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

[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.

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.

Sorry about the industry thing; I could have sworn you admitted to it earlier in the thread. As for the whole planned obsolescence thing, there's a product becoming obsolete, and a product that was designed so that certain features would only work for one person, who couldn't then sell on those features. If any other industry tried it, they would have been sued into oblivion. The games industry gets away with it, but it's blatantly an attack on the first sale doctrine. They only get away with it because they're able to lobby congress and weaken basic consumer rights -- kind of like the DMCA, when you think about it.

 

[WaruTaru]

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.

What of the creators' rights? Without them, you have nothing to enjoy in the first place. You owe it to the creative talents to keep them alive if you like the stuff they make.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

What of the creators' rights? Without them, you have nothing to enjoy in the first place. You owe it to the creative talents to keep them alive if you like the stuff they make.

They have the right to get paid for each copy the first time it's sold. Beyond that, it's neither my problem nor yours.

 

[mrdude2010]

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.

people keep bringing up the auto-industry, even though they are two completely different mediums with two completely different industries. No comparison. Developers want to get paid for the work they put into a game. I'm sure a lot of artists would love it if they could just share their work with the world for everyone to enjoy. But giving away shit for free never put food on the table.

that's a perfectly legitimate comparison in some ways- an engineer designed the car; a factory worker put it together; a janitor swept up the dev room- are you saying those people don't want to get paid for the work they put into cars, or speakers, or a music CD, or any other product? because that's what games are. a product.

and yeaaaa, EA sports REALLLY needs an extra $10 from me or they will fail. true story.

 

[SoulSalmon]

...
If the industry keeps going "ZOMG used is as bad as piracyz1!!!1!" I can see piracy going WAY up...
Considering I know hundreds of people who will buy a game and then use crack copies ANYWAY because the quality is usually better...

Edit: for clarification I'm talking about PC games, pirate PC games tend to be void of DRM.
These same people also tend to DUMP their handheld games, as do I, for the convenience of having them all in one place with shorter load times, but thats not piracy so it's beside the point here.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Space-2-Playstation-3/dp/B00309XHD0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1313308648&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.com/Two-Worlds-2-Xbox-360/dp/B0016NRS8M/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1313308679&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Online-Entertainment-40532erse-Online1/dp/B004GUSIFE/ref=sr_1_2?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1313308705&sr=1-2

3 games from January that you can get for 30$. You see the thing is, I'm not going out of my way to support the industry, otherwise I would pay full 60$ for every game I buy. I only buy some of them at that price, I often wait for a price drop before I purchase titles I'm unsure off. I'm not going out of my way, by waiting to purchase something I'm being conservative with my money. I don't buy used because I want to support DEVELOPERS.

So that's $30 after a 25% markdown from amazon? That's a far cry from the MSRP being dropped to $30. As for supporting the developers, you aren't doing that by buying new. The developers were already paid; what do you think those multi-million dollar budgets go to? They pay the developer's salaries. Nearly every dime from sales goes to the publisher, who then uses the money to pay the next developer on the next piece of work for hire, and also takes a liberal amount in profit. The devs never see a penny of royalty money, and only ra,/i>rely receive a bonus, even for a game that sold exceptionally well (remember Modern Warfare 2?)

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

people keep bringing up the auto-industry, even though they are two completely different mediums with two completely different industries. No comparison. Developers want to get paid for the work they put into a game. I'm sure a lot of artists would love it if they could just share their work with the world for everyone to enjoy. But giving away shit for free never put food on the table.

that's a perfectly legitimate comparison in some ways- an engineer designed the car; a factory worker put it together; a janitor swept up the dev room- are you saying those people don't want to get paid for the work they put into cars, or speakers, or a music CD, or any other product? because that's what games are. a product.

and yeaaaa, EA sports REALLLY needs an extra $10 from me or they will fail. true story.

