently have sales.

Yeah, no kidding. I got Portal for free, Torchlight for like $5, and The Elder Scrolls Uber pack GOTY edition for like $10.

EDIT:
@ warty goblin: Multiplayer? I don't play...anything...multiplayer. I'm costing the producer of multiplayer games money? Does this mean that they'll stop producing online multiplayer games finally, and we can go back to LAN parties or single player? YAY!

[KBF]

EDIT:
@ warty goblin: Multiplayer? I don't play...anything...multiplayer. I'm costing the producer of multiplayer games money? Does this mean that they'll stop producing online multiplayer games finally, and we can go back to LAN parties or single player? YAY!

Most of us are extroverts, so no luck there. A game where I can't hang with the GitP Steam thread guys is a game I don't play very often.

[shadow_archmagi]

we can go back to LAN parties or single player? YAY!


You... can't have LAN parties now?

[dsmiles]

Most of us are extroverts, so no luck there. A game where I can't hang with the GitP Steam thread guys is a game I don't play very often.

I like my multiplayer like I like my dinner. (At a table, with people.) That's why I play DnD.

@shadow Archmagi: Point in fact...Starcraft 2.

[shadow_archmagi]

@shadow Archmagi: Point in fact...Starcraft 2.

Starcraft 2 is the only game I know of like that and I was seriously surprised to find it used that system.

I'm pretty sure (IF I AM WRONG DO NOT CORRECT ME BECAUSE I PREFER THE ILLUSION) that it's in the minority.

[dsmiles]

Starcraft 2 is the only game I know of like that and I was seriously surprised to find it used that system.

I'm pretty sure (IF I AM WRONG DO NOT CORRECT ME BECAUSE I PREFER THE ILLUSION) that it's currently in the minority.

Fixed it for you. All of these companies are greed fueled capitalist corporate monsters, and will start charging us to use their servers to play their games. It's the next logical step from only online play...wait...it's already starting...just look at WoW...I buy the game, I pay for the interwebz connection... now I have to pay to play the game? I say to you again, "Raise the B.S. flag, mateys! We're pirating us a free server!"

[KBF]

I like my multiplayer like I like my dinner. (At a table, with people.) That's why I play DnD.

I have a hard time sitting down with British and Australian people at the same time, personally. I love the GitP crowd, and though maybe I'd rather hang out with them in person, I still want to hang out with them in a game. Which makes games where I can't, lacking. Even single player games I usually try to find a way to talk to friends over Steam while I play. It's more fun.

It's just hard for me to imagine preferring to play in radio silence all the time, but I suppose that's what makes the human experience unique. Each to their own.


Fixed it for you. All of these companies are greed fueled capitalist corporate monsters, and will start charging us to use their servers to play their games. It's the next logical step from only online play...wait...it's already starting...just look at WoW...I buy the game, I pay for the interwebz connection... now I have to pay to play the game? I say to you again, "Raise the B.S. flag, mateys! We're pirating us a free server!"

Servers aren't free. If you have a long running game that uses a fair amount of data and requires a lot connections.. The cost of running the server can outweigh the income from the game. Especially in a development studio that constantly refines the game, and needs to pay all the people doing that a livable income alone.

Who's being greedy, again?
No, the answer is actually everyone.

[deuxhero]

I have a hard time sitting down with British and Australian people at the same time, personally. I love the GitP crowd, and though maybe I'd rather hang out with them in person, I still want to hang out with them in a game. Which makes games where I can't, lacking. Even single player games I usually try to find a way to talk to friends over Steam while I play. It's more fun.

It's just hard for me to imagine preferring to play in radio silence all the time, but I suppose that's what makes the human experience unique. Each to their own.



Servers aren't free. If you have a long running game that uses a fair amount of data and requires a lot connections.. The cost of running the server can outweigh the income from the game. Especially in a development studio that constantly refines the game, and needs to pay all the people doing that a livable income alone.

Who's being greedy, again?
No, the answer is actually everyone.


User run PC servers have given me better online than any console service people pay for.

[Suedars]

Here's another angle to the debate:

The buying and selling of used games rewards companies that put out solid, polished, finished releases, while punishing those that shove out bug-ridden crap intending to patch it a few months later.

When I'm buying from a company whose games are completely playable from release day, I'll go out and buy the game the day it's released, especially if it's a quality game that I've been looking forward to. On the other hand, if a company is known for shoveling out incomplete games, I have no reason to buy the game until 6 months after its release. And at that point I'll probably pick up a used copy since it's cheaper, and it's not like I have any loyalty to a studio that sells unfinished games to fund their last few months of development.

[Ignition]

Technically, for WoW, you're paying for a stream of new content and ongoing support for the product as well as the use of their servers. Like buying a service contract for a computer or a car; you're getting a promise of more assistence for the product. It's not a one-way transaction, in truth; they give you stuff for that money, it just happens to be digital stuff. It is naturally up to you to make the decision if what they offer is good enough for the price they're asking. You can go it alone and never get new content or ongoing support or what have you, but the majority of people are willing to pay the cost for more stuff, ergo they get away with it (to a pretty hefty payday, might I add).

WoW didn't get to set the rules for MMOs by sitting on its ass. It got there by giving people something for their money. If you're not going to spend money, no matter what they do, well, they're not catering to you and that's fine, but there's nothing entitling anyone to free entertainment. If you want that, go outside :smallwink:

But my larger point is not a matter of "THEY CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR PRODUCT", it's a matter of "What they are offering is not enough, and creating false scarcity and resentment amongst their most vocal supporters is not a way of doing business". It's a matter of treating your customers like people you want to do business with, not like suckers or leeches. I don't mind paying for games - though I wouldn't say no to them reducing the costs, - and I don't even mind not having a second-hand market, but I do mind not getting the product supported, and I do mind them selling me substandard games. Granted the last point is subject to rose-colored glasses, but if I enjoy playing my current game, I don't see the problem - other than "SUPPORT THE INDUSTRY" type bleating - in enjoying the game they did 'right'.

[KBF]

User run PC servers have given me better online than any console service people pay for.

But MMOs won't function like that, and console games 'require' matchmaking servers and such because of how the experience works. You sit down and play a game, and you don't want a mismatched skill level or a near empty game. Some even have their own multiplayer servers so no one random person has an advantage.

I prefer PC gaming personally, at home, but when I have go to a friends house and boot up Halo, and just hop in a game, it's generally more fun than when we tried to find a half decent Half life 2 Deathmatch/Counterstrike/Whatever server real quick. They're made for differing audiences.



When I'm buying from a company whose games are completely playable from release day, I'll go out and buy the game the day it's released, especially if it's a quality game that I've been looking forward to. On the other hand, if a company is known for shoveling out incomplete games, I have no reason to buy the game until 6 months after its release. And at that point I'll probably pick up a used copy since it's cheaper, and it's not like I have any loyalty to a studio that sells unfinished games to fund their last few months of development.

But it punishes well made games the same way, after 6 months.

It also rewards terrible games that are bought out of hype (you know there have been quite a few) that no one cares about 6 months later far better then a genuinely good cult classic that slipped passed the radar, under the hyped games, that you only really find out about 6 months later.

The system is broken when good games can get virtually no profit while well marketed crap gets all of the profit. All of it.

EDIT:


But my larger point is not a matter of "THEY CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR PRODUCT", it's a matter of "What they are offering is not enough, and creating false scarcity and resentment amongst their most vocal supporters is not a way of doing business".


"The idea that THQ is somehow "disrespecting customers" with this kind of rhetoric misunderstands the situation as completely as it is possible to do so. In a literal way, when you purchase a game used, you are not a customer of theirs."

You aren't THQ's customer when you buy used. They see literally no profit.

You are Gamestop's customer. It's really in Gamestop's court to offer to fix the industry now, and maybe this won't be so. In any case, the used game + the DLC pack that's missing should be less than the game new, so Gamestop probably won't be doing anything about it and they're getting payed. Win/Win for the companies involved and to a limited extent, you? I haven't entirely thought that through, but it's an interesting line of thought.

[SparkMandriller]

Replay value only goes so far. Take the Fire Emblem games for the GBA. After you unlock all the characters and the music files, and get a 5 star rating in everything, all that's left is to play the game for the sake of the Support conversations, which would more or less be "sit in this one place and do nothing for X amount of turns." And then what? Female only Runs. No Magic-user runs, Horses Only Runs. All with the same exact plot.

If it's a good game you should want to play it again at some point. I've had Megaman 3 for like a decade and a half, and every once in a while I still play it. I wouldn't want to sell it.

Don't you feel like replaying games sometimes?


I disagree that reselling the old stuff is okay, because you are still perpetuating a system where developers don't get paid. There is no guarantee that you will use that money for another game, but even so you're still letting someone else not pay the developers.

Well I bought the game with my money, and I had to work for that money, so I guess the developers are acting wrongly by not letting me sell the game that I worked for and bought.

Or am I just not special like they are or something.


]I'm sure it's so easy to demonize the other side. It's so easy to call them greedy.

It's pretty easy to call them greedy when they don't think people should be allowed to sell their products secondhand, unlike every other industry ever.

[Suedars]

...

The problem with your arguments are that I just don't why this is an issue.

1) Gaming companies aren't going out of business under the status quo. The medium is thriving.
2) Why do I inherently owe game companies anything?
3) Why don't I own my games once I buy them and thus am able to do whatever I choose with them?
4) If buying used games makes me a terrible person, does buying used books? Where's the outcry from publishing companies over public libraries?
5)What's so wrong with Gamestop? They provide a service in allowing people to find inexpensive games and sell off their old games. Also, if they're so evil and hated by game companies, why do they continue to support them through preorder exclusives and freebie promotional materials?

[KBF]

The problem with your arguments are that I just don't why this is an issue.

1) Gaming companies aren't going out of business under the status quo. The medium is thriving.

Any industry does not have to be dying to need to be supported. It's still unjust and a terrible system. I believe this has a fallacy, but I can't remember what it was called..


2) Why do I inherently owe game companies anything?

They made the product you enjoy. It's less oweing them and more paying for their fair share.


3) If buying used games makes me a terrible person, does buying used books? Where's the outcry from publishing companies over public libraries?

Actually, the outrage is over Amazon undercutting local bookstores by as much as 50%. That's a different issue, but literature is actually in trouble, maybe try a different medium. Like DVDs! Nobody cares if you share movies, right? Or resell them?


4)What's so wrong with Gamestop? They provide a service in allowing people to find inexpensive games and sell off their old games. Also, if they're so evil and hated by game companies, why do they continue to support them through preorder exclusives?

What's wrong: They don't pay developers for used games. The is where the issue is at. That means 10 people can play the game for half price, 9 will even only pay half price of half price, and the studio and publisher get payed once. So selling old games and buying inexpensive games at the expense of the people who made it possible. I won't pretend it's not convenient, so is piracy. I believe that is why they are so closely associated in Penny Arcade's eyes.

I don't pretend to know about preorder exclusives. They might be scared of losing their new games business, or the outrage that'd come from gamers, or maybe execs are scared of changing the status quo. One step at a time?

[Ignition]

Well, to be honest, I'm not Gamestop's customer either :smallwink: I sold a bunch of my games/systems to them for store credit awhile back, but I haven't gotten anything from them since I got a job that affords me the ability to get new games rather than last generation stuff; in addition, I haven't owned a console since the PS2, which I sold, and a DSi (or however you spell it; the DS that has a camera in it), which I never use. I buy PC games through Steam, or I don't buy them at all, pretty much.

The reason why I don't buy games is the same reason I don't go to see movies: I am overwhelmed by mediocrity/copycats. I may have the money to buy new games, but I choose not to by virtue of no new games which sound good enough to buy - when in context with not only the games which came before, but their own merits and flaws, as well as the attitudes of the developers and their handlers parent companies. I don't really like the attitudes of Gamestop and their employees and policies, so I don't shop there. I also don't buy games from companies which have policies I disagree with; half the time, the games they offer are far worse than I can justify the irritation in getting them to work properly, and harassing me with high-and-mightiness is really not a way to earn my loyalty :smallwink:.

In other words, I am bad for the gaming industry, because they aren't selling what I want to buy. I happily support the products I wish to buy, but am finding less and less they are offering appealing. Again, a sales strategy that relies on artificial scarcity or inconveniencing customers with half-baked games sold piecemeal is a poor strategy, regardless of a used market; the game companies would be better served working with and educating their consumers, and working to create high-quality products, rather than working against them and bilking them for as much money as possible with cheap knock-offs.

Still, someone's doing it right, or we wouldn't be having this conversation :smallwink:

[KBF]

In other words, I am bad for the gaming industry, because they aren't selling what I want to buy. I happily support the products I wish to buy, but am finding less and less they are offering appealing. Again, a sales strategy that relies on artificial scarcity or inconveniencing customers with half-baked games sold piecemeal is a poor strategy, regardless of a used market; the game companies would be better served working with and educating their consumers, and working to create high-quality products, rather than working against them and bilking them for as much money as possible with cheap knock-offs.

Regardless of your rant pretty much just applying to EA or.. Nobody? The bolded part intrigues me and I'm not sure how you mean. Can you explain?

[Suedars]

Any industry does not have to be dying to need to be supported. It's still unjust and a terrible system. I believe this has a fallacy, but I can't remember what it was called..

Right. So they're doing fine, but they want us to pay more so that they can have more money and we should all feel bad for them.


They made the product you enjoy. It's less oweing them and more paying for their fair share.

Why is it their fair share though? The fact that the box says "Sid Meier's Civilization IV" doesn't literally mean that it's Sid Meier's copy of the game and I'm paying $50 to borrow it from him. I pay for it. It becomes mine to do with it what I will. If I choose to sell it to someone who doesn't wish to pay $50 for it, that's my prerogative. I have no clue where this notion that anyone who has ever played a game owes something to the developers. You can't simply say "used games are unfair". Reselling used goods is seen as perfectly acceptable nearly everywhere else. You need to either make the case that it isn't acceptable, or show how games are special and point out some morally relevant difference.



Actually, the outrage is over Amazon undercutting local bookstores by as much as 50%. That's a different issue, but literature is actually in trouble, maybe try a different medium. Like DVDs! Nobody cares if you share movies, right? Or resell them?

Literature is in trouble because people are reading less, not because libraries exist. And the MPAA isn't starting a crusade against Netflix and Blockbuster.


What's wrong: They don't pay developers for used games. The is where the issue is at. That means 10 people can play the game for half price, 9 will even only pay half price of half price, and the studio and publisher get payed once. So selling old games and buying inexpensive games at the expense of the people who made it possible. I won't pretend it's not convenient, so is piracy. I believe that is why they are so closely associated in Penny Arcade's eyes.

Except this just doesn't happen. People willingly pay for games on their release because they want to play them immediately. You've cooked up some nonsense narrative where nobody buys games on release and developers are starving, yet you yourself admit that the industry is doing fine. The used games market is just a fraction of overall video game sales, and if you'll notice, most of the whining is coming from companies who are shocked that gamers aren't lining up to buy Madden 17 when they already have 11-16.


I don't pretend to know about preorder exclusives. They might be scared of losing their new games business, or the outrage that'd come from gamers, or maybe execs are scared of changing the status quo. One step at a time?

Maybe it's because Gamestop provides them with valuable marketing and visibility by putting up Modern Warfare 2 posters all over their windows in the mall where thousands of people walk by each day.

[Toastkart]

People get really defensive about this subject. People hate being told that what's easy and best for them is not actually best for them. Or everyone.
People also hate having a value judgement levied against them when a value judgement is neither called for, nor required for this topic.


I disagree that reselling the old stuff is okay, because you are still perpetuating a system where developers don't get paid.
Except that they were paid the first time any individual copy was bought.


There is no guarantee that you will use that money for another game, but even so you're still letting someone else not pay the developers.
This is true, but by the same token, there is no guarantee that I will ever use any of my own money for a game at any time. What I do with my money is my business. There's a difference between value and worth. If a game is valued at $60, but I don't think it's worth that much, then I'm not going to spend $60 to acquire it. There are two ways to pay what a game is worth--waiting a significant amount of time for a price cut or buy used.


The used game trade in system is horribly broken in favor of Gamestop
I won't argue there. gamestop's trade in prices and subsequent markups are ridiculous.


And I admit it's wrong. Is it really so hard to admit you're wrong? That what you do is not in the best interest of the industry that's providing you with games? I'm sure it's so easy to demonize the other side. It's so easy to call them greedy.
As has been said by others, secondary markets like used books, used cars, used electronics, etc. have no impact on the industry that they're tied to.



But we're the one who's avoiding paying them. We did not pay the ones who did most of the work.
As I said before, they were already paid once. The author of a book doesn't get paid twice if I borrow the book from someone, or if I buy it used from a yardsale down the road. And devs don't always get paid in proportion to how much work they put into a game--publishers take a cut as well.


Hell, I thought games were software? Software ownership doesn't even work like property ownership. You 'buy' software, you're buying a license to use that software. Just pondering it now, it's kind of odd that console games can be resold at all, but I guess there is no installation or anything..
It could be argued that software ownership should be more like property ownership. The fact that an infinite number of same or near-same quality copies can be made really sort of deflates any kind of proprietary uniqueness.


But you know, I have all this music lying around. And hey, I can copy it infinitely. Someone should get some use out of that. I guess selling it should be okay. /poorlyconstructedstrawman???
I'm sure you could if you had a stack of cds lying around somewhere, as someone might think they're worth something. If you were just selling music files, no one would buy it because they could either get it for free or on an original cd if that were more worth it to them. or through itunes or whatever else is out there.


Originally Posted by shadow_archmagi View Post
1. If I get a free copy of a game from my pirate friend, that's evil piracy because the devs get no money

2. If I get a free copy of a game from my just-became-amish friend, that's evil piracy because the devs get no money

3. If I get a $20 copy of the game from my used game store, that's evil piracy because the devs get no money

4. If I make a backup copy of the game so that I don't have to buy a second when my original one gets stepped on by accident, that's evil piracy because the devs get no money

5. If I don't buy a game because my friend said wasn't very good, that's evil piracy because the devs get no money

6. If I buy a game, learn how to mod the game, and distribute that mod, that's evil piracy because the devs get no money.

This, in a nutshell. When I stop getting demonized for buying and playing a game, or demonized for not buying and not playing, or anything in between, then maybe I'd have a little more sympathy.

In all reality, there aren't very many devs that I'm familiar with that want to end the secondary market. If publishers stopped buying up devs and creative control of IPs, then the industry as a whole would be much better off.


I like my multiplayer like I like my dinner. (At a table, with people.) That's why I play DnD.
I agree. My family particularly enjoys four player split screen. It's a shame that so many games no longer support it, or support it for only some game types. I also don't like it when the single player experience is underdeveloped, or sometimes outright stunted, compared to the multiplayer online experience. That's more of a personal preference, though.


THQ wants to stop people who buy used games from using multiplayer. The reasons for this should be obvious: running servers costs money. It's a service for which the used game buyer did not pay the provider. Furthermore it's clearly an additional expense for the game manufacturer because the person who sells their game is done with it, they've decided they aren't going to play the multiplayer anymore. The publisher has, at this point, paid all the overhead for the multiplayer service for the original costumer who's money they actually got. But when the person who rebuys they game starts to play, they force the publisher to cough up to continue to provide the multiplayer without paying them a cent.
I'm not sure how true this is, though. If I sell a game because I'm done with it, then I'm no longer a presence on the server. If whoever buys that game then joins the server, all he really does is take my place. There's no net change. and running a server for a game isn't as expensive as we're led to believe. Jeff Strain of ArenaNet has been quoted as saying:


Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true – you know it, and they know it. here: Jeff Strain's speech 2007 (http://www.guildwars.com/events/tradeshows/gc2007/gcspeech.php)

and the same more or less applies to online games that aren't mmos.


To sum up: buying a used game is no more piracy than buying a used car is grand theft auto.

