Buying Used isn't Piracy
- Thread starter CaptOfSerenity
- Start date
Recommended Videos
in a used game sale no money goes to the dev it,s understandable they are pissed about it.
if they want money they should do the same as Valve and re-release all their old games as digital downloads.
if they want money they should do the same as Valve and re-release all their old games as digital downloads.
I hate how people make this into a black/white issue. Its not.
Used sales may not be piracy, but they are much more likely to be a lost sale. I know there have been many times I went to a store with the intent to buy a specific game. If they had it used, I got it used, otherwise I bought it new. That was clearly a lost sale because of the existence of the used game, and hence they are receiving less income for their work. Every use game sale is not a lost sale, but a significant percentage of them are. The idea that the companies want to minimize lost sales should not be taken as a sign that they are evil. Theoretically, if they can make more money, they can spend it on making more/better games, which would benefit us as gamers.
One big difference between a video game and many products is the lifespan of use. A video game is something that you play through, complete, and you are done. Its remaining value to you is low- non-existant if you never pick it up to replay it. With a car, its value to you is continual. You will use a car pretty much everyday, and if you sell it, you are losing that value. If you have a shirt, you will wear it on a regular basis, and get continued value from it.
However, on the flip side, if you sell a used game, you are probably going to turn around and buy a new game with that money. A person selling a used game is probably a gamer, they are in a game store at the time, and they now have more money. The producer has gotten their cut of you buying that game, and now you are using part of the cost to buy a fresh game. Hence, the presence of the used game market also increases sales, so its net effect is much smaller than you may initially think.
However, regardless of the impact of the used game market on their bottom line, the fact remains that the publishers are damaging the value of the games in an effort to combat used games and piracy, and as their customers we are perfectly valid to be upset about it. If our ire cuts into their profits more than used games were, then they will stop. Unfortunately, they are most likely to pull these stunts on the AAA titles we have been waiting months/years for, and are loath to actually pass on playing the game because of it. Our desire to play these games means we will actually put up with a lot of BS, even though we may loudly complain about it.
Used sales may not be piracy, but they are much more likely to be a lost sale. I know there have been many times I went to a store with the intent to buy a specific game. If they had it used, I got it used, otherwise I bought it new. That was clearly a lost sale because of the existence of the used game, and hence they are receiving less income for their work. Every use game sale is not a lost sale, but a significant percentage of them are. The idea that the companies want to minimize lost sales should not be taken as a sign that they are evil. Theoretically, if they can make more money, they can spend it on making more/better games, which would benefit us as gamers.
One big difference between a video game and many products is the lifespan of use. A video game is something that you play through, complete, and you are done. Its remaining value to you is low- non-existant if you never pick it up to replay it. With a car, its value to you is continual. You will use a car pretty much everyday, and if you sell it, you are losing that value. If you have a shirt, you will wear it on a regular basis, and get continued value from it.
However, on the flip side, if you sell a used game, you are probably going to turn around and buy a new game with that money. A person selling a used game is probably a gamer, they are in a game store at the time, and they now have more money. The producer has gotten their cut of you buying that game, and now you are using part of the cost to buy a fresh game. Hence, the presence of the used game market also increases sales, so its net effect is much smaller than you may initially think.
However, regardless of the impact of the used game market on their bottom line, the fact remains that the publishers are damaging the value of the games in an effort to combat used games and piracy, and as their customers we are perfectly valid to be upset about it. If our ire cuts into their profits more than used games were, then they will stop. Unfortunately, they are most likely to pull these stunts on the AAA titles we have been waiting months/years for, and are loath to actually pass on playing the game because of it. Our desire to play these games means we will actually put up with a lot of BS, even though we may loudly complain about it.
I've read through the posts in this topic and many others, and I'd just like to say...
Stop using analogies. Both sides. I have yet to see a single analogy that hasn't been butchered. Just...don't do it. Think of the analogies. They're innocent. Don't let them see their families suffer any more than they already have.
Stop using analogies. Both sides. I have yet to see a single analogy that hasn't been butchered. Just...don't do it. Think of the analogies. They're innocent. Don't let them see their families suffer any more than they already have.
I kept all my games ever since the C=64.
But I don't feel much love for the online passes. In fact, the only thing they did for me was allow me to sell my used games at a premium. Buyers of used games really love unused online passes. And I don't feel like holding on to things that try to impose themselves on me, telling me what to do and how to do it. It just doesn't work for me.
SO, yeah, I don't like the concept of online passes very much.
A couple of years back, I bought into the Battleforge trip. It was fun and promising. But I wonder - did we fools who threw our money at EA make them believe Origin would be a smart idea?
But I don't feel much love for the online passes. In fact, the only thing they did for me was allow me to sell my used games at a premium. Buyers of used games really love unused online passes. And I don't feel like holding on to things that try to impose themselves on me, telling me what to do and how to do it. It just doesn't work for me.