Cars depreciate in value over time, quite quickly in fact. Games, and to a larger part entertainment in general, do not.

You ever try to resell a game? The depreciate quite quickly. Heck even without reselling, look at the amazon links you gave me. I can guarantee you aren't going to find a current model year car going for an MSRP of 2/3 of it's original value six months after it was released, let alone with an additional dealership markdown of a sixth of the value. Games and cars are comparable even on this point.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

So that's $30 after a 25% markdown from amazon? That's a far cry from the MSRP being dropped to $30. As for supporting the developers, you aren't doing that by buying new. The developers were already paid; what do you think those multi-million dollar budgets go to? They pay the developer's salaries. Nearly every dime from sales goes to the publisher, who then uses the money to pay the next developer on the next piece of work for hire, and also takes a liberal amount in profit. The devs never see a penny of royalty money, and only ra,/i>rely receive a bonus, even for a game that sold exceptionally well (remember Modern Warfare 2?)

Being a thrifty shopper and taking advantage of sales is very evil of me. Also, who pays the developers money to make video games? Santa Claus?

The publisher pays them, as I pointed out. My point was that even in buying new, you aren't supporting the devs of that specific game. You're putting money into a general publishing fund, part of which will be used to fund another game, but not necessarily from another developer. And my point wasn't that you're evil for being thrifty; the point was that you were no better than me just because you go thrifty by buying new, and I do by buying used. At the end of the day, we're just doing what consumers are supposed to do: find the best deal they possibly can. The fortunes of the company that makes the product do not play into it from the consumer's end.

Edit: also, I don't exclusively buy used. I buy plenty of new games, they're just all $20 (what I consider to be the most a game is worth) or less. I'm doing what consumers are supposed to do: giving the industry feedback on how much we're willing to pay for their product. That's all I'm obligated to do.

 

[nklshaz]

Personally, I don't think the solution is withholding content, I think the solution is to add MORE content. Throw out a bunch of cheap DLC like character customization options, or some new weapons. That way, they can still get money out of people who buy it used, (And they won't feel ripped-off) and they can potentially get even more money out of the people who bought it new. (They shouldn't feel ripped off either, because it was entirely by choice.) The key here is to make sure that the DLC is relatively cheap. If DLC is thrown out in that manner often enough, then the problem could potentially be solved. (Or at least lessoned.) Is there any reason why this wouldn't work? If there is, then please let me know. (I really don't have any experience in game design or marketing.)

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

people keep bringing up the auto-industry, even though they are two completely different mediums with two completely different industries. No comparison. Developers want to get paid for the work they put into a game. I'm sure a lot of artists would love it if they could just share their work with the world for everyone to enjoy. But giving away shit for free never put food on the table.

that's a perfectly legitimate comparison in some ways- an engineer designed the car; a factory worker put it together; a janitor swept up the dev room- are you saying those people don't want to get paid for the work they put into cars, or speakers, or a music CD, or any other product? because that's what games are. a product.

and yeaaaa, EA sports REALLLY needs an extra $10 from me or they will fail. true story.

Cars depreciate in value over time, quite quickly in fact. Games, and to a larger part entertainment in general, do not.

You ever try to resell a game? The depreciate quite quickly. Heck even without reselling, look at the amazon links you gave me. I can guarantee you aren't going to find a current model year car going for an MSRP of 2/3 of it's original value six months after it was released, let alone with an additional dealership markdown of a sixth of the value. Games and cars are comparable even on this point.

Why do I get the feeling this has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread before? THE AUTO INDUSTRY IS NOT THE GAMING ONE. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. Cars are not video games. Gamestop is not a used car dealership.

