Buying Used isn't Piracy

[ultratog1028]

Why do companies keep hating the used games market? Wasn't DLC supposed to be used to solve this issue? Preorder bonuses?

And games used tend to increase sales of the sequels.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

There's no way to tell whether someone who pirated it would have bought it, either, and they give just as much money to the developer. Ironically, games with subscription fees, the only ones a developer would be able to profit from even if the player didn't buy it new (or pirated it), always require a key to play (with some rare exceptions), so you can never buy it used in the first place.

At any rate, one of the only important reasons people ***** about piracy is because unlike used games companies, developers haven't found a way to coexist with it in a way that still makes them money, and that's really the only major difference between it and buying used in terms of benefits to the developers go.

 

[CaptOfSerenity]

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.

It seems like you kind of proved the opposite point right here.

I know, I know, it's crazy. People actually wanting to be *paid* for the thousands of hours of work and (in the cases of the AAA titles) millions of dollars spent to make their game a reality.

Sorry, sorry. "Rah rah, down with developers, the greedy husks! They only want money for bread and rent and crap! Rah rah!"

No, that's not what I mean. I went on to say that it's my game, I have the right to do what I want with it, including sell it. Of course they deserve money for their effort, if it's good.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

They want to get double, full priced sales for each used game. They only get the price for it brand new, so it might as well be a war crime to them.

 

[everythingbeeps]

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.

I'm not arguing that used gaming is even remotely similar to piracy. Go back and check my first fucking post here. All I'm saying is that publishers are perfectly free to do things like online passes and day-1 DLC; they are under no obligation to cater to used game buyers or to facilitate the used game market. None.

As for changing their delivery model? Pretty fucking sure that's what they're doing.

 

[Weentastic]

I remember when buying homeworld meant I got a 120 page manual that made me want to buy the game new, and not just get the disc. Sadly, people don't seem to like to read anymore.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

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.

There are obvious differences though. Books are relatively cheap to produce, most comic books are targetted at an audience that has a steady flow of demand (kids and teenagers). Music and movies in turn have at least two different ways to make money: cinemas and DVD-sales and concerts and CDs respectively. Add to that the fact that both have a pretty healthy market of licensed products and merchandise and the wonderful thing that's called product placement (ad revenues) and we see a whole other picture.

In comparsion, games have exactly one way to make money: Sales. Some companies like Valve are slowly branching out into the merchandise sector, but it is still nowhere near on par with the merchandising that goes on with big movie releases and famous bands. Add to this the fact that a triple-A title today costs millions of dollars to make and you can see why the game producers are so keen on trying to maximize their sales: because it is their only way to make money off of their product.

 

[TPiddy]

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.

I'm not arguing that used gaming is even remotely similar to piracy. Go back and check my first fucking post here. All I'm saying is that publishers are perfectly free to do things like online passes and day-1 DLC; they are under no obligation to cater to used game buyers or to facilitate the used game market. None.

As for changing their delivery model? Pretty fucking sure that's what they're doing.

No, they're restricting their delivery model... look at a similar industry like books and movies.... how are they still making money? digital distribution, tiered product releases, online rentals. Game publishers still insist on hard copy games for the full $60 and they don't want to change.

If a game were available as a digital download for say, $10-$15 less than full retail, that would do a lot to curb used game sales as well as piracy. If you could RENT a game through LIVE or something for like $6 a week, that would make them even more money. They are being stupid and foolish trying to control the consumer rather than adapt to change. They refuse to learn from other industries that went through the same problems.

Online passes are bullshit just to make more money. When a game is sold, the costs for ongoing online maintenance of said game is built into the price. One user who keeps their game for 3 years and plays it, and one who sells to another who sells to another over the same 3 years both have the SAME server cost. There's only ever ONE instance of said game on the servers at any time, thus no additional cost. It's a scam.

I'm not opposed to DLC, aside from DLC that's already on the god-damned disc. That's just more BS to get more money out of us.

Publishers need to realize that they need to reward for buying new, and not punish for buying used.

 

[renegade7]

Companies should make products people don't want to get rid of. Guess what, if you have a new iteration every 6 months (CoD) people sell your game to buy the next one.

Interestingly, the only games besides Skyrim I haven't sold are Nintendo, Zelda and Metroid mainly (Mario falls nicely into the new iteration every year category). Why? Because they only come out once every few years, and they are extremely fun and actually worth holding on to.

Secondly, people have the right to sell their own stuff if they want to, especially since new games are so fucking expensive and buying used can easily bring that down to half price.

 

[everythingbeeps]

No, they're restricting their delivery model... look at a similar industry like books and movies.... how are they still making money? digital distribution, tiered product releases, online rentals. Game publishers still insist on hard copy games for the full $60 and they don't want to change.