SO, yeah, I don't like the concept of online passes very much.
A couple of years back, I bought into the Battleforge trip. It was fun and promising. But I wonder - did we fools who threw our money at EA make them believe Origin would be a smart idea?
C64? That...that wouldn't happen to be the Commodore 64, would it?Headdrivehardscrew said:
If so...Praise the maker. I'm not the only old fart here. (Not that you are)
I can finally ask someone this. Compared to video game prices 'back in the day' and video game prices now, they were more expensive back then, right? (Adjusted for inflation)
And had much smaller dev teams, and took less time to produce, and cost significantly less to produce, and had much less content...
My stance on this is that my right to do what I want with a product I bought is mine alone. Used game sales do not hurt the industry as much as the publisher would like you to believe..However, that is not the issue.
The fact of the matter is that no matter how much money is lost to used game sales, (in this case, it'd be taking a bucketful...out of the ocean) it is NOT an issue of money. This is the same issue that SOPA was created for - large corporations trying to protect an ancient business model. The solution is not to ban used game sales or punish the consumer for it, it is to create a model that makes it so buying new is more beneficial than buying used. We're seeing this with the surge of the digital distribution marketplaces and things like EA's project 10 dollar.
These companies have the ability to wipe used game sales off the board *right now* and that's what they're trying damn hard to do.
However, the issue at core of this to me is that of consumer rights. I understand that companies make more money if everyone buys the game new and they lose some money if it's used. But...
Just because a game is digital and does not devalue as quickly as physical products (such as cars, books and chairs) does not mean that I should not be allowed to do whatever I want with my product. I put 60 dollars down on the table to get handed a product. The moment that product enters my possession, there should be absolutely nothing that the company should be able to say that I can't do to it (outside of criminal acts, such as duplication, and those things that damage the experience of other peoples products.)
I have bought my one spot on that multiplayer server/single player experience and it is mine to do whatever I want with. If I want to give it to a friend to play with, it's entirely my right to do so because it is my unit of product.
My argument for this is simple. Why do we allow *this* industry to get away with this? What would we do it this happened to say, the furniture industry? My friend needs a chair and I have one that I am not using. Should I not be allowed to give that used chair to my friend, free of charge, because the furniture company would lose money? Should I be unable to because my friend would experience the full immersion that that seat had to offer and that's the same as stealing a chair from the company? It is an utterly ridiculous idea!
Now, why are we, as gamers, letting the big companies stomp all over our right simply because it is actually enforceable to do so? I'm sure that the used furniture market hurts that industry and they'd be happy to shut down every pawn shop in the country. Why are we getting pulled in by the "It hurts the industry! I only have a small hill of cash to sleep on instead of a mountain! There won't be any more video games because of used sales!"
It's fucking fear mongering to get sheep to give up their property rights so that corporations can get more money. And the sad thing is, it's working.
The fact of the matter is that no matter how much money is lost to used game sales, (in this case, it'd be taking a bucketful...out of the ocean) it is NOT an issue of money. This is the same issue that SOPA was created for - large corporations trying to protect an ancient business model. The solution is not to ban used game sales or punish the consumer for it, it is to create a model that makes it so buying new is more beneficial than buying used. We're seeing this with the surge of the digital distribution marketplaces and things like EA's project 10 dollar.
These companies have the ability to wipe used game sales off the board *right now* and that's what they're trying damn hard to do.
However, the issue at core of this to me is that of consumer rights. I understand that companies make more money if everyone buys the game new and they lose some money if it's used. But...
Just because a game is digital and does not devalue as quickly as physical products (such as cars, books and chairs) does not mean that I should not be allowed to do whatever I want with my product. I put 60 dollars down on the table to get handed a product. The moment that product enters my possession, there should be absolutely nothing that the company should be able to say that I can't do to it (outside of criminal acts, such as duplication, and those things that damage the experience of other peoples products.)
I have bought my one spot on that multiplayer server/single player experience and it is mine to do whatever I want with. If I want to give it to a friend to play with, it's entirely my right to do so because it is my unit of product.
My argument for this is simple. Why do we allow *this* industry to get away with this? What would we do it this happened to say, the furniture industry? My friend needs a chair and I have one that I am not using. Should I not be allowed to give that used chair to my friend, free of charge, because the furniture company would lose money? Should I be unable to because my friend would experience the full immersion that that seat had to offer and that's the same as stealing a chair from the company? It is an utterly ridiculous idea!
Now, why are we, as gamers, letting the big companies stomp all over our right simply because it is actually enforceable to do so? I'm sure that the used furniture market hurts that industry and they'd be happy to shut down every pawn shop in the country. Why are we getting pulled in by the "It hurts the industry! I only have a small hill of cash to sleep on instead of a mountain! There won't be any more video games because of used sales!"
