Buying Used isn't Piracy

[Vegosiux]

I say drive train warranty, it's specific to the first buyer and is usually non-transferable. And it does not hurt the bare bones purchase of the car.

What if the game is a gift, then?

 

[Assassin Xaero]

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.

You forgot to mention the part about how a game that is used must have been bought at one point in time, so the publisher DID already get money for that copy of the game. Even then, none of the money you spend on retail games goes to the publisher/developer/whatever, it is the money the distributor pays to get the copies of the game in the store. If those don't sell, the distributor is out the money and the... whatever... still got paid for all of those.

Same concept as buying a car. If it was used, then someone had to already buy it. Do most people buy used cars? No, because they are insanely overpriced and lose a shit ton of value right when you drive them off the lot (kind of like if you buy a new game then try and trade it in a week later). People don't seem to go on about how buying used is taking money away from the car manufacturers, how are games any different?

 

[Jumpingbean3]

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.

But we, as consumers, have every right to complain about it. Just because their actions are justifiable doesn't mean we shouldn't complain if we feel like we're being screwed Now I'm not against Day-1 DLC if it's like an extra map pack or costume because that feels more like a reward but if you make used buyers pay extra for multiplayer then it feels like punishment because games have made players come to expect multiplayer in the full game and the publisher brings any complaints on themselves.

As consumers we can ***** and whine about whatever suits our fancy.

If publishers can ***** and whine (seriously, have you ever heard of a car company complaining about used car dealerships or making used buyers pay extra for the radio) about how used sales are costing them money (which is often because either A) their game was bad/unpopular, B) a lack of replay value or C) something else came out and most people moved on, A and B being the fault of the publishers and developers and C being an inevitability) why can't we ***** and whine about EA making used buyers pay extra for Dead Space 2's multiplayer?

Because that's still what it comes down to. You, as a used buyer, are still expecting the publishers to meet YOUR demands, even though they don't see a dime of your money. How does that not sound patently absurd to everyone else?

Well if that's your argument, why don't they just make half of the game DLC?

Just so we're clear I'm not against trying to make a profit from used sales nor do I exclusively buy used games (in fact when Skyward Sword, Saints Row 3 and Skyrim came out I paid full price for all of them) I'm just against certain methods. As a frame of reference, I bought a special edition copy of Dragonage (for some reason it was cheaper than the regular version) preowned because I couldn't find the full price version and because I played DA2 and found it lacking. It still had the DLC slip inside but it was used up and I was okay with that because it was like extra content. However, if I buy a game used, for whatever reason and I find it took out multiplayer (a mode that gamers have come to expect because of how often developers include it) just because I wasn't sure if I'd like it or I didn't have the money I have every reason to "***** and whine".

Don't like the product you're getting used? Not their problem. Buy it new, or spend the $10, or be quiet.

I'm gonna cap my argument off with a message to publishers:

Don't like that people are buying you're games used? Not their problem. Make a game that is more likely to sell well or have lasting appeal, or lower the price or be quiet.

A publishers job is to make a game sell well. If it does, the publisher makes money, if it doesn't they don't. I don't see why others should pay for your mistakes. You want to make money off of used sales? I got no problem with that but maybe it might be a good business decision if you tried to focus more on making full-price buyers feel rewarded and less on making used buyers feel punished.

And really by trying to diminish used sales you could do harm to yourselves. The less people buy and sell used games the more reluctant they may be to buy at full price as used games are slowly devalued and if you make used gamers feel punished they'll be less likely to trust you and buy your games at full price.

 

[Syzygy23]

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.

I have a movie ticket, which entitles me to one seat in the theater. I go in and watch half of the movie, then walk out, and I then sell this ticket to someone else. This person goes in and sits in my now-vacant seat.

It costs the developers (theater) nothing extra except for some heating and wear-and-tear on the seats.

Used games != a problem

Solution: cheaper goddamn games, publishers >.>

I hate analogies. I cannot stand them. Just wanted to throw that out there.

That being said, this is probably the most accurate analogy I've seen on the subject. It's still wrong, but it's better than, say, the car analogy which I cannot fucking stand. A used game can be passed around as many times as necessary. Your analogy doesn't match. That person you gave the ticket to can only see the second half of that movie. If they walk out halfway and sell the ticket to someone else, then that third person only gets to see a quarter of the movie. And so on.