Which is their right. But be careful comparing them to movies, because regardless of how you feel about video games, movies are an even bigger scam. Outrageous theater ticket prices, and double/triple/quadruple-dip dvds. And usually just a worse product. (Also, if you want to get right down to value, a two-hour movie at even $15 is usually a much worse value than a video game! I'm not making this argument, however, because I'm not one of those people who assigns value based on how many hours something is, and I can't stand when people do that. However, I suspect you could easily be one of those people.)

If a game were available as a digital download for say, $10-$15 less than full retail, that would do a lot to curb used game sales as well as piracy. If you could RENT a game through LIVE or something for like $6 a week, that would make them even more money. They are being stupid and foolish trying to control the consumer rather than adapt to change. They refuse to learn from other industries that went through the same problems.

Why would they sell a digital download for $10-15 less? They don't have to. People would keep buying them at full price. So they'll sell them at full price. People like you will whine and cry foul, but at the end of the day, you either want the video game enough to suck it up and pay the cash, or you don't. There are not enough people like you who nitpick about a few dollars here and there to put enough pressure on the publishers to do anything but raise prices and find new ways to extract revenue. Such is life.

Online passes are bullshit just to make more money. When a game is sold, the costs for ongoing online maintenance of said game is built into the price. One user who keeps their game for 3 years and plays it, and one who sells to another who sells to another over the same 3 years both have the SAME server cost. There's only ever ONE instance of said game on the servers at any time, thus no additional cost. It's a scam.

Oh, there's your mistake. You think they're doing online passes "to pay for server maintenance". They're doing it to get more money. Because they can. Because they're allowed to. Don't like it? Tough. Either buy the video game or don't. Whining will get you exactly nowhere.

I'm not opposed to DLC, aside from DLC that's already on the god-damned disc. That's just more BS to get more money out of us.

Publishers need to realize that they need to reward for buying new, and not punish for buying used.

No, they don't need to realize any such thing. As I've said too many times to count now, publishers have NO responsibility towards the used market. None. To the new market, they're providing the so-called "full product". The day is going to come where there is NO used market. If you've having such a hard time with shit like online passes and day-1 DLC, you're going to absolutely hate life once digital distribution becomes the new norm.

But to go along with your argument anyway....they ARE effectively "rewarding" people for buying new. As I've said repeatedly, online passes are now separate products. They are DLC. They are "extra". And new buyers are "rewarded" with that DLC for free. Used buyers are not.

You can either adjust to how things are now, or you can continue whining about it and accomplishing nothing.

 

[Xanthious]

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.

I see this bantered about a lot, usually without anything that resembles proof. You see if we didn't own our games and only buy licenses the publishers would be well within their rights to make those licenses nontransferable. The fact they aren't tells me the above statement is likely absolute bollocks. If I'm wrong feel free to post any of those "many times" it was upheld in a court of law. Go ahead I'll wait.

 

[Something Amyss]

and the wonderful thing that's called product placement (ad revenues)

You mean that thing which the companies protesting the most (EA, THQ, etc) have been incorporating into their products for years? It's rather unfair to pretend only non-gaming media incorporates that.

Another thing you're kind of missing is scope. While movies may be an exception here, I'm too lazy to do the numbers, a book that sells as well as what game companies consider merely worthy of continuing a franchise or the devs behind it is phenomenal and rare. Similar with music. There are blockbusters even that would kill to have a fraction of the COD audience. With a larger asking price and a larger cut, it's hard to feel sympathy for companies who turn massive profits off these products and then ask for more. It's even harder when the comparisons are rather unevenly applied.

Most publishers tend to lose money on first books. If they operated on the same model as EA or THQ or really, the gaming industry as a whole, there would be virtually no books. Printing is, actually a pretty serious cost issue and has led to cutbacks in the literary field. Claim otherwise if you like, but printing costs are large compared to the retail price. And they're looking at up front negative sales. Excusing a difference between book publishers being not being dicks about resale and game companies being complete dicks about resale is really slanted, because it's based on factors that aren't true.

 

[TPiddy]

Which is their right. But be careful comparing them to movies, because regardless of how you feel about video games, movies are an even bigger scam. Outrageous theater ticket prices, and double/triple/quadruple-dip dvds. And usually just a worse product. (Also, if you want to get right down to value, a two-hour movie at even $15 is usually a much worse value than a video game! I'm not making this argument, however, because I'm not one of those people who assigns value based on how many hours something is, and I can't stand when people do that. However, I suspect you could easily be one of those people.)

Wow... so many problems I don't even know where to begin....