[Geno9999]

Used Games = Pirating?
YARHARHARHARHAR!!!LOL:smalltongue:
For one thing, if you're buying a used product, be it a book, a car or a video game, you have to find a balance between how much you're willing to spend and how much wear the product has. If the product is like new, woo-hoo, you got a good, working product. However, if the product is all dinged up, it's not going to last as long. Why is this considered to be piracy? Am I really stealing money from the company? NO! What makes games so different from anything else!? If they want me to keep their games rather than selling it off on ebay, they better give me a good reason why. Like, a game actually worth keeping around.:smallamused:

[factotum]

This argument is largely moot from my viewpoint anyway, thinking about it. I'm a PC gamer--don't own a console, never have, possibly never will. As such, I don't get the opportunity to sell my games on because nowhere will take second-hand PC games. I know for a fact that if such a place existed I would sell them a bunch of my old stuff and then go and buy a new game that interested me, so ultimately the developers are losing out due to this; there are games I would like to play but can't afford, so they don't get bought.

[Ignition]

Well, to put my gaming habits into perspective, Mass Effect and Dragon Age put me off Bioware forever (I gave them a fair shot with KOTOR, but these last two, no dice). And yet, I will play Left 4 Dead 2 until my eyes bleed. The vast majority of games go right over my head, because I can't be asked to care most of the time, since I'm too busy having fun with other games. So, yes, it does apply to not-EA, haha. Same thing with the Champions Online folks, God love 'em, but they messed up, and I don't have the time in between Versus matches to give them another shot. I don't really do repeat customer stuff unless the company really impresses me. This is just a quirk of me, though, not a universal truth. I don't buy a lot of games, but the ones I do buy are always in my library.

I think part of the problem we're seeing here is misinformation and rumors being spread around as fact, and pundits standing in for experts on both sides of the debate. There's also a problem with companies not being forthright with their plans and what have you, in some bad-faith attempt at protecting their 'business intelligence' which is a contradiction in terms if I ever heard one. I think that game companies would be better served explaining to people the ins and outs of their corporate culture, their needs and offerings, rather than deal with perpetuating/forcing hype engines and related claptrap down our throats. Make it a shared, positive experience, rather than an antagonistic one. That way, when pirates do inevitably take stuff, they can stand back and legitimately say "These people are psycho greedy jerks and we're not!" rather than it being a grey issue. If Blizzard put out, for example, an accounting of where everyone's $15 USD a month goes - server costs, new content creation, etc. - I think there'd be less "OH GOD WHY ARE PAY MONEY!" in the gaming community as a whole. There'd still be grognards, but at least then there'd be publicly held, objective facts to combat that.

Not all companies are closed-mouthed about their products and processes, but almost all companies invest far too much in their advertising agencies than is healthy for the industry as a whole. I think there's major trust issues because of over-promising and under-delivering, as well as stemming from the lack of non-advertising communication between the companies and the consumers. It won't solve all problems, but it'd help.

[Trixie]

1) Gaming companies aren't going out of business under the status quo. The medium is thriving.

What. The CEO's have to make do with a simple Lexus, instead of Ferrari. This is not 'thriving', citizen.


2) Why do I inherently owe game companies anything?

If you read the DMCA your democratically chosen representative passed under slight urge from RIAA, yes, you would know you owed them.

Fortunately, there's a special tax on a number of items, including but not limited to blank CDs, DVDs, internet connections, printer paper, disc burners, printers, etc. that helps to settle the record straight. You should be grateful for that.


3) Why don't I own my games once I buy them and thus am able to do whatever I choose with them?

Because that's illegal, duh. All there in the DMCA. All you own is 'limited licence' - it's all in the EULA you read after taking disc out of the box. Didn't you read it?

What, you want a refund after you tore the shrink-wrap in order to read it? Citizen, refunds in that case would only embolden you to steal more!


4) If buying used games makes me a terrible person, does buying used books? Where's the outcry from publishing companies over public libraries?

You are not aware that unsold books are burned to not drive prices down too much, are you?

And besides, that's stealing, too. And publishing companies do push to reduce library spending, while making it illegal to borrow some things from the library. You never read the back of DVD or expensive book case? Those you can 'legally' lend to people are 5x the price!


5)What's so wrong with Gamestop? They provide a service in allowing people to find inexpensive games and sell off their old games. Also, if they're so evil and hated by game companies, why do they continue to support them through preorder exclusives and freebie promotional materials?

They make profit on something they didn't made. As Manifesto and Capital clearly described it, that's both immoral and evil.

Really, it all boils to the class wars: between those who own too much, and those who own even more. There, you heard it here first :P

[shadow_archmagi]

Trixie that post was excellent. You should visit the steam thread more often.

[Truwar]

Should we outlaw the sale of used cars? When you buy a used car the poor auto builders get nothing! Oh, you might say that they can make some money of supplying parts for repair of these cars but there are companies out there that make off-brand parts! If this keeps up there will be no more car companies! Do you love driving cars? If so, get out there and support the auto industry! Never EVER by used cars!

How ludicrous was the above paragraph? Now just replace the words car and auto with games and gaming companies as appropriate and you see how crazy this argument is.

If the current gaming industry is producing such boring material that people are willing to wait until the game is available used, then they get what they deserve. A new gaming company will come along and release the kind of mind-blowing games that players cannot wait to get their hands on. This is why capitalism is good, it kills mediocrity.

[Zeofar]

Now, I don't know anything about the THQ thing and I'm not sure I care. As for buying used games being piracy, that is just ridiculous.

When you buy a game, you buy the right to use the data, or, a license. Now, it makes fine sense that forfeit the rights to use the data, that the license can be sold to someone else. Nothing more is taken from the developer. A sells to B, and B sells to C. Use may have been extracted by B, but as long as the license provides for "unlimited use" (By unlimited, I don't mean that the user has the right to the source code or reproduction of the game, I mean that the right to use the data doesn't run out like a demo, trial or shareware.) then the developer loses nothing more. If use isn't unlimited, and people who buy the game eventually are no longer allowed to use it, then the company may be sued if they didn't make it painfully clear that they would lose use of it anyways.

As for services provided after the release of the game, such as technical support, patches, or game servers, one could argue that the developer or whatever only has to provide such services to the original buyer. However, the fact remains that nothing more is really being taken from the company than what is provided for in the original license ("Multiplayer - Gamespy runs servers through which players can connect their games to each other. We reserve the right to end all support of the servers at any time without notice." It'll probably all come out to something along those lines for games where you can't run your own server) as long as someone performs a legitimate sale where they stop accessing the data that they sold their rights to use.

As for Gamestop - Although I don't personally care for buying used games from Gamestop, nothing that they're doing is wrong. They basically engage in speculation - I buy something for n, and I believe that someone will buy it for me from n+1. They're a matchmaking service, a pawn shop, a merchant. If you have something against Gamestop in this regard, you have to reject middlemen as a whole, because they whole business revolves around selling something to someone for less than what you paid, without giving any additional remuneration to the people who made it. There isn't anything wrong with disliking this system, but if you say that you do, you need to understand what you statement entails (And understand that it is probably beyond the scope of whether or not selling used games is piracy).

The real issue here lies in this, and anyone who avoids this issue is trying to obfuscate the heart of the matter - What are you buying when you buy a video game? If the license disallows selling and trading, then it is as simple as that. If it doesn't, they can't stop anybody from doing such things, or even argue whether such activities are moral or ethical. The thing is, if gamers hear that a game has such a license, they will boycott the publisher. They have every right to do so - nobody is legally obligated to buy something from someone else. Companies don't want to lose out on money by being boycotted. The real issue is companies that want to sell the standard license while artificially manipulating what you can do with it. Beside that, read the fine print. I'm not an expert on game licenses, so maybe I'm wrong, and most licenses specifically disallow selling and trading the game afterward, in which case this whole discussion is pointless. The fact is, the seller CAN dictate what the license entails. However, the idea that doing so is inherently bad, economically or ethically, is just broken logic.

By the way, for the people who that are actually championing the "buying used is bad" issue, did you profess this before Penny Arcade mentioned it, or no? I'm not questioning the validity of the discussion with this particular discussion, I'm just curious.

Now, please throw bricks at me for my stupid, ignorant rant that doesn't actually consider reality.

[dsmiles]

By the way, for the people who that are actually championing the "buying used is bad" issue, did you profess this before Penny Arcade mentioned it, or no? I'm not questioning the validity of the discussion with this particular discussion, I'm just curious.

Buying used is bad?
I probably shouldn't talk much about that particular bit. I haven't bought used since I discovered Steam. I patiently wait for "the big one." You know, the one where you get 75% off the MSRP for a day, or a weekend, or whatever. It usually ends up costing less than a used game that way.
As a matter of fact, the last game I bought used was Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri with the expansion and the strategy guide for the near-overwhelming price of like $90, since all of those items are out of print.

Penny Arcade?
Not exactly sure who they are, but they sound like instigators of the worst kind.

Still, I'm not convinced that buying or selling used games is tantamount to piracy. (Yarr, matey!)

[Poison_Fish]

Buying used is bad?
I probably shouldn't talk much about that particular bit. I haven't bought used since I discovered Steam. I patiently wait for "the big one." You know, the one where you get 75% off the MSRP for a day, or a weekend, or whatever. It usually ends up costing less than a used game that way.
As a matter of fact, the last game I bought used was Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri with the expansion and the strategy guide for the near-overwhelming price of like $90, since all of those items are out of print.

Penny Arcade?
Not exactly sure who they are, but they sound like instigators of the worst kind.

Still, I'm not convinced that buying or selling used games is tantamount to piracy. (Yarr, matey!)

I'm pretty sure PA's point was that for companies that produce games, it is akin to, if not worse, then piracy. Since they are not receiving finance for their product. It's a lost product essentially. On top of that, it may be worse (Remember, from a Companies perspective, not from a consumers) because it then means for them, the consumer they would ordinarily sell the game to and earn profit from has gotten their product with no return to them, but also that same consumer is now at reduced purchasing power having spent money (even though the benefit is in favor of the consumer).

My own opinion? As a consumer, I like buying a lot of DS games used.

[shadow_archmagi]

penny arcade is a webcomic

they made a comic

The comic went like this

PANEL 1: An enraged person claims that THQ is disrespecting their customers by preventing his gamestop copy from functioning properly!

PANEL 2: The witty protagonist replies that if he didn't give THQ money, he is not, in fact, a customer

[VanBuren]

penny arcade is a webcomic

they made a comic

The comic went like this

PANEL 1: An enraged person claims that THQ is disrespecting their customers by preventing his gamestop copy from functioning properly!

PANEL 2: The witty protagonist replies that if he didn't give THQ money, he is not, in fact, a customer

Kevin: "THQ be getting in my grill about buying games used! I'm a customer, yo. They gots to reconnize."

Tycho: "Kevin, I don't think you understand what a "customer" is. You become a customer when you buy something from someone else. Dog. When you buy WWE or whatever used, you're not a THQ customer - you're a GameStop customer. The publishers don't even know who you are."

Kevin: "Oh. It's like a kind of parallel economy.

Tycho: "What?"

Kevin: "I mean... yo, for real, though. Let's creep on that escalator, and peep up some skirts."

Tycho: "What?"

[Trazoi]

From what I've read in the article, the THQ issue is something like this:
A THQ game (Smackdown vs Raw 2011) is being sold with a free one-time DLC code as an incentive to get people to buy the game new.
Used games buyers have been complaining that they'll miss out on the DLC.
The THQ's creative director responded with words to the effect of: "Well yeah, that's the whole point of an incentive for you to buy the game from us and not give your money to Gamestop."

Then Penny Arcade made a comic about that, and the internet has been playing its usual game of Chinese Whispers. :smallwink:

[dsmiles]

From what I've read in the article, the THQ issue is something like this:
A THQ game (Smackdown vs Raw 2011) is being sold with a free one-time DLC code as an incentive to get people to buy the game new.
Used games buyers have been complaining that they'll miss out on the DLC.
The THQ's creative director responded with words to the effect of: "Well yeah, that's the whole point of an incentive for you to buy the game from us and not give your money to Gamestop."

Then Penny Arcade made a comic about that, and the internet has been playing its usual game of Chinese Whispers. :smallwink:

In that case, I'd have to side with THQ. But I see this as a different issue than saying that buying used games is "piracy." It's an incentive to buy the game new. If I buy it used, and don't play on XBL or PSO, does it really matter? What exactly would I be missing out on, as opposed to buying it new and not playing on XBL or PSO (since I don't subscribe to XBox Live or Playstation Online anyways)?

[Hawriel]

I sold my old pontiac. GM did not see a cent of that sail. did I steal the car? No. I sold old toys at garage/yard sales. Hasbro and matel did not get a share in the pie. Again I did not commit theft. I, or some one, payed full price for that item at some point. After that it belongs to me. It constitutionaly belongs to me. If I sell some thing, software, action figure, car, or book, its mine to sell. Period.

I have no simpathy for software, music, movie, or telovision industry (but not limited to) when it comes to buying used or copying the meterial. These industries have done nothing but attack peaples ability to share in their own culture or rightfull property. So long as you do plagerise you are not doing any thing wrong.

To attack game stop for selling used games is the same as attacking a car dealership for selling used cars.

Im wondering if the OP works for a softwar publisher and this is just sending out propaganda.

[Trazoi]

In that case, I'd have to side with THQ. But I see this as a different issue than saying that buying used games is "piracy." It's an incentive to buy the game new. If I buy it used, and don't play on XBL or PSO, does it really matter? What exactly would I be missing out on, as opposed to buying it new and not playing on XBL or PSO (since I don't subscribe to XBox Live or Playstation Online anyways)?
I was being a bit cheeky in that I paraphrased away the contentious language. The trigger point was the creative director Cory Ledesma's blunt way of putting it. From the article (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=261330) (emphasis mine):


"I don't think we really care whether used game buyers are upset because new game buyers get everything. So if used game buyers are upset they don't get the online feature set I don't really have much sympathy for them."

"That's a little blunt but we hope it doesn't disappoint people. We hope people understand that when the game's bought used we get cheated," he continued.

"I don't think anyone wants that so in order for us to make strong, high-quality WWE games we need loyal fans that are interested in purchasing the game. We want to award those fans with additional content."

So a lot of the heat of the debate is all about the use of his word "cheated".

[dsmiles]

So a lot of the heat of the debate is all about the use of his word "cheated".

Still, I don't play online, I don't connect my playstation or xbox to the internet. If I bought the game new, I still get no extra content, am I correct?

Because if I am, that, my friend is the definition of getting cheated. Some people getting rewarded for their play preferences, when I dished out exactly the same amount of money for buying that game new (give or take on the sales tax, of course).

[The Glyphstone]

Between this and the 'wolves' thing a few strips ago, does anyone else get the impression that PA has been on a trend of trolling the internet lately?

[Triaxx]

Guess what? I only buy used games that the company isn't making more copies of. If I can't buy it new, they loose the right to complain that I'm taking money out of their pockets. I'd much prefer to support them by buying new, but they stop selling it before I can. If they have that poor of a business model, too bad.

[KBF]

I'm trying to regulate my posting lately, and my temper is starting to get out of hand lately.. So I'm going to stay out of this for now. Other people seem to be making the point pretty well.

...
EDIT:

Guess what? I only buy used games that the company isn't making more copies of. If I can't buy it new, they loose the right to complain that I'm taking money out of their pockets. I'd much prefer to support them by buying new, but they stop selling it before I can. If they have that poor of a business model, too bad.

Usually that's because the game is overshadowed by better marketed more popular games. Being smaller is a pretty bad business model, granted, but it's not like they can help it.


...And I can buy a car and not use the cup holder. I don't want it. I payed the exact same price, am I not getting cheated?
This is a silly argument.

[Trazoi]

Still, I don't play online, I don't connect my playstation or xbox to the internet. If I bought the game new, I still get no extra content, am I correct?
I'm not sure how their system works, but most probably.


Because if I am, that, my friend is the definition of getting cheated. Some people getting rewarded for their play preferences, when I dished out exactly the same amount of money for buying that game new (give or take on the sales tax, of course).
In a sense. But you can take that into account when buying the game just like you would knowing you can't use the on-line multiplayer component, or like I would when there's an attached offer that is only valid in the U.S. (although for me I don't dish out exactly the same amount of money for a new console game - I'd have to pay US$80+ in Aussie bucks. Yes, I feel slightly cheated. :smallwink:)

[Erloas]

The car analogy really breaks down if you try to carry it out though, because a car is a consumable item with a given lifespan, but it is also a necessity for almost everyone. There is also a lot of mark-up in the price of a car given the expected life of said car. You have to make more per car if you have a fairly fixed market size and your cars last longer. The big thing about a car is you know if someone is selling a used car you can be about 99.99% certain it is because they are going to buy a new car or have already bought a new car. They money goes back into the industry because the car is a necessity. You can also see with the "certified" used car programs that just about every company has, is that even car companies can see how much money they are not getting due to used car sales. That is also why they push leases as much as they do.

As for used books, it is hurting that industry as well, its just that its been in place so long it is next to impossible to change. Most authors don't make a whole lot of money, they could easily make more money by being paid to visit certain places or give speeches then they do off of the books themselves. There has also been talk of trying to get used book (and CD and DVD) sales to get some of the profit back to the people making them, but its just not getting anywhere.

For places like Blockbuster and Netflicks, its not like the copies they rent out are the same $15 copy you buy from Wal-mart. They have to pay special licensing fees for the games and movies they rent. They pay a large premium for the right to rent out those things.

As for used games... I never buy them, but I don't play console games either. Of the PC games I generally wait for a sale on Steam, so they still get something for the game. Personally I've always hated Gamestop and I've had enough issues with scratched games that I won't even think about buying used. So it is a real non-issue for me. But I can really see the issues for developers.

As for people saying they charge too much... Have you ever stopped to consider that the used game market might be a very good reason for that? The $40-50 PC game compared to the $60 console game might be a very direct result of the huge console used game market.

[Forbiddenwar]

Wow, what A thread. It's almost impossible to keep up with the bad information here. And nothing makes me more mad than bad information.

Legal information (Pertains to US only):
The first sale principle has been a part of copyright law since 1890s. That is the principle that allows someone to buy a physical copy of intellectual property and then resell it or give it away.
That principle has yet to kill the publishing industry, the movie industry the music industry, nor the gaming industry. Reselling is very old and has yet to claim the death or injury of any industry. That is not to say what effect it will have in the future. But if past performance is any clue, the first sale principle will help more than harm any industry. This is demonstrated by many research studies on the subject. A personal example of this is Starcraft, which I bought used, and starcraft 2 which I preordered the collectors edition because I loved the original so much.

This principle overrides everything else.
On renting movies and checking out materials from the library. There are claims here that are just not true. There is no difference between the movie you buy and the movie you rent from netflix and the movie you check out from the library. They cost the EXACT same! The only difference is who buys it (you, rental company, library)

Now there is a huge scam going on where companies are selling "renting copies" to libraries and netflex and the like. Those rental copies do cost 10-20 times as much. The claim this companies state is that renting or loaning or selling or giving away the movie is illegal. It is very much NOT illegal.

This principle also overrides the EULA. No court in America has overturned the First Sale principle. And I don't think they'll ever would. The income that reselling generates overall is a large part of our industry.

Now we all know that in no way is buying used games illegal, we can turn to the moral issue. But please don't say it is illegal.

Credentials: A Masters of Information and Library Science which included detailed master level courses in copyright law and the first sale principle.

On Literature is Failing discussion:
More books are being published, sold new, read and resold now than in any other time in human history. There are many studies proving this fact.

The reason the first sale principle works is a long complex economic theory called the long/short tail. If you track how much money a copy makes for WHOEVER sells it 80% of that money occurs while there are no used copies on the shelf.

On the Moral issue: I agree with what some say here. I either purchase all my games new or used if new is unavailable. The reason for my independent decision is that I research games very carefully before purchasing. I also do not give away or sell any of my games, because they are games I want to keep and replay. Not every day, not every year, but every now and then. And yes, I do have a very small collection. My STEAM account that I started in June this year now has more games than my physical collection.
And that is how, I believe, the gaming industry should approach game making, if they don't want people to resell their games.

[Zevox]

I get the picture, reading this thread, that people are really missing the point of what's going on here.

