A point of contraversy (part 1) - Buying a game used is as bad as pirating?

[StriderShinryu]

Used games are certainly not as bad as piracy for two reasons:

1.) Used games do exist as part of a secondary market. When someone sells their games to a store for credit, they will occasionally use that credit to fund a new game sale. They may also become a legitimate regular retail supporter of further new copies based on a positive experience they had with a used copy (much more likely than a pirate who got something for free actually deciding to spend money on it's sequel no matter how much they liked the one they got for free).

2.) No new copies are created. In a used game sale you're still only seeing a unique copy bought and sold, so the magnitude of profit damage is kept in relative check. With a pirated copy, however, even if we assume that the original ripped copy was a legitimate purchase, it is still able to spawn infinite copies of it's own. A single copy of a used game may see, for example, 10 owners. A single pirated copy, however, may be stolen by hundreds of thousands.

 

[F4LL3N]

And who sold you that faulty game? Oh right, the game shop. Go get 'em tiger. That is a wonderful idea indeed. Remove parts from the game and force the players to buy "replacement parts" and watch the retailers get sued for selling games with missing content.

Touche, kind sir. May I have another ass whopping?

However, I'm pretty sure there's competition laws to prevent anti-competitive behavior. Trying to wipe out an entire market seems fairly anti-competitive to me.

 

[F4LL3N]

EDIT: Double posted due to lag.

 

[feather240]

No, it's not as bad. You're buying the CD not a license to the content on it.

 

[ThriKreen]

So by this logic right here public libraries are absolute bastions of unspeakable evil. Do you realize how many people "experienced the entertainment" (if that isn't industry spin I dont know what is. "experienced the entertainment", get out of here with that garbage) for free daily thanks to libraries? I can get books, movies, music, even art at my local library and never pay one red cent for it. Yet in the entire time libraries have been around I don't recall ever hearing the book or movie or music industry rail against them like over entitled children the way the game industry rails against a perfectly moral and legal second hand market.

Libraries still have to license the material, and probably pay a higher cost than what you pay at the book store. Money that comes from its town's citizens via taxes and such. So you've paid for the content already, as it never was free.

And what happens if you try to run a library from your own book collection? I'm pretty certain the publishers will start sending C&D letters to you.

The gaming industry has gotten far too greedy for it's own good and needs to die in a fire.

Really? Considering the state of the game industry and how small it really is, and how many studios and talented colleagues I've seen get laid off the past couple years. We're not making as much as you think we are, as we can certainly make better money in other industries.

But we're in this because we love it, being able to hear back from the fans that they played game X and Y and enjoyed it.

But not "I played your game and loved it, but I didn't pay for it because I'm cheap!"

 

[Stall]

No, because it's legal.

What the games industry needs to focus on is tracking and working on property laws like say USED CARS have where they still get a cut of the profits when it's sold used from a licensed dealer.

Rather than fighting it like it's some form of piracy. You know what that does? It makes me not buy the game at all.

Invalid analogy. You can OWN a car. You cannot OWN a game... you merely buy the rights to the use license. Games are a unique beast because of this little aspect.

Anyways, I feel like a broken record repeating this so many times. Despite the legally of either activity, both have the same impact on the developer and publisher of the game. A used game results in a developer and publisher not seeing a single CENT of profit from someone playing their game-- JUST like piracy. THIS is why you are seeing developers fighting against the used game market: since it cuts into their profits just as much, if not more, than piracy.

As much as devs would love to do this for nothing beyond their passion for video games, they can't. It's the real world. They need money. If their games don't make profits, then they won't have a job. It's as simple, but nonetheless a rather bitter pill to shallow.

 

[ThriKreen]

It is a one off fee for a rental game bought by a store, its just higher than normal, at least thats the way it works with film.

I am 99% certain that this is right but I dont know about LAN cafes and the like.

I've seen reports either way, but the main point is that devs and publishers still get paid and information back as to how popular a game is, which can influence how a studio is perceived by a publisher for the next game. Which does not occur in pirated or used games.

 

[mirasiel]

It is a one off fee for a rental game bought by a store, its just higher than normal, at least thats the way it works with film.

I am 99% certain that this is right but I dont know about LAN cafes and the like.

I've seen reports either way, but the main point is that devs and publishers still get paid and information back as to how popular a game is, which can influence how a studio is perceived by a publisher for the next game. Which does not occur in pirated or used games.

Ok I'm going to be a little cruel here: You do not deserve to get paid twice for the same item. You may wish really, really hard but you dont have any legal right to double,triple or qaudruple payment

In fact I'm pretty sure there have been court cases already dealing with the the issue of 'licensing v selling' argument and they came out in favour of 'selling' side but damn if software companies dont keep on trying to override consumer rights and failing, just like books did, just like records did, just like movies did....

 

[feather240]

No, because it's legal.

What the games industry needs to focus on is tracking and working on property laws like say USED CARS have where they still get a cut of the profits when it's sold used from a licensed dealer.

