controversy over used games

[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.

I've already explained this in my other posts...

That's great, congratulations. Where exactly?

<quote=armageddon74400>the difference is that it usually doesn't cost anything to write a book and the main cost is manufacturing which is covered by the price, same for cars. The main cost for video games however, development, can range anywhere from a couple of thousand to millions of dollars, but the price for retail games stays has to stay the same for the most part or else less people will buy it (unless it's something like starcraft 2). Cars and books don't have this problem because if a book has more pages or is hardcover or if a car has more things built in they can just raise it's price, not so with games.
While this only covers books and cars, the basic principle is that different forms of media have different methods of gaining money, which is why you can't really compare buying a used game to buying a used book, dvd or CD.

It doesn't cost anything to write a book? What about the months or years it takes of the author's time to get the words on paper? Don't they deserve to get compensated for their time? If not, then the same can be said for game developers who spend their time modeling the jiggle physics.

But your argument seems to be it's more difficult to get your money back on a video game, and it requires more of an investment. That's not a moral argument, that's a financial argument. I thought we were talking ethics here. Not finances.

 

[BlackStar42]

Well, if they want more sales, lower the price. Seriously, I'm sick of the game companies bitching and wanting special treatment. All it would take is knocking a fiver off the price, and you've just got yourself a hell of a lot more sales. Or, you could make your games so good and replayable that people won't want to trade them in.

 

[Gindil]

<quote=armageddon74400>the difference is that it usually doesn't cost anything to write a book and the main cost is manufacturing which is covered by the price, same for cars. The main cost for video games however, development, can range anywhere from a couple of thousand to millions of dollars, but the price for retail games stays has to stay the same for the most part or else less people will buy it (unless it's something like starcraft 2). Cars and books don't have this problem because if a book has more pages or is hardcover or if a car has more things built in they can just raise it's price, not so with games.
While this only covers books and cars, the basic principle is that different forms of media have different methods of gaining money, which is why you can't really compare buying a used game to buying a used book, dvd or CD.

It doesn't cost anything to write a book? What about the months or years it takes of the author's time to get the words on paper? Don't they deserve to get compensated for their time? If not, then the same can be said for game developers who spend their time modeling the jiggle physics.

But your argument seems to be it's more difficult to get your money back on a video game, and it requires more of an investment. That's not a moral argument, that's a financial argument. I thought we were talking ethics here. Not finances.[/quote]

I don't believe the incentives are right for what you're describing. IIRC, JK Rowling was scribbling Harry Potter for seven years with barely a dime to her name while in a cafe. Most authors write not for compensation, but for recognition, which gives them money for their books. Rowling is unique in the fact that for years, she was against digital sales of her books. Her fans made pdfs anyway. When she finally offered the digital version, she opened more avenues of revenue for herself.

What I believe is more confusing about the games industry is exactly how long should this re-recompensation go on? If I want DOA for the original XBox, should Tecmo get part of the profits? Team Gaiden? Or should they focus on their newest game and the compensation of that game?

Publishers in the writing industry usually hold licenses on a book for say, 5 years. In the gaming industry, it's as long as the copyright expires (Life + 50 years after death of author). Since these works aren't made by just one person, they revert to the publisher, who makes money so long as they print the discs. This is actually important, because a publisher could make money in other avenues for a game. T-shirts, licensing tie ins, sequels, etc.

As it stands, these make far more money for a game than worrying about one game in a line, and how it is in the used market.

 

[BlackWidower]

<quote=armageddon74400>the difference is that it usually doesn't cost anything to write a book and the main cost is manufacturing which is covered by the price, same for cars. The main cost for video games however, development, can range anywhere from a couple of thousand to millions of dollars, but the price for retail games stays has to stay the same for the most part or else less people will buy it (unless it's something like starcraft 2). Cars and books don't have this problem because if a book has more pages or is hardcover or if a car has more things built in they can just raise it's price, not so with games.
While this only covers books and cars, the basic principle is that different forms of media have different methods of gaining money, which is why you can't really compare buying a used game to buying a used book, dvd or CD.

It doesn't cost anything to write a book? What about the months or years it takes of the author's time to get the words on paper? Don't they deserve to get compensated for their time? If not, then the same can be said for game developers who spend their time modeling the jiggle physics.

