controversy over used games

[archvile93]

Arguments against used games are invalid because no matter what the publishers say, once you buy that disc, it is your property and you may transfer ownership to anyone for whatever you want.
People can say it's about the stuff on the disc but you didn't just buy a disc for $60, you bought everything that was on it.

I was actually falling for the other argument for a second there. Thanks for helping me out of that. Note: this is not sarcasm.

 

[Wicky_42]

Arguments against used games are invalid because no matter what the publishers say, once you buy that disc, it is your property and you may transfer ownership to anyone for whatever you want.
People can say it's about the stuff on the disc but you didn't just buy a disc for $60, you bought everything that was on it.

Huh, tell that to PC game retailers. We've not been able to return PC games... well, within at least 10 years, probably more. I've bought some absolutely crap games over the years and I've had to deal with it. How? By taking fewer risks and buying less. As the age of the demo passed, so did the rate at which I purchased games.

Console gamers have had it easy for a long time with their returns and their second-hand market. I guess it was inevitable that that wouldn't last forever and once again software would be relegated to 'licences' not 'products', and thus treated differently to property (though why that should be the case I don't know).

Grr @ world, sometimes.

 

[Wicky_42]

...pirating is when you make multiple copies of whatever it is and sell them for a profit so is entirely different to selling pre-owned games because you are infringing on their intellectual property by making copies. Selling one copy which you yourself bought is, I think, a statutory right.

Small point: pirating has nothing to do with reselling, it's just copyright infringement given an awesome name. What you're thinking of is, I think, referred to as 'bootlegging', as in those dodgy DVDs African chaps try to sell tourists in Southern Europe, along with 'Rulex' watches and the such like.

I agree whole-heartedly that one should be able to resell anything they buy. I want to see the option to sell my games on on Steam - or at least transfer the licenses! After all, I paid for them, why shouldn't I have control over who gets to use them? Just because there's no physical medium and it's on the PC shouldn't mean it's exempt from the same sort of standards we hold everything else to.

 

[Furious Styles]

snip

Yeah, by selling a game you aren't infringing on the copyright. By making copies of said game you are, that's why its illegal and reselling isn't/wasn't/whatever.

 

[Lawyer105]

My library is just under 1000 books now

Wow, 1000 books... you must be pretty rich, not just to afford the books but to store them. Yet it seems to wasteful. So you just buy everything you see, read or hear.. and throw everything away when you don't want them?

Not really. It's just that books, music and games are important to me. So I'm prepared to spend money on them to make sure that the associated artists can continue to produce more stuff... just for me, naturally

And I've never thrown a book away in my life. I'll admit that it's starting to get tricky on storage, but since I keep rereading/watching/listening to them, it seems crazy to put 'em into storage. So I just stack up them bookcases!

 

[Gasaraki]

-snippity-

Not everyone, the publisher isn't happy because they don't see any of that money.
First off it's nothing like a used car, the main costs for cars are manufacturing costs which are covered by the selling price. Game development can cost millions of dollars though, 1 game sale doesn't come close to paying for that.
The basic problem is that when someone buys a used game, that person is a paying customer who could have bought a new copy, thus letting the makers of the game receive money for what they made, but instead because they're buying a used game they're still paying for it but the creators aren't getting anything. The customer might as well be pirating the game.

I'm kind of confused, are you adverse to buying used games altogether? Because unless you were hired by EA to advertise the evil of buying anything but new games, I doubt you're credibility.

Joking aside, is this actually your point of view? Because I'll gladly get a good deal on a game at the expense of publishers (I have yet to lose sleep worrying about the publishers not getting enough of my money)

I'm not saying "OH NOEZ!!!!!111 DAR UZED GAEMS R EVILZ!", I was just explaining to the OP what the controversy over used games was about since he didn't really seem to understand.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

I hate this argument. All this semantic bullshit about 'U DO IT 4 CARS AND MOVIES AND MUSIC!!' presenting ad nauseum like its actually relevant to anything.

For starters, car manufacturers don't complain about used cars because they still make money from them. Dealerships have to ensure a car is at a certain level of repair before it can be sold. To do this, they must buy replacement parts... from the manufacturer. Then, for more serious maintenance and every repair, the manufacturer also must supply parts. This is the reason cars produced today are such shoddy piles of shit, to ensure a steady cash flow.

Ever since the fall of sun records, most of the money in music is in concerts and concert merchandise. Reproductions of studio recordings, whether they're sold legally or distributed freely (funny how "legal" and "free" have become antonyms), their purpose is to advertise the concerts. With the advent of the internet, the only acts that need the resources of large labels are the worthless throwaway mainstream acts who, without extreme levels of media exposure, simply would not stand out in any real form. Your lil' Waynes, your Cyruses (both of them), your Beibers, all of country music in it's current form, etc etc etc.