Rather than fighting it like it's some form of piracy. You know what that does? It makes me not buy the game at all.

Invalid analogy. You can OWN a car. You cannot OWN a game... you merely buy the rights to the use license. Games are a unique beast because of this little aspect.

Anyways, I feel like a broken record repeating this so many times. Despite the legally of either activity, both have the same impact on the developer and publisher of the game. A used game results in a developer and publisher not seeing a single CENT of profit from someone playing their game-- JUST like piracy. THIS is why you are seeing developers fighting against the used game market: since it cuts into their profits just as much, if not more, than piracy.

As much as devs would love to do this for nothing beyond their passion for video games, they can't. It's the real world. They need money. If their games don't make profits, then they won't have a job. It's as simple, but nonetheless a rather bitter pill to shallow.

You are buying the game, not a license.

A used copy earns the developers one more sale then a pirated copy.

Devs do not need to have jobs in the video game industry. They can make games on their own time.

You are buying the game, not a license.

 

[Xanthious]

Libraries still have to license the material, and probably pay a higher cost than what you pay at the book store. Money that comes from its town's citizens via taxes and such. So you've paid for the content already, as it never was free.

And what happens if you try to run a library from your own book collection? I'm pretty certain the publishers will start sending C&D letters to you.

Sure this is all true. However, this is also what separates all those other industries from the gaming industry. The cost versus how many people actually use the books, dvds, etc is probably a percentage of a percentage of a penny per use. The game industry wouldn't go for this kind of deal at gun point and you know it.

Now as for what would happen if I loaned out my legally purchased books to people one at a time for free? Well I bet absolutely nothing. THEY ARE MINE! I'm free to wipe my ass with them or loan em out or do whatever the hell I so choose because I bought them and I own them. I loan books to friends all the time.

Hell in my city there is a charity I volunteered for a few times that goes to nursing homes, hospitals, childrens centers, prisons, all kinds of places to distribute books, magazines, and even some movies and CDs people donate. I can promise you these people aren't paying any sort of licensing fees. It's just a few people taking books and stuff to people who'd otherwise not have access to them. Again something you'd not see the game industry put up with because they got to get theirs in the end and people got to pay for that experience.

Really? Considering the state of the game industry and how small it really is, and how many studios and talented colleagues I've seen get laid off the past couple years. We're not making as much as you think we are, as we can certainly make better money in other industries.

But we're in this because we love it, being able to hear back from the fans that they played game X and Y and enjoyed it.

But not "I played your game and loved it, but I didn't pay for it because I'm cheap!"

Now as for your industry and the state it's in. Ya see the gaming industry has gotten into this nasty trend of treating the people paying their salaries like criminals while at the same time trying to milk us for every last cent in any way they can think they can get away with. Your colleagues need only look within to the greed driven people at the top of the gaming food chain and the slimy practices they employ as to why they no longer have a job. Practices like blocking content already on the disc, always on DRM for single player titles, and other examples where they have chosen to lead with all stick and no carrot.

The top people in the gaming industry (Kotnick, Riccitiello, etc) have made things into an adversarial process all while trying to portray the poor hapless victim and decrying how hurt they are by piracy and used game sales. And while I don't doubt there are many people in that industry out of a love for the product the people in charge seem to be in it to screw over the customers without so much as a hug afterwords.

Everyone who truly cares about gaming would be better served by a second and much much larger video game crash. The cancers at the top now that are only in it for the money would be gone and the people who do it out of an actual love for gaming could rebuild.

 

[Rin Little]

Oh wah, the greedy corporations aren't sharing with the rich publishers, who cares? They already get their money out of you when you buy something new, why do they need more, especially when you go to trade-in the game or movie or whatever and they only give you about a fifth of what you initially paid to get the merchandise new. Foamy explains it pretty well...

http://youtu.be/H7g-vnLUzp8

 

[Stall]

You are buying the game, not a license.

A used copy earns the developers one more sale then a pirated copy.

Devs do not need to have jobs in the video game industry. They can make games on their own time.

You are buying the game, not a license.

No. No you are not buying the game. You are buying a license. You are simply wrong. Read a EULA and TOS sometime. It makes it VERY clear that you are buying a license, and have absolutely NO ownership over the game you just bought. I'm sorry. I don't know any other way to tell you this than you are wrong. Read those TOSs you always never read. You don't own a game... you don't buy it. You just buy a license. This isn't my opinion, but cold, hard, legal fact.

And you really don't have any idea how the industry works, do you? A dev team doesn't get ANY money from someone buying a game used. Nothing. Nada. Niche. It's just like piracy... they don't see a CENT from someone playing their game. That's why they think used gaming is harmful: because it cuts them out of profit, JUST LIKE PIRACY.

And to make games of the magnitude of AAA titles, devs DO have to do this as a full time job. They can't make games of this magnitude and breadth "on their own time". If we want gaming to stay how it is, then that just isn't an option.

I don't want to be rude, but you are very ignorant (perhaps in a good way though).