For one, I make enough money that I can easily purchase most of my games at full retail price... or I am gifted them by someone else who has paid full retail price. The reason why I support used games is because I have every right, as a consumer, to SELL my game when I am done with it. With movies you still have to pay for their development and production costs... if you don't want the premium of seeing it in a theatre, then you have to wait until it's available for purchase or rent. Games don't have a tiered purchasing model... it's either $60 or fuck off as far as they're concerned, and that's what is wrong with the publishers model.

Why would they sell a digital download for $10-15 less? They don't have to. People would keep buying them at full price. So they'll sell them at full price. People like you will whine and cry foul, but at the end of the day, you either want the video game enough to suck it up and pay the cash, or you don't. There are not enough people like you who nitpick about a few dollars here and there to put enough pressure on the publishers to do anything but raise prices and find new ways to extract revenue. Such is life.

Well, the reason they would sell it for less as a digital download is because they have less overhead. Don't have to produce discs, booklets or box art. Pass that savings on to the consumer.

Oh, there's your mistake. You think they're doing online passes "to pay for server maintenance". They're doing it to get more money. Because they can. Because they're allowed to. Don't like it? Tough. Either buy the video game or don't. Whining will get you exactly nowhere.

Well, excuse me for thinking that companies that make billions of dollars a year are assholes for trying to squeeze more out of us.... Just as they have a right to make money, game stores and retailers have a right to make money as well, by re-selling used games. It works both ways. You can't say one is allowed to make money but not the other.

No, they don't need to realize any such thing. As I've said too many times to count now, publishers have NO responsibility towards the used market. None. To the new market, they're providing the so-called "full product". The day is going to come where there is NO used market. If you've having such a hard time with shit like online passes and day-1 DLC, you're going to absolutely hate life once digital distribution becomes the new norm.

But to go along with your argument anyway....they ARE effectively "rewarding" people for buying new. As I've said repeatedly, online passes are now separate products. They are DLC. They are "extra". And new buyers are "rewarded" with that DLC for free. Used buyers are not.

SOME retailers are rewarding new buyers with free DLC. However, many more are withholding things we USED to get for free.... call it whatever you want, but taking away or dumbing down the product to be re-sold in pieces is still a punishment in my eyes.

Bethesda has it right in my opinion... no DRM, no online checks, just make a good enough game and the fans will reward you for it. Put out DLC worth getting and fans will buy it.

I for one, and not whining, or bitching, but I DO vote with my wallet, which is why I've stopped purchasing franchises like Call of Duty, Guitar Hero and the NHL series. And After Mass Effect 3, I may have to boycott EA altogether as well.

The heart of the issue, for me, is that I still want to be able to re-sell my used games when I'm done with them, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's not some kind of 'evil' that is 'hurting the games industry' and needs to be eradicated.

 

[TPiddy]

Why would they sell a digital download for $10-15 less? They don't have to. People would keep buying them at full price. So they'll sell them at full price. People like you will whine and cry foul, but at the end of the day, you either want the video game enough to suck it up and pay the cash, or you don't. There are not enough people like you who nitpick about a few dollars here and there to put enough pressure on the publishers to do anything but raise prices and find new ways to extract revenue. Such is life.

I'll agree with you on one point here, there aren't enough people out there like me who care enough to do anything about it. Not enough people vote with their wallet, which is why they willing pay for the same tired shit again and again, and allow companies to do this to them. This is a serious case of consumer apathy, and I'm seeing it in more than just video games...

 

[TPiddy]

There are obvious differences though. Books are relatively cheap to produce, most comic books are targetted at an audience that has a steady flow of demand (kids and teenagers). Music and movies in turn have at least two different ways to make money: cinemas and DVD-sales and concerts and CDs respectively. Add to that the fact that both have a pretty healthy market of licensed products and merchandise and the wonderful thing that's called product placement (ad revenues) and we see a whole other picture.

In comparsion, games have exactly one way to make money: Sales. Some companies like Valve are slowly branching out into the merchandise sector, but it is still nowhere near on par with the merchandising that goes on with big movie releases and famous bands. Add to this the fact that a triple-A title today costs millions of dollars to make and you can see why the game producers are so keen on trying to maximize their sales: because it is their only way to make money off of their product.

With today's evolving technology though, I think video games will start to see more advertising revenue... for example:

Alan Wake has Ford vehicles, Energizer batteries and a Verizon cell phone.
EA Sports games have real board and field advertising that changes in game.
Saints Row 2 had billboards throughout the city with real life ads for them, even locally targeted. I was playing and at one point I saw an ad for a local internet provider.

This is the future of game revenue... when the ad industry wakes up and sees what kind of time people are spending in games, how long before the next Nico Bellic heads on down to McDonalds or chugs a Dr. Pepper?

 

[everythingbeeps]

Wow... so many problems I don't even know where to begin....