The ticket you sold to the second person doesn't have the same value as the ticket you bought, even though it's the same ticket, because that second person only gets half the movie at most. For a video game, it doesn't degrade. It'll be the same game for everyone.

Used game sales are technically worse than piracy. A common excuse for piracy is 'They wouldn't have bought it anyway'. Used game sales...they did buy it. Even if they had to wait a month or so for the price to drop to used game-levels, they still would have bought it.

That being said, there is a fine line between used sales and letting a friend borrow the game. At what point does it stop being 'okay'? Digital distribution means that you can't let people borrow the game, nor can you resell the game. So...! It looks like digital distribution is the future of gaming. Woo.

Edit: I forgot to mention something. Video game consoles are EXTREMELY cheap nowadays. Adjusted for inflation, early video game consoles were many times more expensive than the consoles we have today. (Like the Halcyon would cost $5,000 today)

More examples. Super Mario Bros for the SNES cost $49.99 on release. Skyrim cost $59.99. Super Mario Bros was released in 1985. In over twenty years, the price went up $10. Adjusted for inflation, VIDEO GAMES HAVE NEVER BEEN CHEAPER. EVER. EVEREVER. And modern AAA games take hundreds of staff and take millions to produce. AND THEY'RE CHEAPER THAN GAMES MADE BY TEAMS OF 10 PEOPLE FOR A FEW THOUSAND. GET OVER IT PEOPLE. JESUS CHRIST. FMEWCIV3EPFM,3Q

/heavy breathing

Edit: I should point out that at the end there when I started to rage, I'm talking about the games 20 years ago. Not little indie devs of today.

Edit 2: I'm talking about prices in America. I know the EU has like 40 pounds for a new game, but I don't know how much old-old games were there.

Edit 3: If anyone is wondering why I rage so hard, it's because I always hear 'Well, I would buy new if they made it cheaper.' They did. It's extremely cheap compared to before, especially if you were to compare content. Everyone who says they'd buy it if the games are cheaper are dirty liars. They'd still look for a way to get it even cheaper than that.

Don't take this as an insult, but I feel like everyone who complains about the price of video games is like...15 or under and their parents buy them most of their games anyway. I hate to be an old man shaking my cane here, but back in the day, we really did have to fuckin' work for games. I'm extremely grateful that video games are as cheap as they are.

Edit 4: People in Australia/other parts of the world can ignore most of this post. I don't know how much old-old games were there, either. If it was more than it is now, then my point stands. If not, ignore it.

If you really, truly do not have the money to buy new games and can only afford used games...I think you have more issues than not being able to get the game you want. You know, like buying food. That's important.

Yeah, you've never been in the unenviable position of having to pay for your own college tuition if this is how you think.

I would LOVE to buy skyrim new, but I have RENT and STUDENT LOANS to make payments on.
That, and what the HELL are you talking about, games being cheaper than ever? The MINIMUM for a new game nowadays is 60+ dollars. They used to be only $50 maximum, back int he days of xbox and ps2.

If Florian Himsel and Danny Baranowski can make games like the Binding of Isaac and Trendy Entertainment can make Dungeon Defenders which are not only incredibly cheaper than triple A titles but also just as if not MORE fun than said triple A titles, then it is the publishers fault for spending so much money on such huge teams of developers that they need to soak the consumer with unfair or dirty business tactics (Fucking multiplayer codes man. All three Halo games never asked for a code and THEY made a profit.) Then that is the fault of the publisher, and it hurts me, the consumer who must think very carefully before spending nearly a hundred dollars after taxes on entertainment. I picked up both Binding of Isaac and Dungeon Defenders for a combined total of less than $20 and have managed to have far more fun with those games than all of this years triple A titles combined (All of which were either borrowed from or played at friends/families homes)

That, and if I BUY a game, then it is MINE. I OWN that copy, ALL of it. Once I give my money to the publisher/developer, that copy of the game is by all rights fully within my realm of ownership, I can do what I want with it whenever I want, including SELLING IT TO SOMEONE ELSE. This right to ownership is extended to the brick and mortar retail stores.

 

[Kopikatsu]

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.