It's fucking fear mongering to get sheep to give up their property rights so that corporations can get more money. And the sad thing is, it's working.
In fact all the anti-used games tactics increase piracy. Why would someone pay for a new game, than all the expansions when they can get it all for free? Why should they have to deal with DRM when they can get a free copy with no DRM? Here's a tip dev's anything you can program, someone else can unprogram.CaptOfSerenity said:
I agree with the crowd of used games don't hurt the industry that much.
I also agree with the people who say Project 10 dollar isn't all that evil.
However, I ran into a problem with Project 10 dollar. I had no internet connection. For the most part it's online multiplayer that is affected, but what about Rage?
I lost part of my game because I couldn't type in a code, which I had bought, new.
Yeah almost everyone has a net connection now but still.
It's ludicrous for a company to take anything away from a product because you didn't buy it new.
What if CD's wouldn't let you play 1 of your favorite songs because you bought it used?
What if a movie, be it on Blu-Ray, or DVD, cut out right before the ending because you bought it used.
It's ridiculous when it comes to that. I think that day 1 DLC or project 10 dollar should be for bonus stuff. Not anything you need but a nice, "thank you for buying new".
Yeah used games can hurt the industry a bit, but when I see MW3 sell as well as it did, or Skyrim or what have you, you can tell the industry isn't hurting. I've bought new games solely because I was able to trade some in. Otherwise, they wouldn't have gotten that sale.
Used games should exist, Project 10 dollar can exist and both can work together, I just think Publishers need to change what 10 dollar is. It shouldn't be a punishment, but a reward for the folks who buy new.
I also agree with the people who say Project 10 dollar isn't all that evil.
However, I ran into a problem with Project 10 dollar. I had no internet connection. For the most part it's online multiplayer that is affected, but what about Rage?
I lost part of my game because I couldn't type in a code, which I had bought, new.
Yeah almost everyone has a net connection now but still.
It's ludicrous for a company to take anything away from a product because you didn't buy it new.
What if CD's wouldn't let you play 1 of your favorite songs because you bought it used?
What if a movie, be it on Blu-Ray, or DVD, cut out right before the ending because you bought it used.
It's ridiculous when it comes to that. I think that day 1 DLC or project 10 dollar should be for bonus stuff. Not anything you need but a nice, "thank you for buying new".
Yeah used games can hurt the industry a bit, but when I see MW3 sell as well as it did, or Skyrim or what have you, you can tell the industry isn't hurting. I've bought new games solely because I was able to trade some in. Otherwise, they wouldn't have gotten that sale.
Used games should exist, Project 10 dollar can exist and both can work together, I just think Publishers need to change what 10 dollar is. It shouldn't be a punishment, but a reward for the folks who buy new.
Aye, that would be the one.Kopikatsu said:
Hey there, fellow old fart.
I think you are right that games were comparably more expensive back then (25 years or so in the past), and I think it's a fact that teams were much smaller...
I think on one hand there was a novelty premium to be paid, yet still a large number of games felt like a bargain, since the competition - say, Nintendo-made hand-held Game&Watch - was usually just a dose of something completely different, and a single, portable game cost up to twice as much with much less 'content'. Piracy was rampant, but there were a huge number of smaller publishers that brought us memorable and unique gaming experiences (Palace Software) or pulled early Hong Kong-style unofficial ports of console-exclusive titles (Time Warp Productions, Factor 5, Rainbow Arts,...).
What bothers me is this: Ever since the PSX (or Saturn) a lot of emphasis was suddenly on 3D (as in polyons, not funny eyewear and everyone wanting to sit in the sweet spot on the couch), and the actual game experience was flushed down the drain like baby girls in China.
Over here, we still play Wizball, Rana Rama, Sensible Soccer, Super Sidekicks 2 and whatnot - these games are not only simple and old, they're ancient and, by today's standards, ugly. But so much fun. I don't see myself playing 99% of today's games twenty years from now. They're million-dollar quick fixes, and the few games I take part in online will probably not be online twenty years from now.
Take Battleforge, as one random example of what's going sideways with the games industry right now: EA turned it into a money magnet, you can even get your daily dose of junk by means of SMS. But early adopters who bought an actual boxed copy were - mildly put - farmed over. It went free-to-play, the in-game economy had at least a dozen artificially created Black Fridays and the game has become little more than a social experiment, where you can meet really, really strange and bitter people from around the world.
On the other hand, there's Warcraft III - 9 years and still going strong. It just works, low polygon count, plenty of handcrafted pixels, humour, fun, solid game mechanics - it's become a staple in our household, with at least half a dozen licenses of both ROC and TFT having been bought over the course of easily half a decade. That's a solid title, and it just plain doesn't need DirectX11 hardware tesselation to be solid and proper good fun.