For one, I make enough money that I can easily purchase most of my games at full retail price... or I am gifted them by someone else who has paid full retail price. The reason why I support used games is because I have every right, as a consumer, to SELL my game when I am done with it. With movies you still have to pay for their development and production costs... if you don't want the premium of seeing it in a theatre, then you have to wait until it's available for purchase or rent. Games don't have a tiered purchasing model... it's either $60 or fuck off as far as they're concerned, and that's what is wrong with the publishers model.

And you can sell your games. But you're forgetting two facts which I've already been over time and time again:

1. Online functionality is now DLC. You can't resell DLC. If you want to argue about THAT, it's a different argument. But I'm sure there's something in a Terms & Services document somewhere that covers that.
2. Publishers are under no obligation to help in your quest to resell your games. They're not there to maximize resale value. If you aren't happy with what you're getting at Gamestop or on ebay, blame Gamestop or used game buyers, or adjust your own expectations about what you think you're entitled to.

Well, the reason they would sell it for less as a digital download is because they have less overhead. Don't have to produce discs, booklets or box art. Pass that savings on to the consumer.

How adorably idealistic. But you don't really think that would happen, do you? Didn't you read the rest of my paragraph? They wouldn't need to lower prices. So they wouldn't. What sane business would leave potential profit on the table like that?

Well, excuse me for thinking that companies that make billions of dollars a year are assholes for trying to squeeze more out of us.... Just as they have a right to make money, game stores and retailers have a right to make money as well, by re-selling used games. It works both ways. You can't say one is allowed to make money but not the other.

I didn't say they weren't assholes. But being an asshole and doing what you're allowed to do aren't mutually exclusive. Hell, usually being a good businessman requires you to be an asshole.

And sure, game stores can try to make money re-selling used games. They're allowed to. But it's not the publishers' responsibility to help them. The publisher doesn't give two fucks about Gamestop's "right" to make money reselling used games. The publisher's main concern is and should be their OWN profits. If Gamestop's sales suffer as a result, why on earth should Activision or EA give a shit?

Not to mention that Gamestop is effectively making money off someone else's work. That's as much an asshole move as anything the publishers are doing, if not more so. So I have no sympathy for them or for used-game buyers.

SOME retailers are rewarding new buyers with free DLC. However, many more are withholding things we USED to get for free.... call it whatever you want, but taking away or dumbing down the product to be re-sold in pieces is still a punishment in my eyes.

You say "withholding", but I say "the times they are a-changin'". Like I said, adapt, or stop playing video games. Companies are allowed to change their business models any fucking time they please. And I can't believe I even have to keep repeating this, but your ability to resell a game is nowhere near the top of the publisher's list of concerns.

Bethesda has it right in my opinion... no DRM, no online checks, just make a good enough game and the fans will reward you for it. Put out DLC worth getting and fans will buy it.

Bethesda's a great example of just how futile your little crusade is, because they put out consistently broken games, and shitty DLC, and people keep eating it up. You should be discouraged by their behavior. All of us who bought New Vegas and Skyrim at launch were basically paying beta-testers.

I for one, and not whining, or bitching, but I DO vote with my wallet, which is why I've stopped purchasing franchises like Call of Duty, Guitar Hero and the NHL series. And After Mass Effect 3, I may have to boycott EA altogether as well.

Of course you're whining. You're demanding that, instead of trying to improve profits in perfectly legal ways, publishers instead prioritize YOUR right to score a few extra bucks from a stupid trade-in. And don't even get me started on your little boycott threat. You think EA's gonna miss you? Hint: they won't. All you'll accomplish is depriving yourself of some pretty great games, simply because you have entitlement issues and hate that companies dare try to make money.

The heart of the issue, for me, is that I still want to be able to re-sell my used games when I'm done with them, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's not some kind of 'evil' that is 'hurting the games industry' and needs to be eradicated.

There's nothing wrong with it, to you. There's kind of something wrong with it to the publisher. And of course it's hurting the game industry. To believe otherwise is patently foolish. It's so black and white that it actually almost concerns me that your state of denial is that extreme.

 

[michael87cn]

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.

Actually, used games are 'reproduced copies' in a way, because people tend to play them, then turn them in and some other bloke plays the same copy that other bloke had, thus creating in effect, 2 copies out of 1 copy for 2 different people, in stead of 2 copies being sold to 2 different people. Boy, that was actually a bit hard to explain.

I remember when I was a kid, my version of super mario had "NOT FOR RESALE" stamped onto it, I kind of wonder when game trading became legal?

In any case, it sort of is like piracy, except people pay someone other than the people who made the game for the copy... kind of sounds like buying bootleg movies off some homeless guy...