Buying Used isn't Piracy

[CaptOfSerenity]

The used game market has recently become a pariah for developers and publishers alike to blame for reduced gains or increased losses to their sales. Many equate used games to piracy, and find no value in its existence.

And they're full of shit.

Used games are nothing like piracy: a used game is only one game. It can only be given or sold to one person and played by one (or two if there's split-screen) person at a time. The person who owns the copy of the game can do what they want with it. It is THEIRS. Piracy, is very different. It is the unauthorized use or REPRODUCTION of copyrighted material, meaning that this copy was stolen online, then the pirate made copies of it and distributed it to thousands. How are these concepts similar? They're not.

Why are developers and publishers pissing and moaning about used games? Simple. They want more money/ If I buy a used game, then the publisher sees none of that money. But, if I want to sell a game to a friend for cheaper than retail, then why can't I? It's my game, I'll do with it what I wish. Killing the used game market also kills some of our rights as consumers to do with our games what we wish. It's asinine.

Publishers have taken EA's "Project Ten Dollars" and applied it to their games, meaning you buy a game new, and you get a code to access a part of the game that would otherwise be locked if you bought new. This isn't perfect, but it does encourage people to buy new. The annoyance is the constant menus. I can't just start a fucking game anymore; I have to go through mountains of menus to get to it. Or I have to download a damn patch. Game consoles are becoming more like PCs.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Oh no, you are supposed to happily give up your consumer rights. Think of the poor publisher.

 

[everythingbeeps]

Of course it's not piracy.

But it DOES cut into new game sales, and developers and publishers are perfectly justified in recouping those losses however they see fit, including online passes and day-1 DLC.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

Well of course they want money, you make that sound like its almost a huge revelation. I think Project 10 dollar is completely fair, you dont support the devs? Then you dont get access to part of a game. When they start locking out parts of the main story, thats when ill get pissed

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I just wish game stores would buy those of my PC games that don't require unlocking. I want to get rid of my old Crysis, Mass Effect, Fallout 3 etc discs.

As for buying used games, I don't know, it's pretty established - game stores often have shelves of traded in games and such.

If you've got an independent record shop near your house, see if they'll let you trade them in. Most independent record shops, at least the ones that focus mostly on used stuff, sell used PC games. Barring that, there's always Amazon and Ebay.

OT: All I have to say, OP, is you're right, but gamers are terrible consumers who don't like to listen to that particular truth. The only thing I'd disagree with in your OP is that Project $10 helps with any actual problem, rather than creating a problem of its own; it's a direct attempt to destroy the used market, the profits from which the publishers are not legally entitled to[footnote]Funny thing about people who use "entitlement" as an insult; they don't seem to understand what the word means. If you're entitled to something, you have a legal right to it, so I guess pirates should be thankful that they're "entitled" to free games...[/footnote]. It warms my heart to see that, so far at least, none of the posters have been industry apologists.

Edit: And, while I was typing, a pair of industry cheerleaders showed up. It is not my job as a consumer to support the people who made the game; it's my job to legally acquire it for the cheapest possible price. What's more, once they've sold a product once, they are no longer legally entitled to any profits on that individual product. They're confusing the courts by making this a contract issue[footnote]Which, ironically, is still not a good excuse, since the specific right I'm talking about was first described in US law because the recording industry was putting EULAs on their records[/footnote], but frankly, the law is pretty darned clear on the matter: the publishers are breaking it.

 

[Epona]

Of course it's not piracy.

But it DOES cut into new game sales, and developers and publishers are perfectly justified in recouping those losses however they see fit, including online passes and day-1 DLC.

However they see fit is a little far. Surely you wouldn't condone publisher burning down used game stores or bricking consoles of those who buy used games?

 

[Fishyash]

Project $10 is definately meh. I guess it works for now, but I think the best way to go about it is to hopefully wait for gamestop to slowly die. Although I think it is TERRIBLE that people have the audacity to blame consumers rather than gamestop and other retail shops that focus on selling used games, it will inevitably go away into an era where all video games are sold digitally.

Anyways... the 'loss' that the publishers are seeing is intangible. You can't really say that second hand sales are destroying the video games industry, until you can prove that there is a 100% chance that someone who bought a used game would have bought it at full price, brand new, if it was not available used.

 

[everythingbeeps]

Of course it's not piracy.

But it DOES cut into new game sales, and developers and publishers are perfectly justified in recouping those losses however they see fit, including online passes and day-1 DLC.

However they see fit is a little far. Surely you wouldn't condone publisher burning down used game stores or bricking consoles of those who buy used games?

I didn't think adding "within the confines of the law" would be necessary, but apparently people like you insist upon it.

 

[Epona]

Of course it's not piracy.

But it DOES cut into new game sales, and developers and publishers are perfectly justified in recouping those losses however they see fit, including online passes and day-1 DLC.

However they see fit is a little far. Surely you wouldn't condone publisher burning down used game stores or bricking consoles of those who buy used games?

I didn't think adding "within the confines of the law" would be necessary, but apparently people like you insist upon it.

It's just that I am not certain that interfering with the First Sale Doctrine is within the confines of the law.

 

[everythingbeeps]

Of course it's not piracy.

But it DOES cut into new game sales, and developers and publishers are perfectly justified in recouping those losses however they see fit, including online passes and day-1 DLC.

However they see fit is a little far. Surely you wouldn't condone publisher burning down used game stores or bricking consoles of those who buy used games?

I didn't think adding "within the confines of the law" would be necessary, but apparently people like you insist upon it.

It's just that I am not certain that interfering with the First Sale Doctrine is within the confines of the law.

Who's interfering? And how?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Of course it's not piracy.

But it DOES cut into new game sales, and developers and publishers are perfectly justified in recouping those losses however they see fit, including online passes and day-1 DLC.

However they see fit is a little far. Surely you wouldn't condone publisher burning down used game stores or bricking consoles of those who buy used games?

I didn't think adding "within the confines of the law" would be necessary, but apparently people like you insist upon it.

It's just that I am not certain that interfering with the First Sale Doctrine is within the confines of the law.

Who's interfering? And how?

They are intentionally devaluing a product after the first owner.

 

[Epona]

Of course it's not piracy.

But it DOES cut into new game sales, and developers and publishers are perfectly justified in recouping those losses however they see fit, including online passes and day-1 DLC.

However they see fit is a little far. Surely you wouldn't condone publisher burning down used game stores or bricking consoles of those who buy used games?

I didn't think adding "within the confines of the law" would be necessary, but apparently people like you insist upon it.

It's just that I am not certain that interfering with the First Sale Doctrine is within the confines of the law.

Who's interfering? And how?

The publishers and with activation codes. Activation codes will destroy the used market for consoles like it did for PC. It just seems to me that it shouldn't be legal to find some technical back door to make a consumer right unusable.

 

[everythingbeeps]

Of course it's not piracy.

But it DOES cut into new game sales, and developers and publishers are perfectly justified in recouping those losses however they see fit, including online passes and day-1 DLC.

However they see fit is a little far. Surely you wouldn't condone publisher burning down used game stores or bricking consoles of those who buy used games?

I didn't think adding "within the confines of the law" would be necessary, but apparently people like you insist upon it.

It's just that I am not certain that interfering with the First Sale Doctrine is within the confines of the law.

Who's interfering? And how?

The publishers and with activation codes. Activation codes will destroy the used market for consoles like it did for PC. It just seems to me that it shouldn't be legal to find some technical back door to make a consumer right unusable.

1. It's not their responsibility nor obligation to give a shit about the used market. Nor was I aware that "buying used" was a universal consumer right. And I'm pretty damn sure that there are no consumer rights regarding how much you're entitled to get when you trade shit in. Certainly not where video games are concerned. If you try to compare them to cars, so help me god I'm going to fucking break something. Boy, you're gonna hate life once digital distribution comes along.

2. The publishers are perfectly within their right to deliver their product however they see fit. If this means 90% disc and 10% DLC, they can do that. Again, they are not obligated to make any effort to ensure that their product "retains its value".

 

[zombieshark6666]

Actually, it's even worse because it's a lost sale.

/trollderp

 

[Wolfram23]

Why are you whining about this to us? I think we know what the difference is, even if perhaps we disagree on how they both affect the industry.

For example, someone might pirate a game to demo it and then go buy the game new (or used). Someone else might pirate the game and beat it and never pay for it.

The other thing is when it comes to games released that year, the used games are generally only $5 cheaper so really, the buyer is willing to spend money on the game but because they get $5 off they will take it. If there weren't used sales that person would probably be quite happy to just buy the new copy. Of course there are also older used games that sell for maybe $5 and you can't beat that.

I do think used sales should exist, but I also think people should sell them through kijiji not at GameStop.

 

[Epona]

Of course it's not piracy.

But it DOES cut into new game sales, and developers and publishers are perfectly justified in recouping those losses however they see fit, including online passes and day-1 DLC.

However they see fit is a little far. Surely you wouldn't condone publisher burning down used game stores or bricking consoles of those who buy used games?

I didn't think adding "within the confines of the law" would be necessary, but apparently people like you insist upon it.

It's just that I am not certain that interfering with the First Sale Doctrine is within the confines of the law.

Who's interfering? And how?

The publishers and with activation codes. Activation codes will destroy the used market for consoles like it did for PC. It just seems to me that it shouldn't be legal to find some technical back door to make a consumer right unusable.

1. It's not their responsibility nor obligation to give a shit about the used market. Nor was I aware that "buying used" was a universal consumer right. And I'm pretty damn sure that there are no consumer rights regarding how much you're entitled to get when you trade shit in. Certainly not where video games are concerned. If you try to compare them to cars, so help me god I'm going to fucking break something. Boy, you're gonna hate life once digital distribution comes along.

2. The publishers are perfectly within their right to deliver their product however they see fit. If this means 90% disc and 10% DLC, they can do that. Again, they are not obligated to make any effort to ensure that their product "retains its value".

Calm down.

I am just saying that some DRM steps on the toes of a law designed to protect a consumers right to resale. I am just waiting for this to go to court to see what happens, if it ever does.

About going digital, that will freeze the prices. Steam may have awesome sales but do Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo on their digital stores? It would create a monopoly. With no competition from the retail market, what motivation would the big three have to drop prices?

 

[skywolfblue]

I wish game companies were more competitive with their post-first-week prices. I doubt they'd have same amount of problems with used sales if they offered it at more enticing price point. It's a little silly when over a year later the game still costs more then $40 new.

 

[Zen Toombs]

Lies, lies, its all lies!!! It has to be lies because the big friendly publisher would never lie to me and always acts in my best interest.

Happiness is mandatory, citizen. The Computer is your friend. Have a nice daycycle.

OT: Buying used isn't Piracy.

You can use your property as you choose. And that's that.