"Not for Resale" to your friends.
I actually enjoyed the Jimquisition piece on this. Check it out.
I actually enjoyed the Jimquisition piece on this. Check it out.
I agree. My favorite games have always been 2D sprite games, because sprites are easy enough to make, look good, and it leaves so much more time and resources to be devoted on the story/gameplay/whathaveyou.Headdrivehardscrew said:
It's why Nippon Ichi Software is my favorite gaming company. Almost all of their games are sprite-based, and have such an insane amount of content that it would probably take multiple lifetimes just to play through all their games completely.
Adjusted for inflation, no they aren't.
Super Nintendo came out in 1991 for $200 dollars.
In todays dollars that's only $332. AND it came with Super Mario World and 2 Controllers!
Wii launched costing houshold $249 Dollars.It only came with a Nunchuck and Remote and needed another Remote and Nunchuck to be the same as a SNES Release Box. another USD 39.99 and 19.99.
250 + 40 + 20 = $310 Dollars.
Wii Launched in 2006. Adjusted for inflation to equal a Super Nintendo it would be $347.87
$348 > $332. Not by much but still.
This is also disigenous anyways due to the fact that technology gets cheaper and cheaper to produce as it gets better and better. The actual cost of producing a Wii would be far greater than that of producing a Super Nintendo nowadays meaning the Super Nintendo would cost far less.
You're also being disingenuous with your Video Game analogy as well.
$50 dollars = roughly $83 dollars in todays market for Sper Mario World. I can tell you I wouldn't pay $83 dollars for a Super Nintendo Game now but, just look at how many people are paying 60+ for a game then just a month or 2 after paying 15-20 for DLC that CAME ON THE DISC DAY 1 and was simply unlocked. It's Bullcrap.
Anothr point to be made is that distribution of games has never been cheaper for developers. Digital Distribution and DVD/Blue Rays being pennies on the dollar for these companies to produce whereas Catridges are insanely expensive to produce in comparison. In fact the main reason companies switched was the fact that CD's offered an incredible decline in the cost of production with the ability to produce far more far more easily to meet demands as well as reducing the cost further for each copy made.
Digital distribution reduces the cost even more by an even larger factor as the IP only need sit on a server that can hold literally thousands of IP's which can be accessed to meet an infinite demands, infinite copies, and shifts even more of the cost onto the consumer through need of a bandwidth and internet connection while simultaneously demolishing shipping and production costs to the publisher.
There's a reason they've made record profits during a recession you know; they haven't shifted any savings onto us. They've only continued to line their pockets while reducing the costs to them.
This is just a nutty enough strategy that it might work!idarkphoenixi said:
Second Hand sales wasn't a problem till companies started releasing games that are boring by the end of day 1
. Then suddenly it is an issue because nobody is willing to pay 60 bucks for a few hours of entertainment.Steam is my salvation for moderately ok games. I wait till it is 85% off and buy it.
So second hand sales and piracy == SUPER bad.
Buying a game for 3 dollars? Best person ever.
'Twas actually referring to the used games market with that "alternative markets" thing...lacktheknack said:
If you had the choice between an SNES for $332 and a Wii for $348...Bedewyr said:
I mean, the Wii could probably beat out twenty SNES' hooked together to form a Super Super Nintendo in processing power. The Wii is, by leaps and bounds, the better system. It's on an entire different plane of existence...and it's $12 more.
.Bedewyr said:
Which is...irrelevant. I'm talking about price tags then and now. The fact that old stuff can be made with pocket change now doesn't change what the price was back then.
Re-reading that hurt my head...
You really like the word disingenuous, don't you? This is kind of a personal tangent you went off on, though. DLC is a recent invention, so it's 'eh' as far as comparing prices go, but let's just look at base prices, shall we? $83 for Super Mario World, or $60 for Skyrim. You see where the 'If only they didn't charge so much/They need to reduce the price' argument falls apart, right? They did reduce the price. Significantly so.Bedewyr said:
Again, irrelevant. Games ARE cheaper now than they were back then. They charge you less. They could probably charge you less than they do, but we should be thanking the Lords of whatever that they actually did get cheaper. They could charge more. In any other industry, they would have charged more. The video game industry is pretty much the only industry where price fixing exists, and we should be damn thankful for it.Bedewyr said:
Once again, irrelevant. Could games be sold cheaper than they are now? Probably. Steam proves that. But the point I was making was that the price of video games has only gone down, and people still complain about 'how much it is' and how companies are ripping us off with $60 price tags.Bedewyr said:
I would argue that they make record profits because of the lowered prices and increased saturation of advertisement. Why do you think Steam makes funny money?Bedewyr said: