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

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Except the damage was intentionally done by the publisher. It would be like buying a car and finding out that the AC didn't work, not because it had broken after a lifetime of use, but because GM had decided that they needed a cut of used sales, and decided to do it by yanking out the compressor and forcing the customer to buy a new one straight from them.

As I said one post up, if this is the way the games industry is going to treat its customers, they're due for another crash. And I will play my fiddle as they burn.

That is a bad analogy. The act of yanking out the compressor is an active act and highly illegal, and you can sue GM for doing so. Content-locking is built-in and works passively. I suppose its like the car having a retina/blood/fingerprint scanner built in, and it will only register the first person who activates the car. Any other person who wants to use the car will have to contact the manufacturer to reset the scanner. Also, even if the "yanking out the compressor" part was true, the "yanking" was done by the previous owner.

Fact is they won't burn. They'll just go down the social-game path, thus reducing the number of actual games coming out. EA is already doing it. Blizzard is attempting to with their social Titan.

Passive or not, they designed something that has no reason to break so that it would break when it changed hands, and not a moment before or after. That is exactly the situation of GM pulling out the compressor, or at least having it hooked up to the internet in a way that it disables itself when it checks the VIN and sees that the car has changed hands. Thank you for admitting how illegal it is, though -- I never thought I'd see an industry person do that.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Seconded.

I don't buy used that often. I don't begrudge those who do. Can't we just leave it at that?

Let me be clear here. I am not blaming anyone for buying used. I'm not gonna yell at anyone for finding a deal. I blame gamestop for doing so.

So then you're not really against used sales, you're against Gamestop?

Yeah, I guess I can see that. I don't agree, but I can see that.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Raally? I mean really? Not that tired lie. There's nothing unique about either the situation or the medium, except maybe the extent game companies are able to go to pull things out after the initial use -- well, that and the willingness of their customers to do everything but what is best for them as a consumer. Nice move, though, falling back on the industry line. Tell me, is the degree you're seeking one you hope to apply to a job in the industry?

Don't the gaming industry touch your naughty bits as a child to make you so pissed off? Did they rape you?

and no, my degree has nothing to do with this conversation. Nice straw-man though, that always lets me know you're winning.

Rape is a pretty good metaphor for what they're doing right now. As for the industry comment, that makes it even more ridiculous that you're arguing their PR line. Can you not see that they are actively attacking you, the consumer? At least it would have ultimately been to your benefit if you were going to work for them. As a consumer, bending over and taking it doesn't help you at all.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Passive or not, they designed something that has no reason to break so that it would break when it changed hands, and not a moment before or after. That is exactly the situation of GM pulling out the compressor, or at least having it hooked up to the internet in a way that it disables itself when it checks the VIN and sees that the car has changed hands. Thank you for admitting how illegal it is, though -- I never thought I'd see an industry person do that.

You could just buy the game new and not have to deal with content removal. Just sayin.

Except it's not worth $60; even if I had money coming out of my ears, it wouldn't be worth that to me. I'd go to Busch Gardens or Six Flags for a day instead. Besides, the content removal we're talking about shouldn't be happening in the first place; it's just an attempt to squeeze a few more pennies out of someone who has already paid his dues.

 

[WaruTaru]

Oh, by the way, did you read the link I gave you? The first sale doctrine is a consumer right that is in place to protect the consumer from exactly the kind of predatory practice that you're defending. It's there to protect the consumer, not to screw over big business.

The first-sale doctrine is the predator here. All entertainment media should really follow this.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Passive or not, they designed something that has no reason to break so that it would break when it changed hands, and not a moment before or after. That is exactly the situation of GM pulling out the compressor, or at least having it hooked up to the internet in a way that it disables itself when it checks the VIN and sees that the car has changed hands. Thank you for admitting how illegal it is, though -- I never thought I'd see an industry person do that.

You could just buy the game new and not have to deal with content removal. Just sayin.

To be fair, that will not always be the case.