As for film... most of the money is in cinema. Studios get a decent cut of rentals, too. If renters sell their rental copies, studio gets a flat cut of that. Meaning they're getting paid on every level of large scale distribution.

The video game industry is complaining so hard right now because they have nothing comparable to cinema, concerts, or maintenance. That and shitty corprations like gamestop (who are the only real problem here, but no one can say that without being sued for slander) are posting record profits and opening a new store every 30 seconds, while the actual video game industry is shutting down houses and laying off hundreds of employees.

The video game industry's sole source of revenue (DLC income doesn't even come close to rating) is retail sales. Like someone else correctly pointed out, games are an experience. The disc (or cartridge) is simply a transport mechanism. This is where people get confused and start spouting circular semantic bullshit. Paying to see a movie or doesn't mean you own the film reels. Paying to see a concert doesn't mean you own the band. Concerts and (decent) cinema are unique unduplicable experiences. The industry has been, since the dawn of the industry, fielding and researching various ways to prevent duplication of the experiences they provide, so as to prevent unscrupulous retail giants from pocketing revenue that should've by all rights gone to someone who actually contributed something to the creation of a video game.

Just imagine the if someone invented a way to instantly duplicate food. Imagine how massive the food service industry's reaction would be. It'd likely become illegal to even build such a device.

 

[dwitefry]

I am actually amazed that there are people not making money from the industry arguing against the selling of second hand games, and more so, going so far as to compare it to piracy and theft. I too live in the UK where buying and selling of second hand items is commonplace, I also use ebay where buying and selling used items is the primary function of the site. I'm also amazed that people who are not making money from the industry who think video games should be trated any different to CDs, DVDs or Books, or do you have issues with the resale of those too, i'm not seeing that in the posts so far.

'Some twit in the middle' someone said right? does that include ebay sellers? Everyone at a boot sale or holding a yard sale? I gave my copy of a game to a friend and in return he bought me lunch, does that make me one too? here's some things i thought of to consider:

I don't know about the U.S. but over here - Game, Gamestation, CEX, Thatz Entertainment etc pay for the second hand games they then resell, sure it's not much but they themselves bought them too.
Sure they didn't make them, but nor did E.A. or Sega or Nintendo or anyone else, the people who made the content you've bought were a bunch of people on a wage, very few recieving royalties for sales, as least as as far as I know, Hideo Kojima or Miyamoto might have a royalties deal. But ignoring that anything you don't buy directly from the publisher is 'second hand', as HMV or whoever have already bought it and resold it to you.
Which leads to another point, all those games you've bought from Target or Best Buy or wherever one buys video games from in America, they've already been paid for, all those games out there on the shelf, the company's already made thier money, i'm sure used games sales do cut into reorders etc some of course
What about refunds and exchanges? Some kid gets two copies of Red Dead Redemption for his Birthday and takes one back and swaps it for Lego Harry Potter, is that the same? They're made by different companies, he didn't pay for the Lego Harry Potter disc.
What do you suggest doing with all these not-resold games you don't want anymore, throw them out? That's a waste, each game has a platic box, a disc, paper inlays and booklets, i guess you could recyle them but we're not exactly good at that are we? Give them to others I suppose, but what if you've no one to give them too?
What about when games stop being available? The Second Hand Market is the only place to say, buy Mega Drive or Snes games from today, and one day it will be the only place to buy PS3 and Xbox 360 games from. Is that ok? or is it passable because they're no longer being supported? What about games that are no longer manufactured, who's pressing is over, and that didn't sell well enough for a re-release, Okami for instance, no one should ever play that game again? Games are designed to be played and enjoyed right?
The Second Hand Market doesn't make the companies who produce the games any more money yes, but at least someone gets something and it's legal. If you take away the ability to buy an old game people will just play it illegally, download and emulate it or burn it off themselves. Then no one benefits - money wise.

Ok I'm done, I've taken out my frustration on a forum

MeX

 

[Gasaraki]

Not everyone, the publisher isn't happy because they don't see any of that money.
First off it's nothing like a used car, the main costs for cars are manufacturing costs which are covered by the selling price. Game development can cost millions of dollars though, 1 game sale doesn't come close to paying for that.

Its not like selling a car, no, but it is like selling a CD, a Book or a DVD. Neither of these have any controversy around them with regards to selling a single copy that you bought yourself.
That's because the used cd and book markets aren't very large. Especially not for books, most people would rather buy a new book than an old one that's most likely damaged. There hasn't been much of a reason to buy new instead of used until recently though (project 10 dollar and whatnot)

The basic problem is that when someone buys a used game, that person is a paying customer who could have bought a new copy, thus letting the makers of the game receive money for what they made, but instead because they're buying a used game they're still paying for it but the creators aren't getting anything. The customer might as well be pirating the game.

See above. Why should it be one rule for games and another for every other medium? And pirating is when you make multiple copies of whatever it is and sell them for a profit so is entirely different to selling pre-owned games because you are infringing on their intellectual property by making copies.No, pirating is uploading a copy of a game online and letting people download it for free, which as I've said is basically the same as buying used as far as the publisher is concerned if not actually less bad because pirates aren't paying customers for the most part while used game buyers are paying customers that could be contributing to the profits of the publishers but aren'tSelling one copy which you yourself bought is, I think, a statutory right.
It might be but it's also a game maker's right to attempt to receive compensation for his work, be it simply by hoping that people buy it new it or doing stuff like project ten dollar.
This is just greed on the part of game publishers.
Again, it's not unreasonable to ask for you to pay them instead of just gamestop that had absolutely nothing to do in the creation in the game.
The bottom line, if you buy it you can sell it. Its the same for pretty much everything, including games

Fair enough

 

[Gasaraki]

-snippity-

Not everyone, the publisher isn't happy because they don't see any of that money.
First off it's nothing like a used car, the main costs for cars are manufacturing costs which are covered by the selling price. Game development can cost millions of dollars though, 1 game sale doesn't come close to paying for that.
The basic problem is that when someone buys a used game, that person is a paying customer who could have bought a new copy, thus letting the makers of the game receive money for what they made, but instead because they're buying a used game they're still paying for it but the creators aren't getting anything. The customer might as well be pirating the game.

The Video Game business is ran by a bunch of retarded monkeys then if they're not trying to cover the cost in initial sales.Of course they are, but they can't if everyone's buying used within the first week to save 2$

Think about what you posted. How can a game company make money with me sitting and always keeping a copy of ... I dunno... Suikoden II which I've had for years.But this article isn't about stuff like Suikoden 2, no one's expecting you to search for a new copy of a game from 1999, this is about relatively new games being bought used to save a couple of 5$ because the company loses 60$ for the sake of 5.

Now let's say if God of War III launched and it only sold 80k copies it's first month and then roughly 60k moved used 2 months from then. Yes that would be a problem.

Well that's basically what the controversy is about. No one's about to get mad at someone for buying a 3 year old game used, the problem is new games being bought used within a couple of weeks.

 

[Gasaraki]

The customer might as well be pirating the game.

BS. You cannot equate buying a car used to grand theft auto just like you can't equate buying used games to theft. How much it costs to make a product is irrelevant.

exactly America is full of bullshit im so glad i live in the UK were we atleast have a bit of sense and our government doesnt bum the corporations.

It has nothing to do with the government, and the issue's the exact same in the UK as it is in America.

 

[Sylveria]

As above. The 'physical product' is largely irrelevant. If I wrote it over with junk data, you'd be annoyed, right? Because it's the EXPERIENCE, the game / music that you're interested in.

That's like saying I sold you a hamburger but instead of the burger there was a giant turd. It wasn't what you paid for. You're still getting the experience of eating a burger, its just a burger made of literal shit now. Technically in your scenario you're still getting the experience of playing a game, its just a game made of a bunch of garbled garbage.

And yes, please jump to the defense of the soulless corporate publishers who care nothing about the people who buy their products and in many cases don't even care about the quality of the product they produce. I personally can't wait till the publishes completely kill the used games industry and start pumping out more shit like Kane and Lynch, Madden 11 and Final Fantasy 13 safe in the knowledge that if we want to even TRY the game we have to buy it, at full price, and can only sell it on the black market assuming they don't put in some 1 use software code to unlock the game within a single console. Then when the gaming industry collapses in on itself like it did in the 80s because no one is buying the garbage they keep pumping out, we can watch the cycle start all over.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

I am actually amazed that there are people not making money from the industry arguing against the selling of second hand games, and more so, going so far as to compare it to piracy and theft. I too live in the UK

I'm going to have to stop you there.

It seems a lot of people chiming in on this are outside of the equation. GAME, is (from what I understand), the EU's most successful video game retail chain. It sells new copies and buys and sells used copies at fair prices. Awesome.

Conversely, the US's most successful video game retail chain is gamestop. If they felt they could get away with it, they wouldn't sell new copies at all. They price used games as if they're competing with new copies and offer, at the absolute best, I'm talking just released today and you've somehow managed to play it completely before close of business and want to trade it in towards the purchase of a new game (and for some reason don't know about gamestop's seven day full refund policy on non PC games), the most you'll get is a fifth of the MSRP. Gamestop, after a very cursory examination, will then place it back on the shelf for $5 less than the MSRP. It will, of course, sell almost instantly, granting them a 150% profit of around $35. Which is more than they make selling new copies. Most trade in values don't exceed $7 and the shelf price of used games is always $5 less than MSRP. This is utter bullshit and every dime they've made should be distributed evenly to every publisher/developer.

Gamestop's business model is only possible with video games. Video games are consumable products that are not destroyed or affected in any real fashion by the act of consumption. You can't price used cars to compete with new cars, because the difference between a used car and a new car is typically night and day. You can't price a DVD to compete with cinema (as in, "please insert $5 to play this DVD") because cinema is an utterly unique experience that with "good" movies, is worth the ticket price for every viewing. Concerts, same deal, except they're dynamic experiences as well. Each concert will be different because bands with actual talent get bored of doing the same thing over and over and over.

Gamestop is a shitty corporation that has bought out nearly every single decent new/buy-sell-trade game retailer in the US. Seeing how much money gamestop is making, Wal-Mart considered going into the used game market with a similar model.

Gamestop is the issue here. Not GAME, not fair buy-sell-trade locations, not you selling your copy to jimmy. Gamestop. The problem is no visible source can say this, as they'd be committing slander against a very large corporation with money to burn.

 

[madhatterwriter]

I laugh at those who actually think their arguments would actually stand in the US of A court. Let me point out: in 2008, the gaming industry made 22 billion dollars that year. Also, despite an economic downturn, the video game industry is one of the few industries that is actually increasing profits and will continue to in the future. Ooh, I can see the game publishers suffering so bad right now.

Some of arguments are ridiculous, especially the one that say games are played for experience. Isn't driving a car an experience? Listening to music an experience? Heaven forbid, watching a movie an experience? If these aforementioned experiences are not the same level as the experience in playing video games, then there's something about the experience in playing video games that makes it unique. In fact, the experience of playing video games is so wholly different--so earth shaking, cosmic, better than orgasm--experience that it effects people in a very dramatic way. Such experience is justification for video games to be treated different than any other forms of entertainment and, therefore, the selling of used video games do not reflect this incredible experience. That is just plain baloney.

Hell, if the gaming publishers got away that, then people can sue the crap out of video games for violence because it is not just entertainment but also a 'special' experience.

You all do realize that game publishers make money other than selling video games, right? They make money off of T-Shirts of their games, posters, action figures and the list go on and on. They make hella bank on these items. Also they make money (particularly EA) with advertisements in video games. And every time you log into your xbox live or playonline, they are collecting data on you and selling it off for millions. Not to mention making money off of movies based on their video games (Resident Evil, anyone?).

Tell me again why and how buying used games hurt game publishers? If people want to throw their money to game publishers they should chuck their money and mail it to them with a big thank you note. Even better if they also buy the shirts, action figures, board games and all the things relating to the video games. But for people who want to buy or sell used games, let them be. Let Game Stop and any mom-and-pop shop that sell used video games be because they are just business savvy. Game publishers are not *hurting*. They are just not making more money than they would like to and that's the bottom line.

 

[Wayneguard]

-snippity-

The basic problem is that when someone buys a used game, that person is a paying customer who could have bought a new copy, thus letting the makers of the game receive money for what they made, but instead because they're buying a used game they're still paying for it but the creators aren't getting anything. The customer might as well be pirating the game.

Let me break this down for all. Used games are a substitute to new games. When the price of new games rises (i.e. the $50 to $60 increase a decade ago), demand for used games increases as buyers flock to the lower priced good. When one particular good undercuts the price of another, this is not piracy; this is capitalism. Perhaps those developers who want to increase their revenue might consider reducing the price of their product...

 

[TheComedown]

ive seen a few threads recently about controversy surrounding used games,

So instead of simply posting in one of those you thought I know lets redo a thread that I know there are already multiple copies of sitting around. Why?

OT. Used games are bad for the industry, the developers/publishers don't see any of the profits and more often then not the used copy will still used the game servers without actually contributing to their running, I made a similar point worded much better in a similar thread about EAs approach to the situation.

 

[BlackWidower]

-snippity-

Not everyone, the publisher isn't happy because they don't see any of that money.
First off it's nothing like a used car, the main costs for cars are manufacturing costs which are covered by the selling price. Game development can cost millions of dollars though, 1 game sale doesn't come close to paying for that.
The basic problem is that when someone buys a used game, that person is a paying customer who could have bought a new copy, thus letting the makers of the game receive money for what they made, but instead because they're buying a used game they're still paying for it but the creators aren't getting anything. The customer might as well be pirating the game.

If buying a used game is wrong, then buying a used book, DVD or record is wrong.