I have a movie ticket, which entitles me to one seat in the theater. I go in and watch half of the movie, then walk out, and I then sell this ticket to someone else. This person goes in and sits in my now-vacant seat.

It costs the developers (theater) nothing extra except for some heating and wear-and-tear on the seats.

Used games != a problem

Solution: cheaper goddamn games, publishers >.>

I hate analogies. I cannot stand them. Just wanted to throw that out there.

That being said, this is probably the most accurate analogy I've seen on the subject. It's still wrong, but it's better than, say, the car analogy which I cannot fucking stand. A used game can be passed around as many times as necessary. Your analogy doesn't match. That person you gave the ticket to can only see the second half of that movie. If they walk out halfway and sell the ticket to someone else, then that third person only gets to see a quarter of the movie. And so on.

The ticket you sold to the second person doesn't have the same value as the ticket you bought, even though it's the same ticket, because that second person only gets half the movie at most. For a video game, it doesn't degrade. It'll be the same game for everyone.

Used game sales are technically worse than piracy. A common excuse for piracy is 'They wouldn't have bought it anyway'. Used game sales...they did buy it. Even if they had to wait a month or so for the price to drop to used game-levels, they still would have bought it.

That being said, there is a fine line between used sales and letting a friend borrow the game. At what point does it stop being 'okay'? Digital distribution means that you can't let people borrow the game, nor can you resell the game. So...! It looks like digital distribution is the future of gaming. Woo.

Edit: I forgot to mention something. Video game consoles are EXTREMELY cheap nowadays. Adjusted for inflation, early video game consoles were many times more expensive than the consoles we have today. (Like the Halcyon would cost $5,000 today)

More examples. Super Mario Bros for the SNES cost $49.99 on release. Skyrim cost $59.99. Super Mario Bros was released in 1985. In over twenty years, the price went up $10. Adjusted for inflation, VIDEO GAMES HAVE NEVER BEEN CHEAPER. EVER. EVEREVER. And modern AAA games take hundreds of staff and take millions to produce. AND THEY'RE CHEAPER THAN GAMES MADE BY TEAMS OF 10 PEOPLE FOR A FEW THOUSAND. GET OVER IT PEOPLE. JESUS CHRIST. FMEWCIV3EPFM,3Q

/heavy breathing

Edit: I should point out that at the end there when I started to rage, I'm talking about the games 20 years ago. Not little indie devs of today.

Edit 2: I'm talking about prices in America. I know the EU has like 40 pounds for a new game, but I don't know how much old-old games were there.

Edit 3: If anyone is wondering why I rage so hard, it's because I always hear 'Well, I would buy new if they made it cheaper.' They did. It's extremely cheap compared to before, especially if you were to compare content. Everyone who says they'd buy it if the games are cheaper are dirty liars. They'd still look for a way to get it even cheaper than that.

Don't take this as an insult, but I feel like everyone who complains about the price of video games is like...15 or under and their parents buy them most of their games anyway. I hate to be an old man shaking my cane here, but back in the day, we really did have to fuckin' work for games. I'm extremely grateful that video games are as cheap as they are.

Edit 4: People in Australia/other parts of the world can ignore most of this post. I don't know how much old-old games were there, either. If it was more than it is now, then my point stands. If not, ignore it.

If you really, truly do not have the money to buy new games and can only afford used games...I think you have more issues than not being able to get the game you want. You know, like buying food. That's important.

Yeah, you've never been in the unenviable position of having to pay for your own college tuition if this is how you think.

I would LOVE to buy skyrim new, but I have RENT and STUDENT LOANS to make payments on.
That, and what the HELL are you talking about, games being cheaper than ever? The MINIMUM for a new game nowadays is 60+ dollars. They used to be only $50 maximum, back int he days of xbox and ps2.

If Florian Himsel and Danny Baranowski can make games like the Binding of Isaac and Trendy Entertainment can make Dungeon Defenders which are not only incredibly cheaper than triple A titles but also just as if not MORE fun than said triple A titles, then it is the publishers fault for spending so much money on such huge teams of developers that they need to soak the consumer with unfair or dirty business tactics (Fucking multiplayer codes man. All three Halo games never asked for a code and THEY made a profit.) Then that is the fault of the publisher, and it hurts me, the consumer who must think very carefully before spending nearly a hundred dollars after taxes on entertainment. I picked up both Binding of Isaac and Dungeon Defenders for a combined total of less than $20 and have managed to have far more fun with those games than all of this years triple A titles combined (All of which were either borrowed from or played at friends/families homes)

That, and if I BUY a game, then it is MINE. I OWN that copy, ALL of it. Once I give my money to the publisher/developer, that copy of the game is by all rights fully within my realm of ownership, I can do what I want with it whenever I want, including SELLING IT TO SOMEONE ELSE. This right to ownership is extended to the brick and mortar retail stores.