 

[ankensam]

i would say buying used is worse is worse owing to the fact that if u buy a game ur not going to want to buy it again while if u pirate a game u may feel obligated to buy the game at some point

 

[Atmos Duality]

Unit for unit, it's impossible for Used Game sales to be as bad as piracy. Ever. It's mathematically impossible.
The closest it could come is if the Game Retailer was selling used pirated copies.

Both of these things are bad for the publisher (one is the exploitation of arbitrage, the other is just introducing a large number of their own good onto the market at no cost), but to actually equate one to the other is idiocy.

I'm sorry. I don't know any other way to tell you this than you are wrong. Read those TOSs you always never read. You don't own a game... you don't buy it. You just buy a license. This isn't my opinion, but cold, hard, legal fact.

Eh, you might want to read up on Contracts of Adhesion. Not all of them were legally enforced because the contract for the license could only be presented to the customer AFTER s/he had already paid for it. Things are a-changing now, for sure, but that's not how it always was.

 

[feather240]

You are buying the game, not a license.

A used copy earns the developers one more sale then a pirated copy.

Devs do not need to have jobs in the video game industry. They can make games on their own time.

You are buying the game, not a license.

No. No you are not buying the game. You are buying a license. You are simply wrong. Read a EULA and TOS sometime. It makes it VERY clear that you are buying a license, and have absolutely NO ownership over the game you just bought.

I'm sorry. I don't know any other way to tell you this than you are wrong. Read those TOSs you always never read. You don't own a game... you don't buy it. You just buy a license. This isn't my opinion, but cold, hard, legal fact.

An EULA is not a valid legal document.

EDIT:

A used game must be purchased by the publisher at some time. A pirated game is never purchased.

 

[Dr Jones]

By buying the game used, no money is reaching the publisher or developer so it as bad as piracy in that sense.

No. It's not. As said by someone "The one buyer is already marked on their fucking list, there is no need for them to nickel and dime the next one!"

 

[Fernadette]

If devs and publishers want to make more money, the price of games need to reflect the public's value of that game. $60 per game is ridiculous. I cannot afford to gamble that much on a game I'm not even sure if I will like, or even play long enough to get my "money's worth". I will gladly, with a song in my heart, buy a new game for $30-40. I will also buy a used game at that price point with no hesitation. If there is a game I wish to play, I will pay the price that I, as a consumer, deem appropriate to the value I get out of a game. The fact that the used game market is more appealing to my wallet is not the fault of me as a gamer, or the retailer. It's how the market works, and it has developed from having a high price set by publishers, who themselves have said is too much.

Here's an article by Jim Sterling that was quoted in an earlier thread, regarding the high price of games"
http://www.gamefront.com/solving-the-sixty-dollar-situation/

What happens if I buy a used game from a previous generation? I recently managed to acquire a Sega Genesis and am now in the process of finding and purchasing my favorite games from that era. Should Sega see a cut of what I paid for the system and games? I think not. Should part of the game be blocked to me because I bought it used? What happens when a game is donated, then sold at a profit a la Goodwill? Should they send that money to the publishers instead of using it to help make jobs? What about a yard sale? A pawn shop? What happens when I buy a game from my roommate? Should all these people send a check to the game companies?

The thing that worries me the most is that in a couple years, when we've moved past the PS3 and on to whatever new systems they have, that it will be nearly impossible to collect and play classic games because of these unlock codes. The Rage concept is not that big of a deal, until a company takes it to the next step, and requires a CD Key like the PC. What would happen if they would have done that with classic consoles? I wouldn't have a Genesis to play.

 

[kilativ15]

Out of curiosity, wouldn't big game companies that sell games used have to pay some sort of royalties FOR selling the game used? Or do all the profits go towards them?

 

[ReaperzXIII]

Here is my problem with things like project $10, when I buy a game used I usually don't get it for $10 off or in my case £10 off, its usually something like £5 or so, but I like to save my money so that £5 means quite a bit to me. Telling me that I have to pay £10 to get all the content that is supposed to be in my game is really annoying considering then I have to go back out to the shops to pay for microsoft points since I don't have a credit card and I end up paying more for the game I got used than if I just bought it new.

I like Rage's way of doing things, if I buy new I get maybe 1-2 hours of extra single player game play and with other games it comes along with some new weapons and costumes, it doesn't take away from the main experience but if you want it that much you can pay for it.

Battlefield's thing of taking away the entire multiplayer is retarded because I have 2 Xbox 360s in my house and a sibling who wants to play as well, even if I buy it new my sibling has to pay to use the multiplayer. In addition to that multiplayer is a huge part of most FPS's selling point, restricting that is taking away a HUGE part of the game, it should be tiny add-ons like extra missions, maps etc.. not something huge like multiplayer or half the singleplayer.

Yes there should be incentives to buy new, but telling me "Oh because the greedy retailers didn't give us the money you can't play" that just pisses people off and the people who buy used won't pay for that stuff just to spite you.