Funny thing, that; every time you give an example as to why the two industries aren't equivalent, a reasonable counter is given. This very post shows the true logic: "they're different because we say they are." You have yet to give any other reason for them to be different that has not been refuted.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

So that's $30 after a 25% markdown from amazon? That's a far cry from the MSRP being dropped to $30. As for supporting the developers, you aren't doing that by buying new. The developers were already paid; what do you think those multi-million dollar budgets go to? They pay the developer's salaries. Nearly every dime from sales goes to the publisher, who then uses the money to pay the next developer on the next piece of work for hire, and also takes a liberal amount in profit. The devs never see a penny of royalty money, and only ra,/i>rely receive a bonus, even for a game that sold exceptionally well (remember Modern Warfare 2?)

Being a thrifty shopper and taking advantage of sales is very evil of me. Also, who pays the developers money to make video games? Santa Claus?

The publisher pays them, as I pointed out. My point was that even in buying new, you aren't supporting the devs of that specific game. You're putting money into a general publishing fund, part of which will be used to fund another game, but not necessarily from another developer. And my point wasn't that you're evil for being thrifty; the point was that you were no better than me just because you go thrifty by buying new, and I do by buying used. At the end of the day, we're just doing what consumers are supposed to do: find the best deal they possibly can. The fortunes of the company that makes the product do not play into it from the consumer's end.

Edit: also, I don't exclusively buy used. I buy plenty of new games, they're just all $20 (what I consider to be the most a game is worth) or less. I'm doing what consumers are supposed to do: giving the industry feedback on how much we're willing to pay for their product. That's all I'm obligated to do.

Another straw-man from the king of straw-men.

ah well, here for your amusement:
publisher pays dev for the vidya => we buy the vidya => publisher pays the developer for more vidya.

And? It's still not your job, as a consumer, to pay the devs -- and besides, they've already been paid, on the profits from another game which was sold ages ago. The industry is not your friend; why should you try to be theirs?

Edit: Oh, and that should have read "but not necessarily from the same developer. My point was that you aren't directly paying the dev, not that you're probably paying for their next game.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

people keep bringing up the auto-industry, even though they are two completely different mediums with two completely different industries. No comparison. Developers want to get paid for the work they put into a game. I'm sure a lot of artists would love it if they could just share their work with the world for everyone to enjoy. But giving away shit for free never put food on the table.

that's a perfectly legitimate comparison in some ways- an engineer designed the car; a factory worker put it together; a janitor swept up the dev room- are you saying those people don't want to get paid for the work they put into cars, or speakers, or a music CD, or any other product? because that's what games are. a product.

and yeaaaa, EA sports REALLLY needs an extra $10 from me or they will fail. true story.

Cars depreciate in value over time, quite quickly in fact. Games, and to a larger part entertainment in general, do not.

You ever try to resell a game? The depreciate quite quickly. Heck even without reselling, look at the amazon links you gave me. I can guarantee you aren't going to find a current model year car going for an MSRP of 2/3 of it's original value six months after it was released, let alone with an additional dealership markdown of a sixth of the value. Games and cars are comparable even on this point.

Why do I get the feeling this has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread before? THE AUTO INDUSTRY IS NOT THE GAMING ONE. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. Cars are not video games. Gamestop is not a used car dealership.

Funny thing, that; every time you give an example as to why the two industries aren't equivalent, a reasonable counter is given. This very post shows the true logic: "they're different because we say they are." You have yet to give any other reason for them to be different that has not been refuted.

Funny that, two industries can be completely different. The industry for cars is not the same as the one for video games. There have been no "reasonable counters" simply put, cars are not video games. No matter how hard you yell and scream that the industries are similar, they are not. There are loads of other industries that aren't video games either. Pillows are not video games. Contact lenses are not video games. Cars aren't even an entertainment industry.

And yet you haven't given me an example of how they are materially different; you just keep claiming they are. Do you have anything at all to add to the argument at this point, or have I so thoroughly destroyed your position that this is what you're reduced to?


Edit: Massively screwed up the quote. My portion of the post is in the right place, now, and I'm going to edit back in the actual quoted part.

Edit Edit: It should be fixed now.