THQ wants to stop people who buy used games from using multiplayer. [Further info on the matter snipped.]
You'll notice that this was not the issue the OP raised, however. Personally, I don't care one bit about THQ's policies on multiplayer for their games. I can count the number of games I've used online multiplayer for on one hand, and none of them are THQ's. Heck, I'm not sure what the last THQ game I played was - none of my games within easy reach of my computer are from them, and those are all of my PS2, 360, DS, and a good chunk of my PC games.

What the OP did raise, however, is buying and selling used games in general, which is what people have responded to.


What's wrong: They don't pay developers for used games. The is where the issue is at. That means 10 people can play the game for half price, 9 will even only pay half price of half price, and the studio and publisher get payed once. So selling old games and buying inexpensive games at the expense of the people who made it possible. I won't pretend it's not convenient, so is piracy. I believe that is why they are so closely associated in Penny Arcade's eyes.
Your argument seems to rest upon the assumption that anyone who plays the game must pay the developers in particular for doing so. This is not something I see as logical. With no other product is this the case - people can borrow or resell them as they wish. Why should this be different with video games? Do people not own the game disk they purchase now?

Zevox

[Forbiddenwar]

Do people not own the game disk they purchase now?


The licensing structure of video games makes this a difficult question to answer. Legally Yes. Legally, EULA haven't been strongly enforced in the court of law (It's difficult to enforce a contract that you don't allow people to read prior to signing it)
Legally, the first sale principle still applies just as a book. Also, legally, there is nothing to stop game developers from making software that cannot be resold. It would crush their sells and lose them customers, because in order to do so games have to be a one time install, but, legally, they can do that as well.

[valadil]

Here's another question for those who agree with the thesis. Where do game rentals fit it? A game store owns a copy of the game and lets people play it for a fee that never makes its way to the publisher. Is that also equivalent to piracy?

If servers are so expensive, people can run their own dedicated servers. Back in the day, multiplayer games had a create game or run server option. I'd be perfectly happy doing that if running official game servers is too expensive.


Hell, I thought games were software? Software ownership doesn't even work like property ownership. You 'buy' software, you're buying a license to use that software. Just pondering it now, it's kind of odd that console games can be resold at all, but I guess there is no installation or anything..


Software is a special case because of how easy it is to duplicate. I can buy Office 2k7 and install it. But selling off the media does not guarantee that I can no longer use the software. Selling the media while retaining a copy is obviously illegal. With console games, selling the media does stop you from using the product. Nothing is stolen. If I sell Demon's Souls and then want to play it again later, I have to procure another copy.

[shadow_archmagi]

Back in the day, multiplayer games had a create game or run server option. I'd be perfectly happy doing that if running official game servers is too expensive.

What do you mean Back In The Day?

That's how TF2 operates NOW

[Zevox]

The licensing structure of video games makes this a difficult question to answer. Legally Yes. Legally, EULA haven't been strongly enforced in the court of law (It's difficult to enforce a contract that you don't allow people to read prior to signing it)
Legally, the first sale principle still applies just as a book. Also, legally, there is nothing to stop game developers from making software that cannot be resold. It would crush their sells and lose them customers, because in order to do so games have to be a one time install, but, legally, they can do that as well.
That was actually a rhetorical question, but thank you for basically confirming my point anyway.

Zevox

[warty goblin]

You'll notice that this was not the issue the OP raised, however. Personally, I don't care one bit about THQ's policies on multiplayer for their games. I can count the number of games I've used online multiplayer for on one hand, and none of them are THQ's. Heck, I'm not sure what the last THQ game I played was - none of my games within easy reach of my computer are from them, and those are all of my PS2, 360, DS, and a good chunk of my PC games.

What the OP did raise, however, is buying and selling used games in general, which is what people have responded to.

Fair enough. I don't think anybody can convincingly argue that there's anything morally objectionable about selling and reselling games. On the other hand I can't come up with any good reason that game companies need to accommodate or aid the practice.



Your argument seems to rest upon the assumption that anyone who plays the game must pay the developers in particular for doing so. This is not something I see as logical. With no other product is this the case - people can borrow or resell them as they wish. Why should this be different with video games? Do people not own the game disk they purchase now?

Zevox
They own the disk as a physical entity yes, but only hold a license to use the content - neither you nor I actually own a single game unless we wrote them ourselves. Whether or not they have the right to transfer the license is, I think, a question that has not yet been answered particularly well. Either way I agree with Penny Arcade's basic point that unless you buy the game new, the publisher owes you jack squat.

[AslanCross]

Why can the owner of a used car profit off something he bought while the owner of a game can't?

Granted it's a rather simplistic comparison, as cars do depreciate a lot and they really tend to have much more problems with age than a piece of software, but I think a lot of money and effort also goes into the development and manufacturing of automobiles. Are video games so different that they demand exceptions? Has the sale of used cars crippled automotive manufacturers from designing and rolling out new cars?

[KBF]

Why can the owner of a used car profit off something he bought while the owner of a game can't?

Granted it's a rather simplistic comparison, as cars do depreciate a lot and they really tend to have much more problems with age than a piece of software, but I think a lot of money and effort also goes into the development and manufacturing of automobiles. Are video games so different that they demand exceptions? Has the sale of used cars crippled automotive manufacturers from designing and rolling out new cars?

Well, the quality of games does not decrease any with use. The used car market works to an extent based on the fact that cars do in fact work worse after awhile, right? So you're always going to have that incentive to buy a new/newer car? Games do not get less enjoyable.

...I really shouldn't be talking about the automotive industry though. I am not experienced in the least.

[Suedars]

They own the disk as a physical entity yes, but only hold a license to use the content - neither you nor I actually own a single game unless we wrote them ourselves. Whether or not they have the right to transfer the license is, I think, a question that has not yet been answered particularly well. Either way I agree with Penny Arcade's basic point that unless you buy the game new, the publisher owes you jack squat.

People who buy books own the paper and ink as a physical entity yes, but only hold a license to use the content - neither you nor I actually own a single book unless we wrote them ourselves. Whether or not we have the right to transfer the license is, quite clearly, a question that has been answered very well.

[AslanCross]

Well, the quality of games does not decrease any with use. The used car market works to an extent based on the fact that cars do in fact work worse after awhile, right? So you're always going to have that incentive to buy a new/newer car? Games do not get less enjoyable.

...I really shouldn't be talking about the automotive industry though. I am not experienced in the least.

Cars do not necessarily break down with age; the economy simply assumes they do (since it's impractical to assume that everyone gives their cars the same level of maintenance and proper use, or that people maintain their cars at all). Caring for a car is much more complex than caring for a video game, which is as simple as making sure it doesn't get scratched (or eaten by those annoying fungi---that happened to my original copy of Starcraft I -_-).

Assuming that games do not get less enjoyable is an even less solid premise to base a law on, as the replay value of a game is quite subjective. Yes, there are people who still play Diablo II up to now. (I only bought my own copy of it a couple of years ago) Others would prefer to move onto something new. It's highly subjective and abstract, and far more so than caring for a car (which consists of generally similar procedures such as oil changes, tune-ups, wheel rotation, etc.).

If automotive manufacturers don't whine about why people sell their used cars or even profit off having them junked, I'm not sure why game developers have the right to say that they are being cheated when their customers decide their games are simply not worth keeping any more and want some of the money they spent back.

"But that game has good replay value!"
"Sorry, I didn't see the hype."
"YOU OWE US!"

Now it was mentioned earlier that yes, cars are more or less a necessity and as such the analogy isn't perfect. Then again, we don't see automobile companies complaining when a new train line or bus service is put up.

Now of course, this is speaking generally. The issue of overpricing on the used market is a much thornier issue.

[warty goblin]

People who buy books own the paper and ink as a physical entity yes, but only hold a license to use the content - neither you nor I actually own a single book unless we wrote them ourselves. Whether or not we have the right to transfer the license is, quite clearly, a question that has been answered very well.

Software sold on a disk or through digital download however is not a book either practically or legally, so I fail to see how this is relevant.

[KBF]

Assuming that games do not get less enjoyable is an even less solid premise to base a law on, as the replay value of a game is quite subjective. Yes, there are people who still play Diablo II up to now. (I only bought my own copy of it a couple of years ago) Others would prefer to move onto something new. It's highly subjective and abstract, and far more so than caring for a car (which consists of generally similar procedures such as oil changes, tune-ups, wheel rotation, etc.).


Oh, you misunderstand! That's my point! A game can be sold to others who will sell it to others who will sell it to others and as long as some simple care is taken, there's no reason people won't just keep reselling it.

[Forbiddenwar]

Oh, you misunderstand! That's my point! A game can be sold to others who will sell it to others who will sell it to others and as long as some simple care is taken, there's no reason people won't just keep reselling it.

Well, when people stop buying it, it stops being resold. Video games also depreciate in value, new or used. Graphics change Hardware needed to run it becomes obsolete. They also stop working after a while. I have a ton of games on cd that I can't work on my new computer and in fact haven't worked since 95. How many people still have games on floppy disks? Ever try to sell those or give them away?
And yes, I know about DOS Box and Yes DosBox does jack for these games.

Additional little known fact. A CD has a life span of 5-10 years depending on use. a DVD 10-15 years. Yes video games break down and support for video games stops. Another reason why I bought SC2 collectors edition is that my SCBW copy stopped functioning. It was very sad.

[Zevox]

Software sold on a disk or through digital download however is not a book either practically or legally, so I fail to see how this is relevant.
He was making an analogy, and a fairly apt one at that. The story that the book contains is not owned by the book's owner the same way that the game program the disk contains is not owned by the disk's owner. Both are the intellectual property of their creators - this is the reason why the book or disk's owner have no right to make copies of them and sell them for their own profit. Yet we have no problem with people reselling their books so long as they not copies the owner made, while some are arguing there is a problem with people reselling their games even when they are not copies.

Which means something in there does not compute. Either the analogy is flawed, or the fact that we have no problem with people reselling their books is flawed, or the arguments that there is a problem with people reselling their games are flawed. Personally, I certainly don't think it's either of the first two.

Zevox

[Thiyr]

Oh, you misunderstand! That's my point! A game can be sold to others who will sell it to others who will sell it to others and as long as some simple care is taken, there's no reason people won't just keep reselling it.

The emphasis I have here is on the words "simple care". The problem is that said simple care isn't a garuntee. I've gotten a good number of used games in the past that simply had so much wear on them that they wouldn't work in my systems.

Also, I'd like to note that while caring for a disk is a lot easier than caring for a car, once that disk is damaged, you can't un-damage it. Cars, being complex machines, have many parts, which at least have the potential of being replaced. And if a car is kept in good working order, and the parts are kept functional, there is no reason people wouldn't keep reselling it either.

[Trazoi]

Why can the owner of a used car profit off something he bought while the owner of a game can't?

Granted it's a rather simplistic comparison, as cars do depreciate a lot and they really tend to have much more problems with age than a piece of software, but I think a lot of money and effort also goes into the development and manufacturing of automobiles. Are video games so different that they demand exceptions? Has the sale of used cars crippled automotive manufacturers from designing and rolling out new cars?
Car companies do tend to complain when they're not selling enough cars to remain solvent though, and that's part of the issue here. Game publishers like THQ aren't having a good year; I think THQ made some losses in the last few quarters due to the downturn in the economy. That's why they're looking to make money out of used game sales.

From the publisher's perspective it makes sense. You've got a market there who want to play your games but are paying up to 80% of the RRP for a used copy which means you're not seeing a cent. It makes sense to offer a free incentive to buy the game new to convert a few of those sales, and for those who don't offer the incentive at a price to at least make something if they're interested.

Personally as a gamer I don't mind as long as the game is properly complete vanilla on the disc. If the freebie they're offering is something like an optional thirteenth playable character and a set of virtual purple sparkly shorts, then it's no big deal if that DLC isn't available. It becomes an issue if they start offering only the first two-thirds of the game on the disc, need to download the DLC to finish the game. When it gets to the point that the game disc is worthless without their server being active then that's a bridge too far.

[Suedars]

From the publisher's perspective it makes sense. You've got a market there who want to play your games but are paying up to 80% of the RRP for a used copy which means you're not seeing a cent. It makes sense to offer a free incentive to buy the game new to convert a few of those sales, and for those who don't offer the incentive at a price to at least make something if they're interested.

Personally as a gamer I don't mind as long as the game is properly complete vanilla on the disc. If the freebie they're offering is something like an optional thirteenth playable character and a set of virtual purple sparkly shorts, then it's no big deal if that DLC isn't available. It becomes an issue if they start offering only the first two-thirds of the game on the disc, need to download the DLC to finish the game. When it gets to the point that the game disc is worthless without their server being active then that's a bridge too far.

See, this is fine. I don't think anyone has an incentive with companies giving out incentives for people to buy games new rather than used. What they do have a problem with is companies demonizing people who buy used games in order to cover the fact that they've been having poor sales because they're unable to make a game that isn't completely wretched (here's a hint THQ: stop making terrible wrestling games, licensed shovelware like Wheel of Fortune, and abominations against nature like 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand). Hearing THQ complain that people aren't lining up to pay $60 for their garbage is like hearing Ford complain that people aren't forking out cash to buy a nice, shiny new Pinto.

[Ihouji]

They make profit on something they didn't made. As Manifesto and Capital clearly described it, that's both immoral and evil.


By that logic any store that sells you something they bought from another company is evil...

Have fun going to the grocery store or any department store and trying to buy something without letting the middle man profit. It is convenience that is what you are paying for that is the service that game stop and every other store provides you.

That is the way our and every economy in every first world country works get used to it because the other option is buying direct from every company individually and while you would pay much less it would completely destroy small companies who already have a hard enough time competing just praying someone sees there product siting on the shelf at game stop.

So unless you never want any fresh blood to come into the industry, and all of your games to be made by 2-3 companies this is the way it is, and frankly if game stop wants to make a little extra cash by selling used games I say go for it because if the game was better I wouldn't have traded it in in the first place.

[factotum]

Seems to me there are two inter-related arguments going on here. The OP's assertion (borrowed from PA) that buying used games = piracy is utter bunkum, IMHO. The other argument (whether publishers have the right to artificially cripple their games so a second-hand purchaser doesn't get as good an experience as the original buyer) is a different issue. I don't actually have a problem with publishers doing that, because, as already pointed out, when you normally buy something second-hand, you expect it to be poorer quality than a new article anyway!

[VanBuren]

By that logic any store that sells you something they bought from another company is evil...

Have fun going to the grocery store or any department store and trying to buy something without letting the middle man profit. It is convenience that is what you are paying for that is the service that game stop and every other store provides you.

That is the way our and every economy in every first world country works get used to it because the other option is buying direct from every company individually and while you would pay much less it would completely destroy small companies who already have a hard enough time competing just praying someone sees there product siting on the shelf at game stop.

So unless you never want any fresh blood to come into the industry, and all of your games to be made by 2-3 companies this is the way it is, and frankly if game stop wants to make a little extra cash by selling used games I say go for it because if the game was better I wouldn't have traded it in in the first place.

The post you quoted was satire.

[endoperez]

Still, I don't play online, I don't connect my playstation or xbox to the internet. If I bought the game new, I still get no extra content, am I correct?

Because if I am, that, my friend is the definition of getting cheated. Some people getting rewarded for their play preferences, when I dished out exactly the same amount of money for buying that game new (give or take on the sales tax, of course).

The alternative is that the extra content is packed on the original game disc, and can only be unlocked with a special code or whatever.

Of course, that'd mean that some people would be unable to use the data that is on the very disks that they have paid for, which makes THEM feel cheated and also happens to cause an even bigger outcry because it's very closely related to "zero-day DLC". Quite the catch--22, no?


Many people in this thread probably won't know about how the game industry really works. Here's some fun stuff for those that are interested; it's getting slightly off-topic though.

Most games never make profit; the publishers keep releasing games that sell for the masses, because the economic model needs few massive hits offsetting all the other games that end up as losses.

The fact that most games make losses doesn't mean that the publishers can fix it by publishing just good games. Publishers can't tell which games will sell, with the exception of sequels/massive marketing/other stuff.

Those massive hits are as likely to be Wii Party, Wii Sports or Just Dance, as they are of being "real" games like Super Mario Galaxy 2 or Madden 11. Seeing games for "serious gamers" (Starcraft 2, Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2) in the top-selling charts is rare. (note the quotes! I'm playing off of stereotypes, no harm or slander intended!)

Top 20 brands in the industry (http://www.vgchartz.com/article/81575/the-20-biggest-new-video-game-franchises-of-the-current-era/) are not what you might expect.
THQ, the company painted as "greedy" for wanting to make money on used game sales, isn't doing well (http://www.vgchartz.com/article/81347/thq-loses-30m-ships-27m-units-of-ufc-undisputed-in-apr-jun-10/). Of course, PC people won't care about THQ because PC makes only about 5% of its sales...

EA has been the biggest player on the PC market (http://www.vgchartz.com/article/81225/ea-returns-to-profit-in-april-june-2010-on-hd-sw-amp-digital-sw/), not to say it isn't a major on consoles. Their growing profits are attributed to "increasing digital distribution revenue, and [EA's] growing share of the HD software market which is still growing (particularly in Europe where PS3 sells alot of software)."

What about Ubisoft, who has distanced all gamers with their ridiculous DRM schemes? Why, they're doing quite well, with Assassin's Creed being one of their lead sellers (http://www.vgchartz.com/article/80985/ubisoft-reports-final-figures-for-april-june-2010/).

[Solarn]

Yes. That's actually what Good Old Games uses (at least for some games). The point was, if you're buying it to play, why not buy the version already set up to work on modern computers?
Because DOSBox is free.

[Zen Master]

I believe in every End User License Agreement ever written there is a sentence along the lines of 'this game must not be borrowed, hired out or resold ..' and so on.

However, that would make it pretty much the only product in existance that you cannot sell once you're done with it.

So basically, I think the games industry should simply move on. To my mind, they've been criminally slow in removing the retail level entirely, and switching to online distribution. That would also solve the problem of resale.

[dsmiles]

I'm not sure how their system works, but most probably.


In a sense. But you can take that into account when buying the game just like you would knowing you can't use the on-line multiplayer component, or like I would when there's an attached offer that is only valid in the U.S. (although for me I don't dish out exactly the same amount of money for a new console game - I'd have to pay US$80+ in Aussie bucks. Yes, I feel slightly cheated. :smallwink:)

So, No Dr. Pepper to get SPORE Bot parts for you, huh?

[Myatar_Panwar]

Tycho was not saying that buying used games actually equated to piracy, just that it might as well be piracy when it comes to supporting your developer.

This quote I found pretty funny, it was one of the email responses Gabe got:


And they're not loosing any money when the choice for me is buy it used or don't buy it at all.

That is basically your token pirate excuse, too. :smallsmile:

[Irbis]

A THQ game (Smackdown vs Raw 2011) is being sold with a free one-time DLC code as an incentive to get people to buy the game new.
Used games buyers have been complaining that they'll miss out on the DLC.
The THQ's creative director responded with words to the effect of: "Well yeah, that's the whole point of an incentive for you to buy the game from us and not give your money to Gamestop."

Except it's not really a DLC, it's part of game that is still on disk but is hidden from anyone who doesn't buy it new, if DA:O or ME are any indication.


Between this and the 'wolves' thing a few strips ago, does anyone else get the impression that PA has been on a trend of trolling the internet lately?

Out of curiosity, what game this strip referenced? Or was it wholly fictional reference?

[AslanCross]

The emphasis I have here is on the words "simple care". The problem is that said simple care isn't a garuntee. I've gotten a good number of used games in the past that simply had so much wear on them that they wouldn't work in my systems.

Also, I'd like to note that while caring for a disk is a lot easier than caring for a car, once that disk is damaged, you can't un-damage it. Cars, being complex machines, have many parts, which at least have the potential of being replaced. And if a car is kept in good working order, and the parts are kept functional, there is no reason people wouldn't keep reselling it either.

This is exactly what I was trying to say. I guess my work-addled brain just wasn't putting words together right earlier.