There may come a day when you pick up what will be considered a "retro" game (One made now) and find a good portion of the content locked out. Because they've abandoned it to time. And how is that fair?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Oh, by the way, did you read the link I gave you? The first sale doctrine is a consumer right that is in place to protect the consumer from exactly the kind of predatory practice that you're defending. It's there to protect the consumer, not to screw over big business.

The first-sale doctrine is the predator here. All entertainment media should really follow this.

Sorry, I like to live in a place where I, as a consumer, am protected. Big business already finds ways to screw me over every chance it gets, and I'm going to defend the few rights I have to the death. If that's predatory of me, than what would you call what the industry is doing? On the scale of predators, I'm a house cat, and they're Galactus.

 

[mrdude2010]

they've received their cut. they've already received millions from people buying the game in the first place. i already paid the guy who sold me the game used, why the hell would i pay the developer even more? why do game developers not want people to play their games? because i guarantee that's what's going to happen. neither i nor my friends are going to buy a game used if it ends up costing basically just as much as a new one anyway, and if we aren't going to buy it used because it costs too much, then we aren't going to buy it at all


and ask yourself this: think of what the consequences will be if we let game devs charge us to use games we already purchased: does that mean that the person who bought the game originally didn't really buy the game, but just a temporary right to use it? does the game company still own the game you just bought? how are they entitled to a share of the revenue of something they don't own?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Passive or not, they designed something that has no reason to break so that it would break when it changed hands, and not a moment before or after. That is exactly the situation of GM pulling out the compressor, or at least having it hooked up to the internet in a way that it disables itself when it checks the VIN and sees that the car has changed hands. Thank you for admitting how illegal it is, though -- I never thought I'd see an industry person do that.

You could just buy the game new and not have to deal with content removal. Just sayin.

Except it's not worth $60; even if I had money coming out of my ears, it wouldn't be worth that to me. I'd go to Busch Gardens or Six Flags for a day instead. Besides, the content removal we're talking about shouldn't be happening in the first place; it's just an attempt to squeeze a few more pennies out of someone who has already paid his dues.

Then don't buy it. Or wait until the publisher sells it for less. No one is forcing you to buy the game at launch.

Or, you know, buy it used, which is even cheaper than the price "drop," which is rarely all that much. As for your earlier comment about buying things to support the industry, all I have to say is, you are exactly the customer that they want. In a capitalistic society, consumers should only be looking out for their own benefit, while producers should only be looking out for their own. Somehow, the game industry has found a way to not only look after their own benefits, but to get their customers to look after the industry's benefit as well, to the detriment of what's best for them as a consumer. Doing that is bad for the consumer; you wind up paying more for less product. I don't understand how so many people don't get this.

 

[Reliq]

Help me understand this:

The publisher of the game has sold X copies to Retailer Y for price Z. Retailer Y sells the games, and gets a certain amount of those traded back because they didn't like it or whatever. After that, they prop it up in the used games section for resale at a lesser price.

Retailer Y will get a little more money out of the purchase because they don't have to throw out a game. But the amount of X copies sold, and with that the Z Price, isn't changed is it? It's not that with every single purchase a little of that money has to be put into an envelope and sent to the publisher, right? So how does selling used games hurt the publisher like piracy does?

This is not me trolling or whatever, I'm just curious if my train of logic works or not.

because if 1/2X people trade their games in and another 1/2X don't buy new games because they know they can get it cheaper used the publisher only get's money for X copies sold despite the fact that 1,5X people bought the game. Now without used sales they would get 50% more money, with used sales gamestop get's more cash.

NO! Without used game sales the developers would NOT get 50% more money, a lot of people would just not buy the game at all...

 

[mrdude2010]

Passive or not, they designed something that has no reason to break so that it would break when it changed hands, and not a moment before or after. That is exactly the situation of GM pulling out the compressor, or at least having it hooked up to the internet in a way that it disables itself when it checks the VIN and sees that the car has changed hands. Thank you for admitting how illegal it is, though -- I never thought I'd see an industry person do that.

You could just buy the game new and not have to deal with content removal. Just sayin.

Except it's not worth $60; even if I had money coming out of my ears, it wouldn't be worth that to me. I'd go to Busch Gardens or Six Flags for a day instead. Besides, the content removal we're talking about shouldn't be happening in the first place; it's just an attempt to squeeze a few more pennies out of someone who has already paid his dues.

Then don't buy it. Or wait until the publisher sells it for less. No one is forcing you to buy the game at launch.

the way game developers are treating this, they still own the game that the first person bought. it's like claiming that the car that the first person bought still belongs to GM, so they're perfectly within their rights to charge you to reset the scanner/ replace the compressor/ whatever you want to use. the implications of project $10 is that gamers don't own the game they purchased. they didn't buy the game, they rented it. it's not like this with any other product out there. it's like saying you bought a set of speakers, or whatever, and when you sell them on ebay, the next person who buys them has to pay logitech $10 to reactivate the interpreting chip. it's a blatant violation of a consumer's rights to do what they want with a product they purchased.

i don't see why developers think this is a good idea- they should want people to play their games, whether they get a cut of it or not. if i can't afford a new game, and the used one costs as much as the new one because of their stupid $10 activation fee, then i'm not going to buy the game. the community who plays the game will be smaller. the people who are exposed to their work will be smaller, and people will dislike the company for it.

and there's also the simple fact of convenience. it's much easier to just buy the game than it is to buy the game, then go put 800 microsoft points on your account so you can buy the online pass.

 

[WaruTaru]

Passive or not, they designed something that has no reason to break so that it would break when it changed hands, and not a moment before or after. That is exactly the situation of GM pulling out the compressor, or at least having it hooked up to the internet in a way that it disables itself when it checks the VIN and sees that the car has changed hands. Thank you for admitting how illegal it is, though -- I never thought I'd see an industry person do that.

There is no crime in designing things to only work within certain limits. Its called planned obsolescence. PS/XBoX/Wii/Microsoft/Mac does this whenever they release newer hardware/software. You can continue using the old stuff, but if there are bugs or if it breaks, you have no claim against them. If it was illegal, they would all be out of business by now. They are not, and it works. Its the same thing with content-locking games. They just accelerated the effects. Developers only have responsibility towards those who have the "key" and comply with their terms of use. If you refuse to follow, but still wish to gain access to it, by all means do so, but there is no way you can establish that the developers are responsible for used game buyers, whom they have no direct relations with.

And wherever did you get the idea I am a industry person? I'm just your regular gamer.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Or, you know, buy it used, which is even cheaper than the price "drop," which is rarely all that much. As for your earlier comment about buying things to support the industry, all I have to say is, you are exactly the customer that they want. In a capitalistic society, consumers should only be looking out for their own benefit, while producers should only be looking out for their own. Somehow, the game industry has found a way to not only look after their own benefits, but to get their customers to look after the industry's benefit as well, to the detriment of what's best for them as a consumer. Doing that is bad for the consumer; you wind up paying more for less product. I don't understand how so many people don't get this.

I could buy a game new from 6 months ago for 30$. That's a pretty big drop off in price.

Also, I'm pretty sure they'd want someone who buys EVERYTHING in the industry. I only buy the things I want. I pay full price to the support the developers for making games I enjoy. I don't blind buy anything and I certainly wouldn't buy from an unknown developer. I'm looking out for me, while supporting those who make things I enjoy with my purchases.

The simple fact that you pay full price for games and go out of your way to support the industry's bottom line, instead of your own, shows that you've been molded into the kind of consumer the industry wants. As for the six month price drop, got any links? I've never seen a game that was well received drop that quickly. I've seen huge games that were still selling a year or more drop that low, but never within the first six months -- and if I'm waiting a year or more for a price to drop, chances are I'm going to have a hard time finding it new, but a fairly easy time finding it used. Only problem, that used copy is going to be missing stuff, even though I only bought it because it was my only option. The games industry is really shooting itself in the foot here.