I was poor enough that I had to rely on scholarships just to go to college. I will say it again. If you don't have $60 to buy a new game, then you shouldn't have $55 to buy the game used. You have bigger issues to worry about. If you cannot afford games, then you cannot play them. Is this a difficult concept?

Also, indie games being more fun than AAA games is your opinion. What ISN'T opinion is that AAA titles require a fucking ridiculous amount of staff and money to produce. Indie games do not. Indie games can afford to sell their games for less. AAA developers cannot. If you can't afford AAA titles like MW3 and Skyrim, then stick with indie games. You already said you had more fun with them. That's great. Stay with them.

Because games were $49.99 over 20 years ago. Xbox games a few years ago were also $49.99 (According to you. I didn't have an Xbox so I wouldn't know). Adjusting for inflation, SNES games cost over $80 in today's money. That is more money than $49.99. Video games were cheaper back in the day. If you couldn't afford games now, you sure as hell couldn't afford them back then.

Also, You do not own the game. Get over it. You own a license to use the software. The end. The legality of it has been brought up in court many times, and it has been upheld many times. You do not own the game. You did not pay for the game. You paid for a license to play the game. If you don't like it, find another hobby. Preferably a cheaper one.

 

[Kopikatsu]

/Delete this post

 

[winnkey]

As a pc gamer the newest game i have is for hte ps2 and picking up the cover of kingdom hearts two i read the back with its disclaimers on it.

"FOR HOME USE ONLY:...All unauthorized access,use, or transfer of the product... is prohibited"

well that's the clause they use against piracy and such but if you keep on reading the same passage.

"... RESALE AND RENTAL ARE PROHIBITED UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY SCEE (Sony computer Entertainment Europe)"

well that's completely clear cut. If you wish to argue there is major difference between piracy and resale of a game that's bull shit. A game is a product, they sell you the product, they do not sell your the copy write. which means you are free to use the game which you have bought in the ways they specify you can use it. and they specify that you can not pirate it, and they specify that you can not resell unless it is in a way that they deem to be fit. this notice is used to stop bootlegging which is the creation,distribution, or sale of copy written goods, and although we are not creating different versions of the game, the used game market is still distributing and also sale copy write materials in which they should not have the right to sell.

by all means i am not against the used game market just as i am not against piracy, I am against current copy write laws, by all means copy write laws are good things, they stop people from loosing there intellectual property by lets say fraud, or intellectual property theft (someone stealing there ideas)but when a person holds the power of its product even after they have sold it, now that's just silly. a person should be free to sell the game to someone else if they want to or give it to someone to borrow it they want, and if they also want to give the game for free to some one if they wish they should be able to, but how copy write laws are dictated you are not meant to do any of that stuff.

 

[sabercrusader]

You're right, buying used isn't piracy. But Publishers have a right to offer incentives to buying the game new instead of used, with online passes and the like. I don't have a problem with it personally, because I know that if I buy a game used, I know I'm not helping that game's creators, I'm not deluding myself and deciding to buy only new or used based on that knowledge, I'm going to make the choice based on what I see fit, I'm also not going to sit there and whine and complain that Devs and Publishers shouldn't take away MAI ONLINE PASSEZ. If I really wanted it that much, I'd be better off shelling out the extra $10 to get the game new than buying it used, which is risking the quality of said product, since you have no knowledge of how well the last owner treated it, then paying the same $10 that I could have used to buy it new for the same damn thing. My two cents on the topic anyways. As far as I can tell, used games haven't really made as much of a difference that Publishers like us to beleive.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Sure the publisher has a right to payment for their product, I just don't want to give them what they're asking. New or used makes little difference to me as long as the game works. If I really want a new version, I wait for either the eventual self-proclaimed GOTY or Complete edition to hit shelves or it to take a slash in price, and then buy it from my employer with the store credit card to knock off another 15%.

You can blow your $60 to $100 on it, but I'm a bit more conservative with my funds. Exceedingly few prove worth that hefty price to begin with.

 

[everythingbeeps]

If you're talking about online passes and day-1 DLC, you have to stop thinking of those as part of "the product".

Why? A game is a game. Much like if you buy a car, you expect it to come with wheels and an engine, and not get in after you give the dealer a pile of money, try to start it, and then get "Oh, you wanted an engine in your car? That'll cost you ? 2000 extra".

A car dealer pulling frauds like that would be bankrupt in a month, but it's reasoning like in your post that allows software programmers to get away with it.

I've already made my thoughts clear on the car/video game comparison. But I'll humor you one last time: a car won't drive without an engine. A video game will play perfectly fine without DLC or online passes, which are now options. You understand those, don't you? Cars have them. They're optional. End of statement.

 

[lRookiel]

God bless cd projekt, even though I didn't enjoy either of the witcher games I still support their methods and wish dumbass devs like EA could follow suit, maybe then they wouldn't be so hated.

Oh and valve gets an honourable mention for good methods as well, since they got the best PR ever!

Edit 3: If anyone is wondering why I rage so hard, it's because I always hear 'Well, I would buy new if they made it cheaper.' They did. It's extremely cheap compared to before, especially if you were to compare content. Everyone who says they'd buy it if the games are cheaper are dirty liars. They'd still look for a way to get it even cheaper than that.

I think it's just because people either:

a) Don't have the money due to economic downturn.
or
b) Think the games aren't worth the money (EA produces shit games xD)
or or or or or!!!
c) Rage just for the sake of raging

so yeah, dumbass people are funny.

EDIT: And yeah, EA Suck ass xD

 

[Thoric485]

Both piracy and the used game market are not an excuse to apply measures that don't exist in any other industry.

 

[Vegosiux]

I've already made my thoughts clear on the car/video game comparison. But I'll humor you one last time: a car won't drive without an engine. A video game will play perfectly fine without DLC or online passes, which are now options. You understand those, don't you? Cars have them. They're optional. End of statement.

But, will it play perfectly fine without online activation, and steady connection, these days?

Again, I do not buy used games, but certain attitudes annoy me. And pulling the "optional" card is redundant, the entire game is "optional" after all.

 

[Paladin Anderson]

What gets me is that EVERY other media industry has the problem of resell. Movies, comic books, books, and music. They live with it and still make sizable profits. But the video game industry is the ONLY one pitching a fit about it. We BOUGHT it, we handed over the cash, we can do with it whatever the hell we want and no amount of bitching and moaning on their part is ever going to change that.

They have this 10 dollar crap on them, or act like douche bags (EA) guess what, I don't buy the game. There are TONS of games out there. I don't need theirs. I'm a responsible consumer. I pick and choose who my money goes to. If there were more people who did that then companies would HAVE to play nice. But no. They KNOW people will still buy their crap no matter how asinine they act.

This isn't the company's fault. It's ours. We let them get away with it. They're the rampant screaming child and we're the parents who are ignoring it because taking responsibility means missing out on something in a culture of give it to me, give all to me, right now.

No one wants to hear that though. No, they'll whine and complain about EA being the bastards they are WHILE in line to buy Mass Effect 3.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Used games are not piracy. There's no argument that can make it so. Using "hypothetical sales lost" arguments to try and equate used products to stolen products is bullshit and doesn't work.

 

[TPiddy]

Comparing video games to cars is the last desperate gasp of someone who doesn't have an argument. One is a major investment people have to take out fucking LOANS for. The other is a goddamn toy.

Ok, how about computers and computer parts and accessories? They're sold right next to new ones, under the title "refurbished", they are sold at a discount, and they are often in the same condition as the new ones. However, the manufacturer of the parts don't try to charge you extra if you bought their part used.

Your argument is still bullshit and you don't have any logical defense for it. Used games have every right to exist and are in no way equal to piracy. If the game industry has a problem with used games, they need to change their delivery model.

 

[Sjakie]

If I resell a book or a movie, it's allright..but not with a game?

Gaming industry sure is a whiney little ***** then! Well, it is the "infant" of the Entertainment industry.