[Trazoi]

So, No Dr. Pepper to get SPORE Bot parts for you, huh?
Heck, I'm not even sure if we've got Dr. Pepper anymore. :smallbiggrin:

(I remember Dr. Pepper's big push into the Australian market. Their ad campaign was basically "Yes, we know Australians find this stuff undrinkably foul, but try it! You'll soon be addicted to it!". I don't think there were many takers.)

[VanBuren]

Except it's not really a DLC, it's part of game that is still on disk but is hidden from anyone who doesn't buy it new, if DA:O or ME are any indication.

And? People who pay the devs get the content for free. People who don't, don't.

Seems fair to me. After all, why do the developers have any obligation to the consumers who don't pay them?

[dsmiles]

Heck, I'm not even sure if we've got Dr. Pepper anymore. :smallbiggrin:

(I remember Dr. Pepper's big push into the Australian market. Their ad campaign was basically "Yes, we know Australians find this stuff undrinkably foul, but try it! You'll soon be addicted to it!". I don't think there were many takers.)

That's ok, Americans can't stand Vegemite. :smallbiggrin:

[Irbis]

And? People who pay the devs get the content for free. People who don't, don't.

Seems fair to me. After all, why do the developers have any obligation to the consumers who don't pay them?

Because if you buy it after a certain date, you don't get it. That's basically extortion of money from everyone who didn't bought it new immediately. Especially given that these games were alredy paid for by shops.

And why are you dragging developers into this? It's publishers who do that, people who did nothing for the game except for selling it. It's quite different from taking money from Sam the programmer, at best you're taking money from Lex the CEO.

[endoperez]

Because DOSBox is free.

1. It was said that without used game sales, one couldn't get Master of Magic (or similar classics).
2. I countered that by stating that classic old games are being sold, once more.
3. I also added that the sellers also make sure the game actually works on modern systems.

It seems like you're ignoring 2 because you think 3 is bad...

[SmartAlec]

Out of curiosity, what game this strip referenced? Or was it wholly fictional reference?

World of Warcraft.

[Klose_the_Sith]

*Looks in thread*

I ... oh ... wow ...

*Contemplates explaining economics*

Hmmm ...

*Abandons the idea of educating those who are in need of some eccy*

That said? The used game market does not hurt developers. Just because I buy a used copy of Modern Warfare 2 doesn't mean that I'm not a paying customer. It means that I'm less of a paying customer.

However, there are people who will go through games like a woodchipper and then turn all those games into piles of trade-ins. All I'm doing is enabling that cycle.

Better yet, here's another thought, one that's been with us for a looooong time.

Any money spent is good for all members of the economy. So long as goods are consumed and capital exchanged, everyone wins. The more this happens, the better.

You can argue semantics on the internet all you want, but moral technicalities do not a compelling take on reality make.

[Triaxx]

That's ok, Americans can't stand Vegemite. :smallbiggrin:

Which is fine, because it's a local speciality, which means they only try to pass it off on foreign idiots. :smalltongue:

The game/book argument warty mentioned is flawed. If this were about copyright laws, and someone were passing it off as their own, fine. As it is it's someone saying: Hey, I played this awesome game, and now I want someone else to play it so I can buy a new one.

As far as I'm concerned, publishers simply need to shut up and produce games we want to buy. Why? Because if people don't want to buy new games because of hyper-restrictive DRM's, then they won't sell the used games. The used market will dry up, but so will the new market because there won't be the incentive to buy a game you can't play because of restrictive DRM's and can't resell to afford new ones.

So let them play however they want. Those that don't abide by the customer is always right will fall by the way side, and those that do will rise.

Zenimax, and Stardock will live and continue.

EA and Ubisoft will crumble and fall.

[lobablob]

I think the basic issue of reselling games is fairly simple, you own the cd, you can sell it on, the companies have no right to interfere with that. The only argument that did interest me was regarding multiplayer - the point that the secondary buyer hasn't paid any money to the developer but is costing them money in terms of upkeep of multiplayer servers. At first, I thought that this was a good point, and perhaps justified some restriction of multiplayer for secondary buyers.

However, thinking upon it further, I found a reason why this is not so - when you buy a game that has multiplayer content, you are also getting the right to be able to play it online unhindered for however long the multiplayer servers exist (The company has the obligation to maintain these, but realistically, multiplayer support will have to disappear at some point). Imagine that there was a fixed date from the very beginning of how long until the multiplayer support was removed. Suppose at the time of buying the game, this date was set 10 years in the future. You, as the owner of the game, have the right to play the game online for these 10 years. Now, suppose you sell the game on after 2 years - the secondary buyer is now the owner of the game, and has the right to play it online for the next 8 years - the company has lost nothing in this. You cannot say that the company is losing out due to have to pay to maintain the online privileges of secondary buyers, because for each person playing online who didn't pay money directly to the developer, there must be one other person who did pay money directly to the developer but who is no longer able to play online. The sale of the game involved the right to play it online, and upon resale, this right was transferred to the secondary buyer - the right is not extended or increased in any way, so as I have established, this does not increase the costs of the developer in any way.

[dsmiles]

Better yet, here's another thought, one that's been with us for a looooong time.

Any money spent is good for all members of the economy. So long as goods are consumed and capital exchanged, everyone wins. The more this happens, the better.

You can argue semantics on the internet all you want, but moral technicalities do not a compelling take on reality make.

I knew there was a reason I liked you. :smalltongue:

Seriously, until the economy really picks up again, game publishers should be happy that people are spending any money on their products. Games are a luxury, not a necessity. Spending money is the only way to fix our poor, floundering, American economy. Our government didn't do their homework. When Japan's economy nearly collapsed, they had to almost literally throw billions of dollars at it to fix it. So, SPEND THAT MONEY, ANY WAY YOU CAN!! :smallbiggrin:

[BlackSheep]

First, I think it's important to note that it's Jerry Holkins (http://www.penny-arcade.com) throwing out the word piracy, not the guy from THQ.

Second, I found this interesting as I was reading about the story:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/11142810761.shtml

tl;dr: a thriving secondary market provides a significant benefit to the primary market by reducing risk. If buyers love a product, they can keep it forever. If they're underwhelmed, they can sell it off.

What THQ is proposing is forcing secondary buyers to pay a fee to the publisher for using their product. They see how well that GameStop is doing and are trying to cut a little slice of that pie. I'm sure in their mind, they'll either make money off used game buyers or make buying used games enough of a hassle that people will just buy new. They're not trying to say that you shouldn't be allowed to pawn your games, they just want to make more money.

I view a lot of the furor over this the same way I viewed the outcry over Oblivion's horse armor. If you don't want to pay for a product because of how it's sold, then don't, and tell the seller why. Eventually they'll either refine their practices or stop altogether.

[Oslecamo]

I don't understand why all the confusion. It's all about what the law says.

If it's against it, then it's filthy piracy.

If it's following the law, it's free market economy.

Point. That's why we have laws and stuff.

[lobablob]

Because the law essentially comes down to the opinions of a certain person or group people on what is best in a particular situation - you may have different opinions and so you can disagree with the current laws which means that it makes perfect sense to debate on the issue. And anyway, laws can't be made with regard to every possible situation that could ever arise - so it can be difficult to say what the law is in a particular situation and it is always subject to interpretation.

[Oslecamo]

If it was subject to interpretation, all the companies selling 2nd hand games would've been put in court already by the gaming companies. We're not talking about hard to track pirates hidden by the net, we're talking about companies in plain daylight selling directly on the open market. With enough money to make a process profitable.

As it stands, nobody has been sued over the matter, so there's simply not enough "difficult to say what the law is in a particular situation " for a debate. Selling 2nd hand games is as legal as you can get right now.

Sure you can disagree with the laws themselves, but I wish you good luck if you think you can take the market system head on whitout some serious lawyer backup.

[dsmiles]

Because the law essentially comes down to the financial assets of a certain person or group people on what is best in a particular situation - you may have different opinions and so you can disagree with the current laws which means that it makes perfect sense to debate on the issue. And anyway, laws can't be made with regard to every possible situation that could ever arise - so it can be difficult to say what the law is in a particular situation and it is always subject to interpretation.

Fixed it for you. The game companies pay the lobbyists to push the laws and regulatory fluff that they want, with no regard for the consumer base (or what we want).

[The Glyphstone]

Which is fine, because it's a local speciality, which means they only try to pass it off on foreign idiots. :smalltongue:

.

So even Australians don't eat Vegemite?:smallbiggrin:

[dsmiles]

So even Australians don't eat Vegemite?:smallbiggrin:

According to another thread I was reading, they do, and it's what keeps the drop bears away.

[lobablob]

Fixed it for you. The game companies pay the lobbyists to push the laws and regulatory fluff that they want, with no regard for the consumer base (or what we want).

By opinions, I mean what the opinions they express while debating over what the law should be, regardless of whether those opinions are the result of other influences.

[warty goblin]

Because if you buy it after a certain date, you don't get it. That's basically extortion of money from everyone who didn't bought it new immediately. Especially given that these games were alredy paid for by shops.

It's no more extortion than a sale, pre-order bonus or any number of other things are. Besides, you buy something new at full price, this way you get a better product than if you wait six months for a sale. Makes perfect sense to me.


And why are you dragging developers into this? It's publishers who do that, people who did nothing for the game except for selling it. It's quite different from taking money from Sam the programmer, at best you're taking money from Lex the CEO.

Yeah, publishers do nothing for a game except sell it... and provide the millions of dollars needed to make it in most cases. But of course I suppose expecting to make any of that money back on their part is just them being greedy.

[valadil]

Well, the quality of games does not decrease any with use.

No, but the perceived quality of games does. Here's Gamespy's top 10 games of the year for 2005.

Silent Hunter III, Swat 4, Freedom Force vs. the 3rd Reich, F.E.A.R., Guild Wars, Age of Empires III, GTA: San Andreas, Call of Duty 2, Battlefield 2, CIV 4.

I've bolded all the games I'd pay full price for and italicized all the games I'd pay $5 for. Even if they were new copies with no wear and tear. The quality of the games is exactly where it was when they were released, but the quality of other games has since gone up.

I find it curious that nobody has addressed my game rental question. Maybe in a couple days if Tycho says that that's evil too, there will be a response :-P

[Klose_the_Sith]

Just one thought - people seem to be talking about the games with the phrase that 'the games are the devs only way to recoup losses'.

Well surely if they're dealing with a fanbase that cares so much about online content they should just shell out DLC? Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems like that'd work on people who get so worked up over it.

Although additionally, it's worth noting that this announcement doesn't actually affect me. Although I do buy second hand games, I haven't been on Xbox live in about 2 years. I've had a couple of LAN-based RTS-a-thons in that time, but beyond that I'm a single player gamer. I just don't want to see others losing content that they care about over faulty logic.


I knew there was a reason I liked you. :smalltongue:

Seriously, until the economy really picks up again, game publishers should be happy that people are spending any money on their products. Games are a luxury, not a necessity. Spending money is the only way to fix our poor, floundering, American economy. Our government didn't do their homework. When Japan's economy nearly collapsed, they had to almost literally throw billions of dollars at it to fix it. So, SPEND THAT MONEY, ANY WAY YOU CAN!! :smallbiggrin:

Well, not quite :smalltongue: (because you practically endorsed excessive Government stimulus. Bad!)

But yeah, pretty much. If flows of capital pick up then the games industry's downturn will start reversing itself. This whole second-hand business just seems to be THQ not wanting to admit that a recession happened to them and instead looking for a scapegoat. The fact that they chose customers for their scapegoats? Ouch.


No, but the perceived quality of games does. Here's Gamespy's top 10 games of the year for 2005.

Silent Hunter III, Swat 4, Freedom Force vs. the 3rd Reich, F.E.A.R., Guild Wars, Age of Empires III, GTA: San Andreas, Call of Duty 2, Battlefield 2, CIV 4.

I've bolded all the games I'd pay full price for and italicized all the games I'd pay $5 for. Even if they were new copies with no wear and tear. The quality of the games is exactly where it was when they were released, but the quality of other games has since gone up.

Oh day-amn!

Although personally I'd buy AOE 3 and Battlefield 2 if they were in a bargain bin. Come to think of it, I did. And fun was had by me with them :smalltongue:

Plus I'd totally pay 1/4 (at least) full price for GTA San Andreas. It still stacks up against loads of my newer stuff, because it's a really fun game. Nothing you say about it changes how much fun it is or how much content was packed in.

It's way better than GTA 4, just to start off with ...

[dsmiles]

Well, not quite :smalltongue: (because you practically endorsed excessive Government stimulus. Bad!)


Actually, IIRC, that's exactly what it took for Japan to fix their economy when it crashed. We're not doing it right, and it's going to take longer to bounce back because of it.

[Thrawn183]

I'd like to see if I can add a new element to the discussion. Something's value is determined by how much people are willing to pay for it, not what some joker puts on a price tag (hello, mark-to-market accounting, though that is all I will say on that topic).

I think it is quite obvious that most people are unwilling to pay as much for an old game as they are for new ones (yes there are a few exceptions, but this is a restriction in supply rather than a huge demand). I get this vibe that a lot of companies want me to pay full freight for a game that's a couple of years old.

Regardless of whether or not the old game still runs just as well, competition brings the price of the old game down because I won't spend X amount of money on a game when I could get a better game for the same amount.

[Truwar]

As far as I'm concerned, publishers simply need to shut up and produce games we want to buy. Why? Because if people don't want to buy new games because of hyper-restrictive DRM's, then they won't sell the used games. The used market will dry up, but so will the new market because there won't be the incentive to buy a game you can't play because of restrictive DRM's and can't resell to afford new ones.

So let them play however they want. Those that don't abide by the customer is always right will fall by the way side, and those that do will rise.


Amen!
If you want to give real support to the gaming, buy used games when then new games being offered are mediocre. If game publishers are allowed to end the purchase of used games it will only hurt gaming. Assured that players MUST buy new games they will not have to work as hard at producing games players WANT to buy new. How many real fans of Starcraft 2 are sitting around waiting for used games versions of the game to start showing up at Gamestop? When GTA XXVIII comes out next year, how many fans will say “I think I will wait six months after the release date so I can save ten bucks”?

I am all for extra DLC for people that buy the games new, however. The carrot is a much better tool to use than the stick. If they are smart, they will allow used game buyers to purchase the DLC at a premium though. Why throw away extra sales?

[J.Gellert]

Well, all I've got to add is that I miss the good old days when you bought a big box...
And in the box you had a fully working game...
And you didn't have to search the box and manual for a CDKey...
And you didn't have to immediately go online to patch it...
And you also got a nice map with it...
...and a detailed 150-page manual.

And it wasn't that long ago, because I'm still pretty young.

It's been said, yeah, reselling games is good for the economy. I agree 100%.

And you know what... if the gaming industry fails, I won't mind. Because, looking back, all the clash simply produces more -censored- like DRM and DLC, and it hasn't really improved the quality.

The companies that make good games and treat their customers well will survive.

[Erloas]

I am all for extra DLC for people that buy the games new, however. The carrot is a much better tool to use than the stick. If they are smart, they will allow used game buyers to purchase the DLC at a premium though. Why throw away extra sales?
Isn't that mostly a matter of perception though? If we take the statement THQ made, they could have just as easily said "every game purchase comes with a one time use code to activate bonus DLC." When that DLC is dedicated servers and multiplayer support. Instead its viewed as dedicated servers and multiplayer support are a part of the game that is going to be removed if you purchase the game used.
Its not really and different then pre-order bonuses or special editions... its just that this "special edition" is any game bought new and the non special edition is any game bought used.

It should also be mentioned that this really doesn't have a lot to do with PC games. No company (that I'm aware of) deals in used PC games. Most companies will not even accept returns of PC software after it has been opened (since there is no way of knowing if the product is still installed or not).
Console games need dedicated servers most of the time because most consoles do not have the extra overhead in power to host multiplayer and play at the same time.
And you also have to ask the question with used console games, how do you actually know the game wasn't pirated? It isn't that hard to mod a console to take a burned disk, its not that hard to buy a game, make a copy, sell it used and continue to play the game. Unlike a car, selling a used game doesn't necessarily mean the original owner can no longer use it. It is assumed with console games, but they really aren't that hard to copy.

[Truwar]

And you also have to ask the question with used console games, how do you actually know the game wasn't pirated? It isn't that hard to mod a console to take a burned disk, its not that hard to buy a game, make a copy, sell it used and continue to play the game. Unlike a car, selling a used game doesn't necessarily mean the original owner can no longer use it. It is assumed with console games, but they really aren't that hard to copy.

That is a crime and I have no problem with taking steps to prevent piracy. I think game producers should be able to do whatever they want to prevent piracy. If Ubisoft wants a ridiculous draconian policy to prevent piracy, so be it. I simply will not buy their product if it is too annoying and if they annoy enough people sufficiently, the market will punish them for their actions.

It is not the fractional percentage of people with the technological know-how to mod their consoles that the game producers are complaining about. It is the large group of people that are legitimately buying used games that is costing them the money they could be making if those people were forced to buy only new copies of their games.

The ability of players to wait and buy the game used, if they wish, forces the game producers to provide a game that players cannot resist buying new. Take that away and it makes it that much easier for gaming companies to churn out mediocre garbage. Take a look at the strangely frank comments of the CEO of Blizzard/Activision if you doubt what I am saying.

[Triaxx]

The problem is that if they eliminate those people that are buying used games now, all they'll end up doing is alienating the customers they have now. People that buy only used games tend to only buy used. New gamers tend towards new games.

I object mostly to having to find a pirate to play the game I bought legally without hassles and headaches. And I can't really play any Ubisoft because they've forgotten 40% of their US base is still on dial-up.

[Raroy]

Aren't new games like new cars? Both improve upon themselves in design and have companies that compete. Both stop producing older models since newer models are in demand. I don't believe the manufacturer gets money from the sale of a used car, it's not their product anymore. You sell your old car because it's not as good as a new, improved car; somebody else will buy it.

There is nothing legally wrong with buying used cars. Why would there be something legally wrong with buying used games?

This sounds like a completely banal topic.

[AslanCross]

Well, all I've got to add is that I miss the good old days when you bought a big box...
And in the box you had a fully working game...
And you didn't have to search the box and manual for a CDKey...
And you didn't have to immediately go online to patch it...
And you also got a nice map with it...
...and a detailed 150-page manual.

And it wasn't that long ago, because I'm still pretty young.


I really miss this, and yes, it wasn't much longer than 10 years ago.
I guess I could live without the enormous boxes with the environment dying and all, but I do really miss the manuals. The curious lack of a manual was my first complaint about my Starcraft 2 purchase, even if the manual my old Starcraft 1 game came with was badly laid out and had a massive typo (an entire misplaced paragraph--then again, my copy was one of the first few production runs, as the box had a Terran face on it whilst they eventually just produced all later boxes with the Protoss face).




Aren't new games like new cars? Both improve upon themselves in design and have companies that compete. Both stop producing older models since newer models are in demand. I don't believe the manufacturer gets money from the sale of a used car, it's not their product anymore. You sell your old car because it's not as good as a new, improved car; somebody else will buy it.

There is nothing legally wrong with buying used cars. Why would there be something legally wrong with buying used games?

This sounds like a completely banal topic.

This was exactly what many have brought up in this thread. I completely agree.

[Triaxx]

And you didn't have to search the box and manual for a CDKey...

Just noticed this. You know? This is a vast improvement over the old method, which gave you a page number, paragraph, and word number to look up. Possibly in that 150 page manual. I much prefer a nice simple CDKey. :smallbiggrin:

[AslanCross]

Just noticed this. You know? This is a vast improvement over the old method, which gave you a page number, paragraph, and word number to look up. Possibly in that 150 page manual. I much prefer a nice simple CDKey. :smallbiggrin:

There was a really old DOS game entitled "The Summoning" by SSI that had sets of four character portraits on the top of each page of the manual. Every time you opened up the game, it gave you a page number to look up and ask you to enter the faces of the characters shown there.

[SmartAlec]

There is nothing legally wrong with buying used cars. Why would there be something legally wrong with buying used games?

Because a game is both the game and the license to use it, buying a used game is like buying a used car without the documentation or notifying the DMV. 's pretty dodgy.

[Vitruviansquid]

I am currently in favor of the way used games are already "done." Publishers can choose freely to give bonuses to new game buyers or slash features for used game buyers, and it's up to the gamers whether or not they want to buy new or used, knowing the consequences of doing either. It seems obviously that there are benefits, negative consequences, and a lot of grey areas in used games such that it should ultimately be up to the publishers to decide how in favor of it they will be. On one side, they can do purely digital distribution, a la Steampowered, such that it's impossible to get their games used, while on the other side, they can just give a CD and a CD key, or just a CD.

I know it's sort of dodging the question of how legal the used games industry is and whether or not the used game market is entitled to exist, but every answer I've seen to that question tends to have unfortunate implications.

[valadil]

Because a game is both the game and the license to use it, buying a used game is like buying a used car without the documentation or notifying the DMV. 's pretty dodgy.

Except there is a very good reason why you have to notify the DMV. They need to know who is driving what car, and that that person is authorized to do so. It's about safety, not capitalism. There's no need for such a silly thing for playing video games, and if such a thing existed, the price of games would increase (which is really what this whole debate is about).

Otherwise I agree though. Well, sort of. It's not clear if a game is the media it is delivered on or if it's the right to play the game. I don't think it should be both. And it's only a recent development that the game would be considered anything besides its physical media. Nobody was worrying about people ripping Genesis cartridges and returning to the stores. I actually blame the music industry for putting forth the idea that the purchase of an album buys you the rights to listen to that album and that those rights are non-transferable.

[The Glyphstone]

I really miss this, and yes, it wasn't much longer than 10 years ago.
I guess I could live without the enormous boxes with the environment dying and all, but I do really miss the manuals. The curious lack of a manual was my first complaint about my Starcraft 2 purchase, even if the manual my old Starcraft 1 game came with was badly laid out and had a massive typo (an entire misplaced paragraph--then again, my copy was one of the first few production runs, as the box had a Terran face on it whilst they eventually just produced all later boxes with the Protoss face).




This. Games used to have manuals. The Ascendancy 'manual' (old 4X game) was a couple hundred pages, more like a decent-sized paperback book. Starcraft, Diablo, Diablo II, they all came with excellent manuals full of stories and universe fluff.

Nowadays, you're lucky to get an unfoldable insert in the front of the CD case with instructions on 'How to Play' in 10 tiny pages or less.

[Vitruviansquid]

This. Games used to have manuals. The Ascendancy 'manual' (old 4X game) was a couple hundred pages, more like a decent-sized paperback book. Starcraft, Diablo, Diablo II, they all came with excellent manuals full of stories and universe fluff.

Nowadays, you're lucky to get an unfoldable insert in the front of the CD case with instructions on 'How to Play' in 10 tiny pages or less.

It's okay, you'll get a tutorial in-game, and you don't have to worry about losing the manual any more because you'll have to go through the tutorial every time you want to start a new campaign, whether you want it to or not. :smalltongue:

[The Glyphstone]

It's okay, you'll get a tutorial in-game, and you don't have to worry about losing the manual any more because you'll have to go through the tutorial every time you want to start a new campaign, whether you want it to or not. :smalltongue:

Pfft. I can figure out how to play with or without the manual.:smallsmile: It's the backstory, the universe fluff, the unnecessary but fun stuff that made the manuals great. That Ascendancy book? The last third was three entire playthroughs done from the in-universe perspective of four different species, each ending a different way. Diablo I's manual explained the entire mythology and backstory leading up to the events of the game, as did D2's. Nowadays they sell that stuff as companion novels at $10-$15 apiece.

[Foeofthelance]

Nah, Penny Arcade insulted people who buy used games so people all over the netterwebs are making this argument.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8/25/

I think the ideas are getting crossed somewhere.

The Penny Arcade Arguement, and the one espoused by the game companies, was, essentially: "Our market is the primary original purchaser. Thus, we are going to reward the original purchaser with special things. As for the secondary market, we don't get piece of that so we're not going to do anything to support it."

This was complicated by a couple of stupid statements that were tacked onto this argument. Naturally, gamers got pissed since they were being insulted by said idiots. They insist that they should be given everything, no matter how they acquire the game.

But let's stop and look at that, shall we? If I go and buy a mattress at my next door neighbor's tag sale, I can't go down to Sleepy's and demand they sell me a warranty on it. If you pick up a second hand copy of Electronic Gamer Monthly you can't take it back into Barnes and Noble and demand that they give you the freebie demo disk that came with it. This is basically what people are complaining about, that they're not getting the freebies that they aren't paying the full price of and the developers aren't getting paid for. If the developers want to include bonuses to entice original purchasers, that's their business. Its not the same as "Unlocking info on the disk you already paid for" (which I do consider insulting) but more akin to the freebies that are usually passed out to attract customers.

Now, granted, if they start locking up game required materials behind these kinds of codes, I'll get annoyed. That's not fair. As long as its just bonus materials and the like, that's fine.

[valadil]

If you pick up a second hand copy of Electronic Gamer Monthly you can't take it back into Barnes and Noble and demand that they give you the freebie demo disk that came with it.

No you can't. However, the person selling it to you can give you the demo disk. Whether or not they do is up to them and it's up to you as purchaser to determine if you're getting the disc or not.

This does not apply with bonus materials included with games. They cannot give you the first owner content, be it bonus levels or online play. Let's say I buy a game. I play it through and then try multiplayer. I don't like multi, so I don't get into it and eventually sell the game. I don't have the option of including multiplayer privileges when selling it. So it's not quite like selling off a freebie that's included with a magazine.

[warty goblin]

Pfft. I can figure out how to play with or without the manual.:smallsmile: It's the backstory, the universe fluff, the unnecessary but fun stuff that made the manuals great. That Ascendancy book? The last third was three entire playthroughs done from the in-universe perspective of four different species, each ending a different way. Diablo I's manual explained the entire mythology and backstory leading up to the events of the game, as did D2's. Nowadays they sell that stuff as companion novels at $10-$15 apiece.

I liked the days of large manuals as much as the next person - I've still got the massive tomes that came with Caeser III and all the other old Impressions city builders. However I like it that games no longer shove all the story in the manual because it actually forces them to tell it in the game where it belongs. If I'd wanted a story from a book, I'd have bought a book.

Mind you, if companion novels ceased to exist I'd consider the world a marginally better place for it, but for entirely different reasons.

[factotum]

This. Games used to have manuals. The Ascendancy 'manual' (old 4X game) was a couple hundred pages, more like a decent-sized paperback book.

That's nothing, you could bludgeon an elephant to death with the Falcon 3 manual! :smallsmile:

I'm kind of with warty_goblin on this one, though--the story and the game should be integrated, ideally; I think a game is better when there's a solid over-riding storyline to follow as you're playing it. (This is probably why I prefer playing RPGs).

[Avilan the Grey]

Because a game is both the game and the license to use it, buying a used game is like buying a used car without the documentation or notifying the DMV. 's pretty dodgy.

And? This analogy does not fly.

If I buy something, of course I have the legal right (and moral right) to resell it. The only instances I don't is if I am doing illegal importing (smuggling). It is the developers that are fighting against second hand gaming that are the mobsters in this (unlike pirating), not the private citizens.



The Penny Arcade Arguement, and the one espoused by the game companies, was, essentially: "Our market is the primary original purchaser. Thus, we are going to reward the original purchaser with special things. As for the secondary market, we don't get piece of that so we're not going to do anything to support it."

Exactly; The Penny Arcade comic really has very little to do with this discussion; all it points out is that the game store and publishers has no legal obligation to support games bought second hand. Which is just as it should be.

[J.Gellert]

Exactly; The Penny Arcade comic really has very little to do with this discussion; all it points out is that the game store and publishers has no legal obligation to support games bought second hand. Which is just as it should be.

They don't have the legal obligation to support any customer (not talking about faulty disks, of course you replace these products - but continued patches, etc), it's just that if they don't, no one will buy their games.

[VanBuren]

They don't have the legal obligation to support any customer (not talking about faulty disks, of course you replace these products - but continued patches, etc), it's just that if they don't, no one will buy their games.

But why should they support a customer that doesn't support them?

[J.Gellert]

But why should they support a customer that doesn't support them?

Because many people who don't have the money to spend freely might buy a game while aiming to sell it back for a fraction of its cost once it's finished. If you say they can't do that, then they won't buy it at all, and that's that.

[endoperez]

I liked the days of large manuals as much as the next person - I've still got the massive tomes that came with Caeser III and all the other old Impressions city builders. However I like it that games no longer shove all the story in the manual because it actually forces them to tell it in the game where it belongs. If I'd wanted a story from a book, I'd have bought a book.

I think there's a very good reason paper manuals are no longer used: patches.

If there's no story in the manual, the only things that can be put in the manual are guides and tactics, or data and spreadsheets and tables and lists.

Tactics change, especially in multiplayer. If the manual describes how the developers assume the game will be played, and a clever player comes up with a tactic that changes the gameplay a lot, the tactics given in the manual will hinder new players.
Data, units, items, and perhaps even tech trees will change in patches. Not all of them, of course - but if you know the manual has errors, you can't trust anything in the manual 100% unless you check it against the game itself, or in an online source.

The only thing that stays relevant is something to get new players started. A tutorial, a guide, a list of controls - and those still appear, in tiny leaflets. It's a pity, but I'd still take patches over manuals.

[VanBuren]

Because many people who don't have the money to spend freely might buy a game while aiming to sell it back for a fraction of its cost once it's finished. If you say they can't do that, then they won't buy it at all, and that's that.

Except that's not what I or the person you quoted is talking about. We're not talking about saying that you can't sell your used games or buy them. We're saying that the company doesn't owe you anything if you buy the game used.

[J.Gellert]

Except that's not what I or the person you quoted is talking about. We're not talking about saying that you can't sell your used games or buy them. We're saying that the company doesn't owe you anything if you buy the game used.

If the money you give to the seller is used to buy more games from that company, then yes you pay for it.

And you don't get what I said, because on my first post you quoted, I said the company "owes" you nothing anyway, as long as the disk is not faulty. If they want to be "nice" they can give patches (to fix minor bugs, improve game balance, better performance, etc) and if they are being "nice" about it, then why not give them to second-hand buyers too? They too support the economy of their product, by rewarding the original buyers! And they company chose to be "nice" after all.

[SmartAlec]

If I buy something, of course I have the legal right (and moral right) to resell it.

Didn't you forefeit those rights by agreeing to an EULA?

[Klose_the_Sith]

Actually, IIRC, that's exactly what it took for Japan to fix their economy when it crashed. We're not doing it right, and it's going to take longer to bounce back because of it.

EDIT: Actually not gonna say what I was first going to. If you want we can discuss via PM's, but IRL politik = baaaaaaaaaad.

[Forbiddenwar]

Didn't you forefeit those rights by agreeing to an EULA?

I've tried to read EULAs in the past and I've never encountered that. Of course if Eula's did contain that, it would probably be struck down in court as, I posted a few pages ago, EULA's are not strongly enforced in courts.

[Foeofthelance]

Because many people who don't have the money to spend freely might buy a game while aiming to sell it back for a fraction of its cost once it's finished. If you say they can't do that, then they won't buy it at all, and that's that.

They're not saying they won't support the original purchaser though. What started this whole thing was a company announcing that they were giving away one time codes exclusive to the original purchaser. So the guy who buys the game new gets everything. The guy who gets the game second hand, thus not contributing to the game companies, gets nothing special. They can deal with whatever retailer sold them the game. The game developers are no longer involved in the transaction, and thus see no reason they should be called on.

"We are not involved in this market. Therefore, we will not take actions to support this market, instead focusing on the markets we are involved in. In that regards, we are offering X to draw customers into our market."

Why is this a bad stance for game makers to take?

[MrPig]

Because a game is both the game and the license to use it, buying a used game is like buying a used car without the documentation or notifying the DMV. 's pretty dodgy.

Actually, you're only buying the license and the physical media which happens to have said game on it. This physical media costs no more than $0.40 to produce in our day and age. Maybe less.

[dsmiles]

OK. Last post before I bow out of this one, as I feel as if we're mutilating the holy crap out of a dead horse in here.


YARRR, Matey!

[Forbiddenwar]

Actually, you're only buying the license and the physical media which happens to have said game on it. This physical media costs no more than $0.40 to produce in our day and age. Maybe less.

Wow, all those poor programmers, devolopers, testers, and artists who work 80 hours a week for years to produce a game get paid less than 40 cents?
Wait, I guess you mean the actual DVD. I'd like to know your supporting information. Not counting producing the digital files, there's the cost of the dvd, the artwork on the dvd, putting the software on the dvd. I think it's more like $2.00, but that is just a guess.

[MrPig]

Wow, all those poor programmers, devolopers, testers, and artists who work 80 hours a week for years to produce a game get paid less than 40 cents?
Wait, I guess you mean the actual DVD. I'd like to know your supporting information. Not counting producing the digital files, there's the cost of the dvd, the artwork on the dvd, putting the software on the dvd. I think it's more like $2.00, but that is just a guess.


I was referring to the actual, physical DVD (see physical media. The files and artwork designs on the DVD aren't physical media and are included in the price you pay for the license). Due to the sheer bulk they are produced in, the automation involved and the fact that everything is labeled with "Made in INSERT EAST ASIAN COUNTRY HERE" I imagine the per unit cost (of the DVD) is quite low, although I don't have the actual numbers to support it (out of sheer laziness and it being far too close to lunch time). Hell, games don't even really come with manuals anymore (as people have pointed out).

Edit: Random google link (http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#5.1) I found that may have simply made this crap up, but this is what it claims about DVD replication (at least when it comes to movie DVDs)


As of 2007, DVDs cost about $800 to master and under $0.50 to replicate in quantity. Double-sided or dual-layer discs cost about $0.20 more to replicate. Double-sided, dual-layer discs (DVD-18s) are more difficult and more expensive (see 3.3.1).

[Triaxx]

Let me put this thought out there for you.

I just bought used, Forged Alliance. It's the expansion to Supreme Commander. Why? Because no where around sells it and it happened to be cheaper on Amazon. I got screwed because it did not have the manual so I can't install it. I have to contact the seller in hopes that they will ship it along. If not I have to return it.

I bought the original Supreme Commander new in the store, ensuring that GPG got my money to continue developing awesome games.

I did not buy Supreme Commander 2 at all, because after playing it I found I wasn't at all interested.

So, does that make me a valued customer? A pirate? Or someone excercising his right to choose?

Most companies would call me a pirate. I'm only a valued customer until they have my money, then I can die for all they care. They would prefer I have no choice but to 'Buy Now, and For Full Price.' By purchasing used, I'm a pirate because I'm denying them profit on a product that's no longer sent to local distributors. Nevermind that I'm purchasing used to save money to purchase their next big hit, I'm denying short term profit.

And that's what they're after, is that short term profit, instead of looking past this next big expenditure, to what it might bring in. And it's not limited only to the gaming industry, they're simply what we're talking about.

[Avilan the Grey]

Didn't you forefeit those rights by agreeing to an EULA?

Of course not. EULAs are not legaly binding. At all. They are used as "pretend" contracts to scare customers to follow certain behaviors.

Edit: It might depend on what country you are in, but that is the legal standing here, at least.

[valadil]

They're not saying they won't support the original purchaser though. What started this whole thing was a company announcing that they were giving away one time codes exclusive to the original purchaser. So the guy who buys the game new gets everything. The guy who gets the game second hand, thus not contributing to the game companies, gets nothing special.

Why is this a bad stance for game makers to take?

Before this thread I would have objected violently to this stance. Now I'd refrain from purchasing it myself, but not really take offense.

How are the exclusive codes going to be managed? If they get bound to an account, why not just sell the account with the game? If they're bound to a certain console, does that mean you lose your rights when the 360 red rings?

[ObadiahtheSlim]

The big problem I have with the whole unresellable codes with normal games is it violates the first sale doctrine of copyright law. It prevents me from excersing my right to resell the game. I have a simliar complaint against Steam which prevents me from reselling my games.

[Erloas]

This. Games used to have manuals. The Ascendancy 'manual' (old 4X game) was a couple hundred pages, more like a decent-sized paperback book. Starcraft, Diablo, Diablo II, they all came with excellent manuals full of stories and universe fluff.

Nowadays, you're lucky to get an unfoldable insert in the front of the CD case with instructions on 'How to Play' in 10 tiny pages or less.
Well a lot of the reason they did away with manuals is that the vast majority of people didn't care about them at all. For every 1 person that took the time to read the manual there was probably 10-15 that never even pulled it out of the box. It was a fairly high expense that added very little value for most players.
About the only time I would read a manual is between when I purchased the game and by the time I got home to actually play it.



If the money you give to the seller is used to buy more games from that company, then yes you pay for it.
That of course is making a lot of assumptions. You have no idea what that money is going to be spent on. And in the case of Gamestop, you know for sure that the 75% of the used game price that is their markup isn't ever going to make it back to the developers.

And in using that same logic you may as well claim you have purchased (and have rights to) a little bit of sports stadiums, huge office buildings, and private jets because the fees you have paid to your bank has allowed them to purchase those things.
Your employer may as well claim they have rights to everything you own because they gave you all of the money to buy that stuff.

And you don't get what I said, because on my first post you quoted, I said the company "owes" you nothing anyway, as long as the disk is not faulty. If they want to be "nice" they can give patches (to fix minor bugs, improve game balance, better performance, etc) and if they are being "nice" about it, then why not give them to second-hand buyers too? They too support the economy of their product, by rewarding the original buyers! And they company chose to be "nice" after all.
And from a business standpoint "nice" doesn't pay for anything. Ask your employees how many of them want to be "nice" and work for a few days for free and see how far that gets you.
What it really means is that if some aspect of a game is going to cost a company money over an extended period of time (patches, servers, etc) but, because of the used market, they aren't going to make any money after the initial few months of launch then those things are going to start going away.

As for games not being available new after they get old, thats not really true at all. Maybe for some specific games, but you can find a number of old games new, usually in the "classic" or "GOTY" varieties. I've bought several games new that were years old and a fraction of the new price.



Actually, you're only buying the license and the physical media which happens to have said game on it. This physical media costs no more than $0.40 to produce in our day and age. Maybe less.
It probably isn't even that any more. A pack of 100 burnable DVDs is about $22 retail, meaning about $0.22 each at the retail level. With markup, you can figure those are being make for probably no more then $0.10 each, probably not even that. And burnable DVDs are more expensive to produce then normal production DVDs, they just have the added cost of making a master for the data.
So the media itself really is almost worthless. The media has not value at all. It is the data that is important, that has any value.


The big problem I have with the whole unresellable codes with normal games is it violates the first sale doctrine of copyright law. It prevents me from excersing my right to resell the game. I have a simliar complaint against Steam which prevents me from reselling my games.

You are assume you have purchased a product when you purchase a game. Considering that (as stated above, the media has no real value) a game is made up of data and other non-physical things, and as they are at least attempting to define it, you have actually just purchased a license. You have purchased the right to play a game, the media just facilitates that right. As can easily be shown with digital distribution, the media is in no way required to play the game, it isn't vital to playing the game, it just makes it easier.

Maybe I should complain about theaters and say that they are violating my first sale right by not letting me resell the movie/play/concert I just watched. That of course pretty much doesn't make any sense at all, but depending on how you define a game (it is something other then its media, it really isn't a physical thing at all) it could be viewed exactly the same way.

Is that necessarily the way games should be treated? I don't really know. But in many ways it is a much more fitting example then something like a bicycle or sofa.

[valadil]

You are assume you have purchased a product when you purchase a game. Considering that (as stated above, the media has no real value) a game is made up of data and other non-physical things, and as they are at least attempting to define it, you have actually just purchased a license. You have purchased the right to play a game, the media just facilitates that right. As can easily be shown with digital distribution, the media is in no way required to play the game, it isn't vital to playing the game, it just makes it easier.


So what happens if the media breaks? Are they going to ship you a new CD so you can exercise your right to play the game? Maybe charge you for shipping plus a shiny nickel for the cost of the disc? I doubt it. They'd rather just charge you full price again, forcing you to buy a second license to play the game.

I object to this because it treats the game as media or as rights to the publisher's advantage. It needs to be one or the other and not both.

But this is really just another reason why digital distribution wins.

[Avilan the Grey]

You are assume you have purchased a product when you purchase a game. Considering that (as stated above, the media has no real value) a game is made up of data and other non-physical things, and as they are at least attempting to define it, you have actually just purchased a license. You have purchased the right to play a game, the media just facilitates that right. As can easily be shown with digital distribution, the media is in no way required to play the game, it isn't vital to playing the game, it just makes it easier.

That is still irrelevant; as long as you buy something (anything), you have the right to resell it.
Now if the stores (and companies) would just be up front and in all advertising etc. change "buy" to "rent" then there might be a different issue. If it was no longer possible to buy games but only to rent them (which is what most publishers wet dream is) then we could accept to not be allowed to resell it.

[Erloas]

That is still irrelevant; as long as you buy something (anything), you have the right to resell it.
Now if the stores (and companies) would just be up front and in all advertising etc. change "buy" to "rent" then there might be a different issue.

The difference between buy and rent can easily be a matter of semantics though. Sure with a car the difference between renting, leasing, and buying is very clear, but thats not true of everything you buy. You buy a ticket to a sports game, you don't rent them, but you can't possibly resell it as used. Some places you can resell tickets before they are used, but that isn't really the same because the item isn't used (and virtually every store does essentially the same thing), but of course scalping tickets is illegal in a lot of areas too.
Something like a plane ticket, you don't even have the option to resell it, even if it is well before it is going to be used.
In the case of something that isn't a one-time event, such as a museum, movie that is being played 4 times a day for a month, once that ticket has been used it can't be resold.
It clearly isn't a rental thing either, there is nothing to return once you are done consuming any of those items. In fact in every one of those cases there is nothing physical being purchased, there is no item, there is at most a simple card saying the transaction has taken place (essentially just a receipt).

There are a lot of items that can't be resold, especially once used, because of health or safety reasons. That once taken out of the store there is no control over what may or may not have happened with those items.

While a disc might be a physical object, the "game" part of the disc is not. It is not altered or destroyed in any way upon use, there is no way to know that whoever had that game before does not still have a working copy of that game.

Whether or not the law properly identifies and treats those sorts of things is entirely political. But it is clear that for the most part those laws were written long before some of these problems were even possible, let alone thought about. You've basically got a square law trying to cover a round problem, it really just doesn't fit as it is.


And I would say I'm not necessarily for either side, but I (think) can clearly see both sides of the fence. I'm mostly just arguing the seemingly under-represented side here.

[Forbiddenwar]

That is still irrelevant; as long as you buy something (anything), you have the right to resell it.
Now if the stores (and companies) would just be up front and in all advertising etc. change "buy" to "rent" then there might be a different issue. If it was no longer possible to buy games but only to rent them (which is what most publishers wet dream is) then we could accept to not be allowed to resell it.

This applies to e-books too. No one sells e-books, they only rent them for a one time fee for an indeterminate length of time. Talk about false advertising.



While a disc might be a physical object, the "game" part of the disc is not. It is not altered or destroyed in any way upon use, there is no way to know that whoever had that game before does not still have a working copy of that game.


Actually, every time the disc is used, it is damaged. Eventually damage does add up and makes it impossible to access the game. Very similar to how each time a book is read, it is damaged and the damage does add up and reach a point where portions of a book are unreadable. The only difference is what is reading, eyes or a computer. And this applies to if the file is located on a hard drive or a dvd. And that to the fact that hardware changes rapidly, and support for hardware can stop. So games quickly become unplayable, increasing the risk associated when buying a used game.

Take Playstation (original) games. It's difficult to find a working playstation and now if it breaks, it stays broken. PS2 will soon be the same way. And Backwards Compatibility is a joke, not because "they don't want it" but because it is impossible. (not to say Sony or Microsoft want backwards compatibility, their selling consoles at cost hoping to make profit on the new games)

[toasty]

That is still irrelevant; as long as you buy something (anything), you have the right to resell it.
Now if the stores (and companies) would just be up front and in all advertising etc. change "buy" to "rent" then there might be a different issue. If it was no longer possible to buy games but only to rent them (which is what most publishers wet dream is) then we could accept to not be allowed to resell it.

What everyone else just said. Not everything is resellable. Many things (cars, houses, furniture) is, of course, but no one wants "used" concert tickets or "2nd hand" movie tickets. You can't sell everything.

What Video Game companies appear to be doing is to make the reselling principles of Video games more in-line with the latter, that is to say, that you buy a contract to use this specific video game and that cotract is non-transferable. You can't resell this contract once you have purchased it. Currently, this isn't the case and its not gonna work like that. However, this is subject to change.

Personally, just as neutral obversation, it appears that we will be going to the non-transferable contract model, especially if digital distribution becomes the norm. Am I a fan of such a model? Not entirely. There is still something about having a phsyical item linked to my video games, books, movies, and music. Will I contest this model? No, probably not. Services like Steam really appeal to me and seem very, very, effective at doing what they say they're gonna do, as does GoG. In fact, if I could promise myself 100% access to highspeed internet at any time of the day for the rest of my gaming life, I would be perfectly happy if I only ever bought a game through Steam (this also assumes that Steam never actually goes bankrupt and never revokes my access to any of my games). As it is, I can't do that because Highspeed internet doesn't exist in all the places I plan to visit in the near future, but that's really my only big issue with such delivery systems.

[Avilan the Grey]

What everyone else just said. Not everything is resellable. Many things (cars, houses, furniture) is, of course, but no one wants "used" concert tickets or "2nd hand" movie tickets. You can't sell everything.

Of course not. Just like you can't sell empty chips bags. The product has already been used. Now, I can easily sell tickets to concerts that has not yet taken place, of course. So your example is both self-evident and at the same time irrelevant.

Now if you choose to buy it through a purely digital distribution channel, then you are hopefully aware that your ability to pass it over to someone else are limited.

[Erloas]

Actually, every time the disc is used, it is damaged. Eventually damage does add up and makes it impossible to access the game. Very similar to how each time a book is read, it is damaged and the damage does add up and reach a point where portions of a book are unreadable. The only difference is what is reading, eyes or a computer. And this applies to if the file is located on a hard drive or a dvd. And that to the fact that hardware changes rapidly, and support for hardware can stop. So games quickly become unplayable, increasing the risk associated when being a used game.
From what I've heard it is really only an issue with burned media. I've heard it talked about in data backup systems where they say not to back everything up on just CD/DVDs because they break down over time just sitting on the shelf. I couldn't say for sure, but I don't think it is an issue with normally produced discs. Its not that the light from the laser degrades the disc, it is the chemicals that are used to allow a disc to be written to break down over time. The way a production disc is created isn't at all like the way a burnable disc is created by normal users. I could be wrong though, do you have anything to back up your claim that (non burned) discs break down with use? I would be interested in reading about it regardless of its impact on this discussion.



Take Playstation (original) games. It's difficult to find a working playstation and now if it breaks, it stays broken. PS2 will soon be the same way. And Backwards Compatibility is a joke, not because "they don't want it" but because it is impossible. (not to say Sony or Microsoft want backwards compatibility, their selling consoles at cost hoping to make profit on the new games)
Its hard to really call that a risk of buying used games, because you know before you ever buy it if you have what is needed to play it. Of course your PS1 might break down the day after you buy a used game, but even if that game was brand new, it wouldn't make a difference. Its the risk of putting money into an obsolete system.

And at least from a developer point of view, the 5+ year old used market is a different matter then the new used game market. I've been in Gamestops before where they had used copies of a game that hadn't even been released for a full week. Given it shows the game was either really short, bad enough the person didn't want to keep playing, one they simply pirated and brought back the next day, or a lot of possible scenarios. Of which some of those problems are on the developer though.



Its clear that reselling used games isn't illegal, the morality is a bit more of a question though.
The problem I have with the justification for buying used is that it requires the person buying used to take partial responsibility for someone else's actions.

Person A buys new game
Person B buys used game from Person A
Money from used sale enables Person A to buy another new game
Person B's used game purchase allows money to go back into the game industry


But lets take a different set of possible scenarios
Person B buys the same used game
Person A then buys:

A new game from the same company -- everything good here
donates it to a locale charity -- thats nice
a new game from a different company -- oh well, close enough
a new game from a different company that person B had been boycotting because they don't support his platform of choice, have bad DRM, have poor multiplayer support, whatever --- well not great, but what can you do
buys a subscription to furry porn monthly -- err... well not something I want to support but to each their own
buys some meth -- well now we have a problem
buys a 1/5 of whiskey, gets drunk on it and kills someone while driving home --- another problem
buys some bullets and goes on a shooting rampage at work

Ok, obviously some of those are a bit extreme and a lot less likely then others. But in short, trying to take some responsibility for enabling other people's purchases is a very slippery morale slope to be on. Regardless of why I'm giving someone else money (for goods new or used, or services) I don't want to try and claim any responsibilities for their actions with that money.

[Avilan the Grey]

Its clear that reselling used games isn't illegal, the morality is a bit more of a question though.
The problem I have with the justification for buying used is that it requires the person buying used to take partial responsibility for someone else's actions.

Sorry, I don't agree with, or even understand this argument. I understand what point you are trying to make, but I can't wrap my head around the idea.

[toasty]

Yea, in fact, what's immoral about reselling a product that legally can be resold? I mean... really? What's wrong with trading a valuable object for other (equally?) valuable objects?

The only problem with such a transaction is when it is forbidden by law or the object(s) being traded are restricted or illegal (Medicine, Drugs, Guns, etc). That or the someone is ripping you off and not actually giving you what you asked for... but that's a completely different issue, no?

[Erloas]

Yea, in fact, what's immoral about reselling a product that legally can be resold? I mean... really? What's wrong with trading a valuable object for other (equally?) valuable objects?
Well without examples (being political in nature most of the time) there are plenty of immoral acts that aren't illegal as there are other acts that are illegal that some people don't see any moral problems with. There is also a fairly wide range of what some people do and do not consider morale.


Sorry, I don't agree with, or even understand this argument. I understand what point you are trying to make, but I can't wrap my head around the idea.
It is the line that makes used games ok, but pirated games bad, because in both cases the developer gets no money at all for you to play the game, but in the case of used games, some other gamer gets that money that they will use to buy more games.

The stance against reselling used games is that the people that put all of the time and effort into making them aren't making any money at all off of the resale of that item. That if you want them to keep making games they have to make money selling the games, and when there is no difference at all between a new game and a used game (a game looses nothing by being used) why would people not buy a used game when it gives them the exact same experience for less money. Many people here have said that by buying used games they are still supporting the industry making the games they like to play because being able to sell old games gives the owner of those games more money to buy more games. The "even if I can't afford the game new, buying it used gives some other gamer more money to buy more new games." It is a statement people have made here and other places.

[Toastkart]

The difference between buy and rent can easily be a matter of semantics though. Sure with a car the difference between renting, leasing, and buying is very clear, but thats not true of everything you buy. You buy a ticket to a sports game, you don't rent them, but you can't possibly resell it as used.

The difference is not between buying and renting, but buying an object or property of some kind and buying a service. Any kind of ticket, be it to sporting event, music concert, movie theatre, or plane ride is buying a service.

I suppose you could make the arguement that subscription based mmos are services, but you still have to buy the game first, playing it is extra. Which is why I, and probably a lot of others, will no longer play subscription based games.



But lets take a different set of possible scenarios
Person B buys the same used game
Person A then buys:

* A new game from the same company -- everything good here
* donates it to a locale charity -- thats nice
* a new game from a different company -- oh well, close enough
* a new game from a different company that person B had been boycotting because they don't support his platform of choice, have bad DRM, have poor multiplayer support, whatever --- well not great, but what can you do
* buys a subscription to furry porn monthly -- err... well not something I want to support but to each their own
* buys some meth -- well now we have a problem
* buys a 1/5 of whiskey, gets drunk on it and kills someone while driving home --- another problem
* buys some bullets and goes on a shooting rampage at work

Ok, obviously some of those are a bit extreme and a lot less likely then others. But in short, trying to take some responsibility for enabling other people's purchases is a very slippery morale slope to be on. Regardless of why I'm giving someone else money (for goods new or used, or services) I don't want to try and claim any responsibilities for their actions with that money.
I'm having a hard time seeing why this is relevant, even from what you're calling a moral standpoint.



It is the line that makes used games ok, but pirated games bad, because in both cases the developer gets no money at all for you to play the game, but in the case of used games, some other gamer gets that money that they will use to buy more games.

The stance against reselling used games is that the people that put all of the time and effort into making them aren't making any money at all off of the resale of that item.
You know, for a game to be sold used it would have had to have been sold new at some point. The developers, publishers, and retailers made their money off that sale. Say, as an example, a company produces 50k units of a game to sell, and over the first six months 40k are sold. After those first six months, sales slow to a trickle. During the first year, 12k units are resold.

If, as you insist, the devs, publishers, etc. are entitled to be paid for those resold units, they would inevitably, eventually, make more money than they could have possibly made if they only produced those first 50k units. At what point is it ok that they're being paid twice for the same product?



You are assume you have purchased a product when you purchase a game. Considering that (as stated above, the media has no real value) a game is made up of data and other non-physical things, and as they are at least attempting to define it, you have actually just purchased a license. You have purchased the right to play a game, the media just facilitates that right. As can easily be shown with digital distribution, the media is in no way required to play the game, it isn't vital to playing the game, it just makes it easier.
As someone mentioned earlier, EULAs are dubiously enforceable. It largely depends on what court you're talking to. As it stands, I don't think any rulings have been made on EULAs in general, only on specific provisions within them. It still is a legal grey area of what exactly you're buying when you buy a game, and my guess is it will eventually come down not in favor of the consumer.

[Zevox]

It is the line that makes used games ok, but pirated games bad, because in both cases the developer gets no money at all for you to play the game, but in the case of used games, some other gamer gets that money that they will use to buy more games.
That doesn't make any sense. Used games are okay because it's simply someone selling off a working product he bought before to the store, which is then resold by the store to someone else who wants it. It doesn't matter whether the original buyer/seller then spends the money he gets from the used game on more games - that's a separate and frankly irrelevant matter altogether.


The stance against reselling used games is that the people that put all of the time and effort into making them aren't making any money at all off of the resale of that item.
The people that make any product never get any money off its resale, only off its initial sale. This is no different from reselling any other product, and there's no reason it should be.

Zevox

[Avilan the Grey]

It is the line that makes used games ok, but pirated games bad, because in both cases the developer gets no money at all for you to play the game, but in the case of used games, some other gamer gets that money that they will use to buy more games.

The stance against reselling used games is that the people that put all of the time and effort into making them aren't making any money at all off of the resale of that item.

This is the same line as with everything. I don't get your standpoint, because it doesn't make sense: If I own something, I can sell it. Period.
The original manufacturer does not get any money, it doesn't matter if it's a computer game, D&D rule books, an old aquarium or an enormous luxury yacht. There is NOTHING shady, or immoral about it. At all.

[jmbrown]

The whole used game argument is ridiculous because

A) Developers complain they're not receiving money for their games but fail to realize that people don't want to pay new prices for a year old product and very very very few games see a consistent print run. It's like complaining that your bar isn't getting customers even though you have no alcohol in stock. Digital distribution is the fix to this since a DD product doesn't require a physical copy but console developers are slow to adapt and refuse to allow someone else (like Steam) dictate their prices.

What? Activision sell their two year old Call of Duty game for less than $40???? GTFO!!

B) Publishers still receive their money for new games. The seller keeps 20% of a new game's sales for themself (the publisher doesn't get 80% as an additional 20% goes to the license holder IE Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo). The only way for a dedicated video game store to survive is through the used market. Kill it, and you force the store to deal in other merchandise or fold.

[Triaxx]

One of Activision and Blizzards saving graces. You can still buy those older games. (Unless they happen to be Lost Vikings. :smallmad:)

[Erloas]

This is the same line as with everything. I don't get your standpoint, because it doesn't make sense: If I own something, I can sell it. Period.
While I agree with it in the specific point of "how things should actually be done" I also acknowledge that the justification is virtually the same as for piracy in general. The "I wouldn't buy the game new anyway" so I'm going to get a copy from someone else. If they remove that copy from their personal use, then its all ok, but if they keep a copy then it is piracy. With the ease of copying games there is no way of knowing if the used copy you have isn't being used any more or if someone has made a copy of it. And with console mods to play copied games fairly common, its not really that unlikely. The reason places never take opened PC software back, as a return or as used, is because of how easy it is to copy the software and the store would have no way of knowing. It is only slightly more difficult for consoles.

In fact, I have modded 2 consoles, it took a few seconds at most (a few minutes if I didn't have everything set up beforehand). I'm pretty sure they were both first generation XBoxes. Of course I didn't know it at the time, I was working at a small business that did a lot of cabling (lots of custom cables needing soldiering) and someone brought in a circuit board saying they needed a line soldiered onto it (something I've done on other boards when a trace broke) and I did it. I didn't know what the circuit board even was until another person brought one in that wasn't taken apart quite as much as I saw more identification for the board.
It was only a week or so ago that a tech site posted an article on how the PS3 can be cracked to run burned media with a simple USB memory stick.

All of the justification for buying used can also be used to justify piracy, because the developer gets money for the copies they sell, and the copies that end up being resold or pirated are copies people wouldn't have bought anyway for full price.

And I agree that it is legal in every case to resell. But in the case of any item where the value is not in a physical item, maybe that shouldn't be the case.

Lets take the case of CDs. Lets say I buy 5 new CDs, since I own them I rip them to play on my MP3 player, then I think... hmm I'm not actually using that CD any more, I think I'll sell it. So I sell it to my friend for $1. Since my friend now owns the CD he has every right to copy it, so he makes his own copy for his MP3 player and comes to the same conclusion and sells it again. But you also have to look at why they say making copies is legal and why many people do it, in case their original disc is lost or destroyed, so obviously you don't need to have the original disc to be able to legally own a copy. Of course you could just skip the selling step and give them a digital copy. The grey line between legal and illegal and morale and immoral is not all that clear.


A) Developers complain they're not receiving money for their games but fail to realize that people don't want to pay new prices for a year old product and very very very few games see a consistent print run. ...
I think the biggest complaint is the used games that show up right away. As I've said earlier, I've been in a gamestop and seen used copies of games that haven't even been released for a full month. Its the reason why movie studios don't release the DVD copy of a movie (to stores or rental places) until well after the movie is out of the theater. I'm sure developers wouldn't have much of a problem with used games if they didn't show up until 6-12 months after release, but they don't, they start showing up right away. To the point where someone that would have bought the game new would go into the store, see a new copy and a used copy with the only difference being $10, why wouldn't they pick up the used copy?

As for games falling in price... most used games don't sell for that much less then the game does new, and the only time they do is when the used copies stop moving. Of course its not just the developers, you can tell there are other forces at work in pricing because PC games from the same publisher, even the exact same game, will change in price much faster then console games. I think a lot of it has to do with the console companies and with the retailers themselves. Best Buy doesn't want to have bought 1000 copies of a game that was worth $50 and then when they still have 300 left (across multiple stores, maybe a region) they are suddenly only worth $30. The fact that it happens with PC games is probably one reason a lot of brick-and-mortar stores don't carry much for PC games. I think the console companies also set and hold many prices to keep a perceived value of a console.

The sales of old games is mostly a retail issue, no retailer wants to take up rather expensive floorspace for old items, items that aren't selling very fast. They are the ones that say "we don't want these old budget games that have already passed their prime." If you go to a store that doesn't require expensive floorspace for their items they have a huge back catalog of games. A quick search of Amazon showed they have a lot of new copies of PS2 games, even games that are 10 years old, many of which are between $5-20.
In short, you are basically blaming developers and publishers for a retailer issue.

[Avilan the Grey]

While I agree with it in the specific point of "how things should actually be done" I also acknowledge that the justification is virtually the same as for piracy in general.

This is false, since unlike piracy, secondary sells do not need to be justified. Your whole argument is false, because it is based on this weird idea that I have to justify second hand sales, an idea that has no basis in reality.

[Kish]

The difference between buy and rent can easily be a matter of semantics though.

No. It can't.

You buy a ticket to a sports game, you don't rent them, but you can't possibly resell it as used.

Theoretically speaking, sure you can. You'll just have a hard time finding a buyer. You can take the ticket home and frame it, burn it, or resell it if you find someone who, for reasons which are his/her own business, wants to buy a used sports game ticket, and anyone who wrote online screeds about how you shouldn't do whatever you chose to do with it because of some obligation to the original owner would be fundamentally wrongheaded.

"Sell" is not at all the same as "Rent." If you buy something, you own it.

[Erloas]

This is false, since unlike piracy, secondary sells do not need to be justified. Your whole argument is false, because it is based on this weird idea that I have to justify second hand sales, an idea that has no basis in reality.

I left out the qualifier of "in terms of the people that actually made the game getting paid for your ability to play it." And that justification is for the publishers too, they might not make a single art asset or line of code, but they do a lot in terms of financing and marketing, and without those a game doesn't get anywhere.

If the resale of used software (thats what a game is) was so clearly without issue, then why is it that no one resells used software for anything other then consoles? No one resells used software for a computer, there is no used App store for your phone. The concept of *used* in terms of software simply does not make any sense.
Back in the day of cartridges for consoles it was a lot clearer because you were paying for something more physical, and more importantly, something very difficult to copy.


Theoretically speaking, sure you can. You'll just have a hard time finding a buyer. You can take the ticket home and frame it, burn it, or resell it if you find someone who, for reasons which are his/her own business, wants to buy a used sports game ticket, and anyone who wrote online screeds about how you shouldn't do whatever you chose to do with it because of some obligation to the original owner would be fundamentally wrongheaded.

"Sell" is not at all the same as "Rent." If you buy something, you own it.
You are of course missing the point, a ticket for a concert or movie is not what you are buying, the ticket has no value, all the ticket is is a receipt. You could just as easily buy it without any ticket at all, the ticket is just a way of facilitates your giving them of money and them giving you what you paid for. What you are buying is not a tangible item, it clearly is something, but it isn't something physical. Even if the concert happened 10 times at the same venue, your purchase is still only valid for a single time. *Buying* something doesn't have the inherent qualities many people seem to be selectively insisting that it does.
The same way that a CD merely facilitates your ability to play a game, the CD is not the game, and the game could just as easily be delivered in a form that doesn't require a CD at all. If you unquestionably sell a used game CD, why then can't you resell a used digital copy of the game, since in both cases you are paying for the game, the CD or bandwidth used to get you that game are not part of the game, they are simply how they facilitate the rest of the transaction.

[Kish]

I left out the qualifier of "in terms of the people that actually made the game getting paid for your ability to play it."

And if you resell a book at a used book store, the author doesn't get paid again. If you resell a chair, the manufacturer doesn't get paid again by the next person to sit on it.


If the resale of used software (thats what a game is) was so clearly without issue, then why is it that no one resells used software for anything other then consoles? No one resells used software for a computer,
...Never heard of eBay, I take it?

[Avilan the Grey]

I left out the qualifier of "in terms of the people that actually made the game getting paid for your ability to play it." And that justification is for the publishers too, they might not make a single art asset or line of code, but they do a lot in terms of financing and marketing, and without those a game doesn't get anywhere.

If the resale of used software (thats what a game is) was so clearly without issue, then why is it that no one resells used software for anything other then consoles? No one resells used software for a computer, there is no used App store for your phone. The concept of *used* in terms of software simply does not make any sense.
Back in the day of cartridges for consoles it was a lot clearer because you were paying for something more physical, and more importantly, something very difficult to copy.

Again, that point (your first one) is without merit. Period.

Your second point is because of the licensing and copy protection. Applications and games used to be plentiful in the "for sale" sections in papers, until modern copy protection made it a very likely scenario that you can't use what you buy, because the seller has not unregistered or used up all installations the publisher allows (see DRM, Electronic Arts, etc). Most people I know used to buy their copies of Office, Windows 95 / 98, and various games from ads in the papers.

Edit: And yes, you can still buy used software on Ebay etc but there is a fair chance that you are being scammed by someone that has used up all registrations etc.

The point though is that no matter how impossible it is to resell, or activate used, it is still LEGAL and not immoral at all, to buy it used. It is just that the publisher denies you your legal right to do so.

[PhoeKun]

Theoretically speaking, sure you can. You'll just have a hard time finding a buyer. You can take the ticket home and frame it, burn it, or resell it if you find someone who, for reasons which are his/her own business, wants to buy a used sports game ticket, and anyone who wrote online screeds about how you shouldn't do whatever you chose to do with it because of some obligation to the original owner would be fundamentally wrongheaded.

"Sell" is not at all the same as "Rent." If you buy something, you own it.

Just to kind of toss a quick point in favor of this tangent -

The Florida Marlins recently put on sale the unsold tickets for the game dating to Philadelphia Phillies pitcher Roy Halladay's perfect game (recently in this case being a couple months ago/a day or two after said game was played). That game has now technically sold out. So that's an example of the first hand market selling 'used' tickets to fans with a very high degree of success.

These things have value as memorabilia. If you've got a ticket stub to a game where something important happened, you can easily sell it to a collector. And nobody will bat an eyelash at you for trying. It's your ticket - you paid for it.

[shadow_archmagi]

1. If I buy a game used, the developer gets 0 of my dollars

2. If I pirate a game, the developer gets 0 of my dollars.

3. If I murder the entire population of south Africa, the developer gets 0 of my dollars.

4. If I feed an orphan, the developer gets 0 of my dollars.

PIRACY, CHARITY, GENOCIDE, BUYING USED: ALL EXACTLY ALIKE

[Erloas]

And if you resell a book at a used book store, the author doesn't get paid again. If you resell a chair, the manufacturer doesn't get paid again by the next person to sit on it.

...Never heard of eBay, I take it?A chair is a physical object, you are buying that object. A book however is a story, the paper simply facilitates your ability to get that story from the author. Books aren't just the paper they are written on or the whole concept of an e-book wouldn't make any sense.

As for buying software on Ebay... you can pretty much guarantee that whatever you buy there will have questionably morale background to it. Its also not by any means a proof of legality, you may as well claim if you can buy something from a random person then it must be legal to sell it.


The point though is that no matter how impossible it is to resell, or activate used, it is still LEGAL and not immoral at all, to buy it used. It is just that the publisher denies you your legal right to do so.
The way the laws are written, if you take away someones right to do something legal, that is illegal. But clearly taking away someones right to sell something they bought isn't illegal, which at least helps to show that the legality of reselling some items is questionable at best and mostly just something that hasn't been specifically addressed by the people making the laws, since they have a lot of other things to worry about.
Its also very clear that what is legal and illegal to sell changes from one country to the next. The legal protection of IP is questionable at best in many countries.
And you also seem to be equating legal with morale, they are not the same. Some people think capitol punishment is immoral, but it is still legal. Some people think marijuana is morally fine, but it is still illegal. Some people think its immoral to eat animals, or to have sex before you get married, but those are both legal.
There are also plenty of things that went from being thought of as immoral before that are not any more, and things that people used to not think of as immoral that is now thought of as immoral. The same is true of legalities.

[Kish]

A chair is a physical object, you are buying that object. A book however is a story, the paper simply facilitates your ability to get that story from the author. Books aren't just the paper they are written on or the whole concept of an e-book wouldn't make any sense.

That's all fascinating, I'm sure, but you're dodging taking a stance here. Do you believe used bookstores and libraries are immoral, yes or no? Do you believe an author should be paid every time anyone buys any copy of that author's book, yes or no?

Its also not by any means a proof of legality,

More to the point, it's not the proof of illegality you tried to hold "no one resells used software for a computer" up as.

"If you buy a used game, the original developer doesn't get money from that sale" is absolutely true. "If you buy a used book, the original writer doesn't get money from that sale" is absolutely true. "If you buy a used chair, the original builder doesn't get money from that sale" is absolutely true. What you need to support, rather than merely reasserting, is your insistence that any of these three is morally relevant.

[Ilena]

Well i will say here that for myself i had to actually pirate a legal copy of a game i OWN because the DRM on the disk would not accept the disk was in there, even though 5 seconds before it just installed off the said disk. Now i wont lie, i do occationally dl games to try them out, i buy the game if its actually worthy of buying. Most developers dont make demos anymore to try the games out so why should i bother spending 60 dollars for a game that i will play an hour and say this is crap. Just not worth it in my opinion.

But honestly used games? Pirating? Whoever says that is just being greedy, i mean yes the gaming market is slowly dieing for computers but that is the developers faults for it, many small gaming companies that dont spend billions of dollars on drms that dont work are doing ok. And having to be online to play the games nowadays? Seriously making me think twice about continuing to buy what few games i do. Total war series will probably be the only one i will continue in the future to buy even though it has that requirement. Though that is being seriously questioned as well (i have all copies of it from shogun to empire).

[Klose_the_Sith]

A chair is a physical object, you are buying that object. A book however is a story, the paper simply facilitates your ability to get that story from the author. Books aren't just the paper they are written on or the whole concept of an e-book wouldn't make any sense.

What about the people like me, who are specifically paying money for the physical product? I can't see any advantage I gain from paying for an ebook when I can get it through, but an actual book is a thing of beauty. You can read it while eating, spill on it, drop it in the bath, tear it, store it, forget about it, rediscover it and actually have experiences with that book - things that you never could with an ebook.

The reason why I'll never buy ebooks is because I don't feel that a book is just bound text. That's the same reason that I buy any CD's, or games. I want to hold the product and croon to it as if it were but a new-born child, going through all the bits and pieces it comes with, reading through every scrap of irrelevant text in search of some mysterious holy grail.

When I buy a book I'm paying for more than just the story. Otherwise I'd be a very sad panda when it came to reading.

[Avilan the Grey]

The way the laws are written, if you take away someones right to do something legal, that is illegal. But clearly taking away someones right to sell something they bought isn't illegal, which at least helps to show that the legality of reselling some items is questionable at best and mostly just something that hasn't been specifically addressed by the people making the laws, since they have a lot of other things to worry about.
Its also very clear that what is legal and illegal to sell changes from one country to the next. The legal protection of IP is questionable at best in many countries.
And you also seem to be equating legal with morale, they are not the same. Some people think capitol punishment is immoral, but it is still legal. Some people think marijuana is morally fine, but it is still illegal. Some people think its immoral to eat animals, or to have sex before you get married, but those are both legal.
There are also plenty of things that went from being thought of as immoral before that are not any more, and things that people used to not think of as immoral that is now thought of as immoral. The same is true of legalities.

First of all, you are the one that brings up the moral aspect. I am just point out that it is both morally right and legally right to re-sell items, since you keep hinting that it is immoral. (Which is laughable).

And it is not impossible to sell, it is just very difficult. And again, it is not "questionable at best". It. Is. Legal.

Besides, making something that is legal to do, impossible to do, is not illegal. At least not in this country. One example is that is legal to cross a road anywhere, but often there are fences or other obstacles to make you not cross the road in other places than at zebra crossings.

Edit: See what Shamus (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/8040-Experienced-Points-Bargains-Are-for-Cheaters) has to say about this.

[Erloas]

That's all fascinating, I'm sure, but you're dodging taking a stance here. Do you believe used bookstores and libraries are immoral, yes or no? Do you believe an author should be paid every time anyone buys any copy of that author's book, yes or no?

More to the point, it's not the proof of illegality you tried to hold "no one resells used software for a computer" up as.

I wasn't saying it was illegal, I was saying there are simply too many issues surrounding the legality of it for most companies to take the risk. With as much money as Gamestop makes off of used console games, you think they would be all over the opportunity to expand that into computer software, but clearly there are more issues involved in why they don't.

I have taken to buying all the books (that are still in print), and CDs* I buy as new. I have also taken to purchasing rather then borrowing books from my favorite authors. I have taken the stance that I want to support the people that make the products that I like so that they can keep making them.
I think a lot more effort should be made to get money made off of creative works to the people creating it, be that music, movies, or games.


Clearly free-use changes based on the nature of the use. Take music and radio stations for instance. Can a radio station buy an MP3 for $1, and then start playing it without ever having to do anything else? They aren't even selling it, they aren't directly making any money off of the music they play, the music is just there to facilitate the transfer of ads from their customers to an audience. But legally they are required to pay some to the writer of the song every time they play it. (as a side, I believe they recently passed a law making satellite and internet radio stations to pay to the performer of the music as well, since a lot of bands play music written by other people)

*yes, I still buy CDs. Its usually the same price, sometimes cheaper, to buy a full CD over the MP3s. And I have found many of my favorite songs are ones I never would have heard without buying the full album. I feel I would be missing out on a lot of potentially good music if I selectively bought MP3s. I also have a back-up in case my hard drive crashes.

[PhoeKun]

I wasn't saying it was illegal, I was saying there are simply too many issues surrounding the legality of it for most companies to take the risk. With as much money as Gamestop makes off of used console games, you think they would be all over the opportunity to expand that into computer software, but clearly there are more issues involved in why they don't.

You know, just point of fact, I've seen used PC games at a Gamestop. They're just not big sellers, and don't get a lot of floor space as a result.

Whatever issues you're claiming make the resale of computer games murky, they're not something the market seems to take issue with. Which, to me would imply they don't exist.

[Forbiddenwar]

Edit: See what Shamus (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/8040-Experienced-Points-Bargains-Are-for-Cheaters) has to say about this.

Thank-you for sharing that article. It is well worth the read.

[fknm]

Buying used games isn't equivalent to piracy because it's a legal copy. It does not hurt the gaming industry, unless the gaming industry pumps out crappy games, because the number of legal copies sold is still the same- if so many people are selling copies of game X that it's cutting into profit, it's clearly a fault in the quality of the good, just as it would be if everyone started selling any other good shortly after buying it.

In other words, people selling used games doesn't instantly reduce demand like the gaming industry seems to think it does.

[Worira]

Yes. Buying used games is morally equivalent to killing everyone on board an unarmed trading ship and stealing everything they own.

[The Glyphstone]

Yes. Buying used games is morally equivalent to having a peg leg and a hook hand, carrying a parrot on your shoulder, and running out the Jolly Roger as you cruise the Spanish Main in search of booty.

Less temporally accurate, but much more fun.:smallwink:

[Incomp]

Okay. Here's (http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2010/08/yes-buying-used-games-doesnt-make-you.html) Jeff Vogel's (Of Spiderweb Software) perspective on the issue. Given that this comes from a (*gasp*) game developer, I thought you guys might want to hear what he has to say.

[Knaight]

The Penny Arcade Arguement, and the one espoused by the game companies, was, essentially: "Our market is the primary original purchaser. Thus, we are going to reward the original purchaser with special things. As for the secondary market, we don't get piece of that so we're not going to do anything to support it."

The one made in the comic, yes. The attached "news" piece is a bit different. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/25/) Among other things it states that buying used games is tantamount to piracy unless you don't care how the developers do. It also made the error of assuming that the only used game store is Gamestop, which is another minor irritation. Furthermore they explicitly agreed to a linked article which states that buying used games cheats the developers. So screw 'em.

[The Glyphstone]

So, another news post. Pity the Craiglist links got deleted...but I wonder how bad Tycho and Gabe are suffering from whiplash after about-facing on the piracy thing so fast.

[Knaight]

Probably not much. After all, all that really happened was they raised the point, a bunch of people who agreed with them anyways rose up and started talking, then a larger bunch of people who disagreed rose up and argued. This with their devoted fan base all joining group a, and moderates -including their less devoted fan base- swaying a bit. Most of the backlash was aimed at the companies who were trying to cast buying used games as cheating them out of the money they deserved.

[J.Gellert]

Probably not much. After all, all that really happened was they raised the point, a bunch of people who agreed with them anyways rose up and started talking, then a larger bunch of people who disagreed rose up and argued. This with their devoted fan base all joining group a, and moderates -including their less devoted fan base- swaying a bit. Most of the backlash was aimed at the companies who were trying to cast buying used games as cheating them out of the money they deserved.

This is still annoying, because when you have a fanbase, you should be a little more responsible with what comes out of your mouth. Considering the kind of sway they hold, they might as well be getting paid for their trouble. Crazy, right?

:smallannoyed:

[VanBuren]

This is still annoying, because when you have a fanbase, you should be a little more responsible with what comes out of your mouth. Considering the kind of sway they hold, they might as well be getting paid for their trouble. Crazy, right?

:smallannoyed:

God forbid they make human mistakes, after all. Besides, the comic shouldn't have been inflammatory at all.

[SmartAlec]

Always thought that their tendency to speak their mind in snarky ways was one of the bigger reasons Mike and Jerry have a fanbase.

[Triaxx]

A thought going back to the mention of shelf space: You think your money actually goes to the developer for a game from the shelf? The truth is that the store pays to put the game on there. So the developer has already made it's profit. At that point it's the company from which you buy the game that's trying to make both it's own money back, as well as a profit on the sale.

The only way you're directly supporting the developer is if you order straight from their online store.

[Wardog]

But lets take a different set of possible scenarios
Person B buys the same used game
Person A then buys:

A new game from the same company -- everything good here
donates it to a locale charity -- thats nice
a new game from a different company -- oh well, close enough
a new game from a different company that person B had been boycotting because they don't support his platform of choice, have bad DRM, have poor multiplayer support, whatever --- well not great, but what can you do
buys a subscription to furry porn monthly -- err... well not something I want to support but to each their own
buys some meth -- well now we have a problem
buys a 1/5 of whiskey, gets drunk on it and kills someone while driving home --- another problem
buys some bullets and goes on a shooting rampage at work

Ok, obviously some of those are a bit extreme and a lot less likely then others. But in short, trying to take some responsibility for enabling other people's purchases is a very slippery morale slope to be on. Regardless of why I'm giving someone else money (for goods new or used, or services) I don't want to try and claim any responsibilities for their actions with that money.

But again, that applies to everything that gets sold second-hand, not just games.

The fact that games are IP rather than physical property has some bearing on some aspects of the market in general (e.g. why they are worth more than the cost of the media, and why actual piracy is wrong), but I don't see why it makes reselling old games any different morally (or legally, unless there is a specific law against it) than selling second-hand cars (or books, which are also IP).

And consider what would happen if this argument was applied to other markets, and enforced by law.

Suppose second-hand car sales were banned. The only people who would be unaffected would be those who buy new cars and then keep them for 10 or 20 years until they fall apart.

People who buy new cars every year or three years and sell the old one would not be able to do so, because they wouldn't be able to afford it any more. They - and the industry - lose out.

People who buy nearly-new cars would be harmed, or at least inconvenienced, because there wouldn't be any nearly new cars any more, so they would have to spend more money on new cars, and would have to wait longer between purchases. The industry might benefit, because they are buying new, but there probably won't be enough people buying new often enough to make up for the loss of sales from people who bought new every year or so.

And people who couldn't afford to buy new or nearly new will be completely screwed.


Now, personally, I have very few second-hand games. Most of my games are budget games, bought months or even years after they were released originally (so the devs do get money from me, albeit not that much), followed by full-priced new games, followed by secondhand (mostly things that weren't available otherwise).

Oh, and for the record, all these are PC games, and I'm pretty sure the copy of SMAC: Alien Crossfire I got on e-bay was legitimate, unless the seller had gone to the trouble of copying the big fat manual, the box, the tech-tree poster, and all the other packaging as well. (And if it was pirated - well, that's the publishers fault for not making it anymore).

Also for the record, I am the owner of two legitimate copies of the original Baldur's Gate (one new-new, one budget new), because the original CDs wore out.

[Avilan the Grey]

But again, that applies to everything that gets sold second-hand, not just games.

Not to mention that if one is so concerned that the person you pay will use the money "badly", one should also boycott any business (at all), since the grocery store clerk is getting paid a salary and therefore might use the money he or she earns "in a bad way".

[Triaxx]

Remember though that cars are, even with constant care, no longer expected to last 10-20 years, but 5-7 before requiring replacement.

[jmbrown]

Not to mention that if one is so concerned that the person you pay will use the money "badly", one should also boycott any business (at all), since the grocery store clerk is getting paid a salary and therefore might use the money he or she earns "in a bad way".

I, for one, refuse to contribute to the economy out of fear that the $5 I pay for a cheeseburger will eventually circulate to a terrorist or even worse-- a communist! I used to mark all my money with "If you see this and are planning on doing bad things, please stop" but that's just not enough in today's morally bankrupt world.

Now, I steal what I need to survive... like video games, pencil toppers, and beer. I know, deep down inside, that I'm doing the right thing.

[Erloas]

Probably not much. After all, all that really happened was they raised the point, a bunch of people who agreed with them anyways rose up and started talking, then a larger bunch of people who disagreed rose up and argued. This with their devoted fan base all joining group a, and moderates -including their less devoted fan base- swaying a bit. Most of the backlash was aimed at the companies who were trying to cast buying used games as cheating them out of the money they deserved.
I think a lot of their fanbase disagrees with them regularly. They have fans because (subjectively) they are funny, and because they say what they think no matter what other people think of the same topic. Some people might even read the site because they dislike them and want to have an entity to focus their dislike on. (Take Rush Limbaugh's audience, there are a lot of people that regularly listen to him that completely and totally disagree with him all the time)

This is still annoying, because when you have a fanbase, you should be a little more responsible with what comes out of your mouth. Considering the kind of sway they hold, they might as well be getting paid for their trouble. Crazy, right?

:smallannoyed:
So they shouldn't say what they are thinking or believe because it might influence other people? They should always take the non confrontational route in everything they do?
Besides, the way Tycho wrote his piece he doesn't say he thinks used games are the same as piracy, just that from a sales standpoint the developer sees no difference between piracy and used. Which is true, they make no money either way and you are playing their game. There are other secondary effects from both sides.

A thought going back to the mention of shelf space: You think your money actually goes to the developer for a game from the shelf? The truth is that the store pays to put the game on there. So the developer has already made it's profit. At that point it's the company from which you buy the game that's trying to make both it's own money back, as well as a profit on the sale.

The only way you're directly supporting the developer is if you order straight from their online store.
Thats not entirely true. It depends a lot on the type of store. If a small store buys a few copies of the game from their distributor and can't move them then the developers get their money either way. However a lot of big chain stores have deals in place where they can return unsold merchandise to the distributors and don't pay anything at all for it. Its not necessarily a fair deal for the small stores, but thats the sort of deals you can make if you are moving thousands of copies instead of 10.

Then there is also the fact that if a certain type of good isn't selling enough then retailers stop stocking them. If no one is ever buying games from developer X then a big company like Best Buy might decide to stop carrying their games completely.
It is true thought that buying directly from the publisher will give the most money back to the people making the game, but as of right now not a huge number of publishers even directly sell their own games, or at least don't do it in such a way that anyone knows.

But again, that applies to everything that gets sold second-hand, not just games.

The fact that games are IP rather than physical property has some bearing on some aspects of the market in general (e.g. why they are worth more than the cost of the media, and why actual piracy is wrong), but I don't see why it makes reselling old games any different morally (or legally, unless there is a specific law against it) than selling second-hand cars (or books, which are also IP).
The debate over Gamestop's used game sales isn't exactly new, I think in years past they were trying to get them to pay x% of a used game's sale price to the publisher. It isn't so much that they can't be sold used, but that the developers should get some profit from it. Because if they make a good game that someone still wants to buy 5 years down the line they should get some incentive (from the community at least) to keep making those types of games, and conversely games that hold no long term value are going to be more obvious to developers in that same system.

One thing to keep in mind is that the government gets their piece of the sale no matter how many times an item is sold. You buy a new car for $18000 and the government gets their % of sales tax, you wait 5 years and sell that car used for $8000 and the government once again gets their % of the sale, and it will happen no matter how many times it is sold. Same with used books, games, anything. Given not every state (because states control sales tax) charges tax on used vehicle sales, but most of them do. And buying a used book from a garage sale isn't going to pay sales tax, but buying it from a used book store would. And technically a garage sale I believe is supposed to pay sales tax but its not something actually enforced in most places. From the governments point of view the value of an item is still there no matter how used it is, and they at least believe they should be paid for it, even if they don't care that anyone else should be as well. Even though they've already got their money off of the original sale.

[Imposter]

Oh, wow. Lot of feeling here, isn't there.

Anyway, I don't think the PA comic is really part of the issue here. They simply pointed out that there is nothing that could possibly be seen as incentive for a dev to do anything for anyone that bought their product used. This is fairly objective fact, as they get no return for the support, and would actually encourage people not to give them money.

The debate comes from a few badly phrased comments that pointed out that the same holds true for users that pirated the game. Those read like they were accusing people who buy used games of piracy, which understandably enraged those people.

The third point is that the games industry has been trying to convince people that they sell licenses and not product, and that you can't legally transfer the license. The use of the license has been challenged in other industries, with the license being definitively irrelevant if it is possible to install the software without agreeing to it, which brings us the "I agree" button. The other argument is that license isn't legal because you've already paid before you're allowed read it. The courts are rather inconsistent on if that argument works, with decisions generally hinging on if it's possible to return the product(physical products, in those cases). Anyway, several court findings have said that the EULA is a legal contract if you've agreed to it, in which case resale really is illegal. Take that as you will, especially since no one has even talked about enforcing anything like that. The strongest stance is a single publisher denying free stuff to people who haven't given them money. Not even all of the free stuff, since things like patches still seem to be available for everyone.

---
Edited for as much clarity as I can manage at this time of night.

[Kish]

Oh, wow. Lot of feeling here, isn't there.

Anyway, I don't think the PA comic is really part of the issue here. They simply pointed out that there is nothing that could possibly be seen as incentive for a dev to do anything for anyone that bought their product used. This is fairly objective fact, as they get no return for the support, and would actually encourage people not to give them money.
Nothing that could possibly be seen as? This would seem to require the developers to be awfully short-sighted, wouldn't it? Taking a position of, "Unless I see immediate money in it, benefiting you is something I will go out of my way to avoid" just begs for a response of, "If I can get what I want without benefiting you, I will do so."

[endoperez]

Nothing that could possibly be seen as? This would seem to require the developers to be awfully short-sighted, wouldn't it? Taking a position of, "Unless I see immediate money in it, benefiting you is something I will go out of my way to avoid" just begs for a response of, "If I can get what I want without benefiting you, I will do so."

This would seem to require the gamers to be awfully short-sighted, wouldn't it? Taking a position of, "If I can get what I want without benefiting you, I will do so." just begs for a response of, "Unless I see immediate money in it, benefiting you is something I will go out of my way to avoid." :smallwink::smalltongue:

[warty goblin]

This would seem to require the gamers to be awfully short-sighted, wouldn't it? Taking a position of, "If I can get what I want without benefiting you, I will do so." just begs for a response of, "Unless I see immediate money in it, benefiting you is something I will go out of my way to avoid." :smallwink::smalltongue:

Actually what Kish said takes even less of the longview. I can't get the service I want from you for free so I won't give you any money out of spite seems to be what it boils down to. Charming attitude that.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Actually what Kish said takes even less of the longview. I can't get the service I want from you for free so I won't give you any money out of spite seems to be what it boils down to. Charming attitude that.

You know that that's how gamers operate though, right? :smallwink:

[Avilan the Grey]

Nothing that could possibly be seen as? This would seem to require the developers to be awfully short-sighted, wouldn't it? Taking a position of, "Unless I see immediate money in it, benefiting you is something I will go out of my way to avoid" just begs for a response of, "If I can get what I want without benefiting you, I will do so."

I don't agree with this; a developer, or a store, has no, and shouldn't have any, obligation to support second hand bought products, at least not after the warranty (depending on product of course) has expired (and even if there is still warranty on the product, it is up to the second hand buyer to make sure they get the proper receipts etc from the first hand buyer's original purchase).

Now, making your "exclusive" DLCs purchasable by everyone after say 12 months after the games original release seems like good business to me. I am sure that there are people out there that thinks that the Blood Dragon Armor is worth $5 / 160 Bioware Points. And since Bioware already have coded it, it won't cost them anything to release it either.
But to support second hand products purely out of goodwill is not something I feel offended if the developer won't do.

[Kish]

I don't agree with this; a developer, or a store, has no, and shouldn't have any, obligation to support second hand bought products, at least not after the warranty (depending on product of course) has expired (and even if there is still warranty on the product, it is up to the second hand buyer to make sure they get the proper receipts etc from the first hand buyer's original purchase).
Just out of curiosity, exactly what are you defending game developers doing? 'Cause what I've seen specifically referenced in this thread is:
1) Comparing used game sales to piracy.
2) Setting up recognition methods which ensure a game can only be registered to one person, and incidentally create a lot of hassle even for someone who buys games new. "forcing players to be online at all times with a registered copy in many games just to access basic functions!"

You now appear to be talking about something different. What, exactly?

[Avilan the Grey]

Just out of curiosity, exactly what are you defending game developers doing? 'Cause what I've seen specifically referenced in this thread is:
1) Comparing used game sales to piracy.
2) Setting up recognition methods which ensure a game can only be registered to one person, and incidentally create a lot of hassle even for someone who buys games new. "forcing players to be online at all times with a registered copy in many games just to access basic functions!"

You now appear to be talking about something different. What, exactly?

I am talking about:


Nothing that could possibly be seen as? This would seem to require the developers to be awfully short-sighted, wouldn't it? Taking a position of, "Unless I see immediate money in it, benefiting you is something I will go out of my way to avoid" just begs for a response of, "If I can get what I want without benefiting you, I will do so."

Meaning: I am not pissed at the store, or the developer, for not supporting used games.

[SAMAS]

I go to Gamestop because it's the closest retailer of video games in my area. I can probably find a Gamestop before I reach any other going in any given direction from my house.

That said, I remember hearing a long time ago that Gamestop doesn't report the sales of it's used games. So already knowing that If I buy used, it doesn't support the developer. Therefore, I have never bought used games from them unless I absolutely had to (i.e. I can't find the game anywhere else). I still have and play my PS2, for example, and there are tons of games I didn't get a chance to get when they came out. Best Buy and Wal-Mart are lucky to have ten PS2 titles available at any given location, and those are usually the latest ones (which at this point are the tail-enders of the system's existence). If I want any given Onimusha game, for example, Gamestop is pretty much your only bet, and even then you'll have to buy it used.

[Erloas]

If I want any given Onimusha game, for example, Gamestop is pretty much your only bet, and even then you'll have to buy it used.
The internet begs to differ. Amazon for instance carries many of the Onimusha games new, and with free shipping. I don't know how many games there are, but they have a number of them. And looking at the prices they have them at, I wouldn't be surprised if Gamestops used copies of the games are more.

Unless of course you absolutely have to have the game today... but how often is a very old, seemingly hard to find game, the sort you can't wait another couple days to have it delivered?

[Tyrant]

I'll echo others in this thread and say that I don't see why video games should be any different than other items that can be resold. I think it only boils down to one question, is it legal. The answer is yes. That's it. There is no moral issue here and trying to make it into one doesn't do the folks doing so any favors. Everything in life doesn't come down to morality.

Along that same line, I don't have to justify my purchasing to anyone and I don't know what to think about others trying to make that the case here. I am not responsible for what people do with the money they make selling used games. I am not responsible if someone is selling stolen property to a store, and I happen to be the one who repurchases it. That argument is also bogus as it can happen at any store that accepts returns. If you're wondering what I mean, some stores will give store credit if you return items without a receipt. I'm sure anyone who wants to can figure out where I'm going with that. Those returned items return to the shelf. The majority of items in Wal Mart or KMart could be stolen items that were returned for store credit. Are you going to stop buying anything there because of that? You're helping thieves. See how absurd that sounds? That used car you bought? It could've been sold to get money for drugs so you better not buy it. Etc. etc.

If I would rather buy a game at a cheaper price by buying it used, that's my business and my choice. I don't buy many games that way, but I also don't buy many games period. I wait for the newer systems to have a large selection of games that I will like before I even consider buying one (I just bought a 360 a little over a month ago, for instance). I've been buying regular XBox, PS2, and DS/GBA games over the last few years and coming late to those systems I had to buy some of them used or not at all. And please, save the argument that I didn't look everywhere (like Amazon). I'm not going to look into every possible outlet to buy a game before I decide on one (used or new).

What if I wait for a game to go on sale (or use some kind of coupon)? Aren't I depriving someone, somewhere of money they would've had if I had bought the game at full price? Am I immoral for waiting for a sale? The argument is the same (and equally absurd). If they expect me to pay full price for a game, then they should make games that are worth the price. We've seen great games so we know this can be done. Calling people who enjoy your products (note, I didn't say customers) pirates when they aren't pirates will only help accelerate your decline. I am continually baffled at how hard that is for companies (and their mouthpieces) to grasp the simple concept that belittling your fans is a remarkably bad business move. Coke doesn't call Pepsi fans assorted names because they are depriving Coke of sales by drinking Pepsi and part of that is because they know it's a childish move that will all but guarantee they will lose sales (likely to Pepsi). Game (and music and movie) companies should take note. It's supposedly better to be feared than to be loved (if I am to believe an Italian aristocrat), but they are working their way to being hated (which is the one thing you should avoid because those that hate you will destroy themselves just to hurt you in any way they can, like engaging in mass piracy).

Having said that, I do agree that the game companies can do anything (within the bounds of the law) to encourage people to buy their games new (or discourage them from buying them used, but I think the carrot works better than the stick for something no one actually has to buy). I don't think certain courses of action are the greatest idea (shipping an incomplete game and making it a 1 time deal to get the rest, thus ruining any resale possibility, for instance) from a customer relations standpoint, but it is their business to run into the ground. I believe, as others have said, that people being able to resell their games allows a number of people to buy the games at full price in the first place so actively destroying the secondary market will have a negative effect on their primary market. A healthy secondary market is a good thing. I also think online-only would be a terrible course of action for a number of reasons. It is their choice though, just as it is my choice of where to buy their products.

[SAMAS]

The internet begs to differ. Amazon for instance carries many of the Onimusha games new, and with free shipping. I don't know how many games there are, but they have a number of them. And looking at the prices they have them at, I wouldn't be surprised if Gamestops used copies of the games are more.

Unless of course you absolutely have to have the game today... but how often is a very old, seemingly hard to find game, the sort you can't wait another couple days to have it delivered?

Or if you don't/can't buy online.

[Erloas]

Or if you don't/can't buy online.

Yes, but really how much of an issue is that for most people? Sure you find some people that still don't, but its not like its even slightly uncommon.

[Tyrant]

Yes, but really how much of an issue is that for most people? Sure you find some people that still don't, but its not like its even slightly uncommon.
Why do people have to justify their purchasing preferences at all?

[Erloas]

Why do people have to justify their purchasing preferences at all?

It has nothing to do with that. (S)He said it wasn't possible to get those games new, I was pointing out that it is very easy to get them new. And in fact it is probably easier to get them new because almost everyone can order from Amazon, where as which specific used games Gamestop (or whatever used game store is around) carries is going to change from one store to the next.

[Tyrant]

It has nothing to do with that. (S)He said it wasn't possible to get those games new, I was pointing out that it is very easy to get them new. And in fact it is probably easier to get them new because almost everyone can order from Amazon, where as which specific used games Gamestop (or whatever used game store is around) carries is going to change from one store to the next.
As they said, some people can't/won't/don't buy things online. Unlike you, I do not believe those people to be a minority. Your response
Unless of course you absolutely have to have the game today... but how often is a very old, seemingly hard to find game, the sort you can't wait another couple days to have it delivered? tells me that yes they do have to justify it apparently. Your responses, which to me at least are posed in the "you should've known better and done it this way, what were you thinking?" manner are begging for people to justify their actions. Not to mention you already tried to say that the justification for buying used is very similar to the justification for piracy. Yes, it does seem (to me, and at least earlier to Alvian) that you want people to justify their purchasing preferences.

Most of the pro arguments (in this thread) boil down to "I can (and choose to) do it this way, why don't the rest of you stop being evil pirates and do it this way?" while choosing to ignore things like: some people don't shop online, not everyone has a broadband connection (for the download all games folks), people have a right to buy things for a cheaper price if the option is available, no one has to rationalize what the person who sold the game does with the money, no one has to hire a detective to see if the used game was in fact stolen, and so on.

Who cares why they prefer Gamestop? They listed a logical possibility for why they didn't check Amazon in the first place. You brought up buying it online, not them. They don't have to justify it. Even if it boils down to some combination of being lazy and cheap (I don't think it does though), that's their business and continually trying to point out flaws in a justification that wasn't even needed in the first place (because one isn't needed period) isn't helping the pro argument in the least.

Is there in fact a place besides GameStop to buy this game, sure. That should be obvious because there's no way SAMAS checked every square inch of the planet Earth to find a copy and in doing so they would've no doubt found a place aside from GameStop selling the game. SAMAS checked every place he cared to check and settled on GameStop. They made a statement who's intent was pretty clear even if it wasn't 100% factually correct.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Yes, but really how much of an issue is that for most people? Sure you find some people that still don't, but its not like its even slightly uncommon.

Well apparently someone isn't very familiar with the teenage demographic.

Y'know, those consumption-crazed fiends who buy LOTS of games.

Or at least, lots of copies of MW2 :smalltongue:

[IonDragon]

I think it is unequivocally tantamount to piracy, but for reasons completely opposite to those that I've seen posted here.

I don't think piracy is wrong :smalleek:

The original law preventing the so called 'piracy' of music was initially written to keep other companies from using the songs without permission, and were not intended for the general populace. In fact, were you to download 24 songs (one CD plus extras/bonus disk), and you had a moderately low paying job, the fines would be greater than if you walked into your neighbors house out of the blue and killed him/her. This is taking into account not just the cash fine, but the potential money from working for the TWENTY YEARS you are in jail. Further, if you were to walk into a store and start stealing CDs you would need to steal ten in order to amass the fine for downloading a single song.

[warty goblin]

I think it is unequivocally tantamount to piracy, but for reasons completely opposite to those that I've seen posted here.

I don't think piracy is wrong :smalleek:

The original law preventing the so called 'piracy' of music was initially written to keep other companies from using the songs without permission, and were not intended for the general populace. In fact, were you to download 24 songs (one CD plus extras/bonus disk), and you had a moderately low paying job, the fines would be greater than if you walked into your neighbors house out of the blue and killed him/her. This is taking into account not just the cash fine, but the potential money from working for the TWENTY YEARS you are in jail. Further, if you were to walk into a store and start stealing CDs you would need to steal ten in order to amass the fine for downloading a single song.

That's an argument to demonstrate that the penalties for piracy are unreasonable and not in keeping with common sense. In no way is that a moral, ethical or legal argument for piracy not being wrong.

[Klose_the_Sith]

That's an argument to demonstrate that the penalties for piracy are unreasonable and not in keeping with common sense. In no way is that a moral, ethical or legal argument for piracy not being wrong.

Well actually it was, because he explained how these laws were never intended for the general populace, which is an argument against piracy stigma.

Of course I've got my own, but last time I got into that discussion it led to so much breaking of forum rules it ranked as among my worst infractions on this forum ... so I'll keep quiet about it :smallamused:

[VanBuren]

Well actually it was, because he explained how these laws were never intended for the general populace, which is an argument against piracy stigma.

Hardly. You're obtaining a product without the consent of the owner.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Hardly. You're obtaining a product without the consent of the owner.

I can't do this debate, alright? What I'd say goes into realms that get me warnings and bans because 'piracy' is technically illegal.

[shadow_archmagi]

BUYING USED TIRES EQUIVALENT TO GRAVEROBBING?
BUYING USED CONDOMS EQUIVALENT TO RAPE?

Sorry, I get bored sometimes

[VanBuren]

I can't do this debate, alright? What I'd say goes into realms that get me warnings and bans because 'piracy' is technically illegal.

Fine, then don't do the debate.

[Triaxx]

He's getting at piracy being incorrectly defined as different than theft. The only difference is how it's being stolen, but it's the same thing. Piracy thus cannot be wrong, because it cannot legally exist in the described manner.