But your argument seems to be it's more difficult to get your money back on a video game, and it requires more of an investment. That's not a moral argument, that's a financial argument. I thought we were talking ethics here. Not finances.

I don't believe the incentives are right for what you're describing. IIRC, JK Rowling was scribbling Harry Potter for seven years with barely a dime to her name while in a cafe. Most authors write not for compensation, but for recognition, which gives them money for their books. Rowling is unique in the fact that for years, she was against digital sales of her books. Her fans made pdfs anyway. When she finally offered the digital version, she opened more avenues of revenue for herself.

What I believe is more confusing about the games industry is exactly how long should this re-recompensation go on? If I want DOA for the original XBox, should Tecmo get part of the profits? Team Gaiden? Or should they focus on their newest game and the compensation of that game?

Publishers in the writing industry usually hold licenses on a book for say, 5 years. In the gaming industry, it's as long as the copyright expires (Life + 50 years after death of author). Since these works aren't made by just one person, they revert to the publisher, who makes money so long as they print the discs. This is actually important, because a publisher could make money in other avenues for a game. T-shirts, licensing tie ins, sequels, etc.

As it stands, these make far more money for a game than worrying about one game in a line, and how it is in the used market.[/quote]

Ah! There's another point, once they stop printing the discs, how else am I supposed to get the game?

 

[Ascarus]

-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.

that last sentence is rhetorical nonsense and i think you know it.

that said, i agree with most of what you wrote. however, you alluded that selling one game doesn't cover the cost of development for an entire game, but the same can be said of a single car -- one car sold does not nearly cover the cost amount of developing an entire fleet of cars. selling the original item (be it a car or a game) ostensibly covers the cost necessary to recoup the money invested (plus profit) provided enough single units are purchased.

now that being said, the remainder of his argument is correct. when someone purchases a used ANYTHING the original developer probably won't see a single dime. now you can argue left and right as to whether such practices should be "allowed" (which is exactly where this thread went in about 3 seconds) but that doesn't change the fact that selling a used item probably doesn't yield any direct profit to the developer of the item.

 

[Twad]

The solution : Make physical copies of games succeptible to wear-and-tear (like rust, high explosives, or tasting/smelling like a sandwich so your dog eat it) so just like that car analogy, a used car will behave the same as a used game.. but eventually it will break and you will have to buy another one.
I wasnt serious.

Their solution is digital distribution. They might do it for consoles too, who knows. You cannot really sell or give back something if it isnt physical, and even less if the system doesnt allow for transfert. Plus it cost less to produce and distribute if its just data (steam)

 

[Ascarus]

now you can argue left and right as to whether such practices should be "allowed" (which is exactly where this thread went in about 3 seconds)

Allowed? Isn't it NATURAL that something you buy is yours? It would take special laws to make that false.

look, i simply chose the word "allowed" because i figured it was more innocuous that saying "legal". i was offering no opinion on how i felt about the practice of buying and/or selling used games.

in fact, i haven't spoken about that issue one way or the other.

 

[shadow skill]

The whole situation is nothing but nonsense. No other industry gets paid twice for a single item unless they are the sole means of distribution. But of course since they have managed to propagate the mythology that digital media is somehow immune to degradation in a way that other items are not people are readily able to swallow their nonsensical argument that they should be treated differently than other industries in this respect.

 

[Gasaraki]

It is though, last I checked EA, Activision, Ubisoft and all of the other big companies that would most likely be interested in this type of system also publish their games in the UK.

Oh well, I never use games online anyway.

Do you honestly not see anything wrong with the idea of these massive corporations being able doing this? The companies you listed just then are so huge they don't need to do this, its just a matter of greed. Not compensation or some noble idea of an artist owning their own work, just greed. In the case of the bigger companies anyway.I do, but I also understand that sadly, for now, it's only the big companies that can afford to take this risk.
If you had to pay 10$ extra for the multiplayer component of COD then most of it's fanboys would pay for it in a heartbeat, if some indie game charges extra for the multiplayer componet then a lot of customers will say "meh, it looked kind of interesting but I'm not gonna pay more than I have to for something that I've never ever heard of" Later on though once the grounds are tested smaller devs will hopefully use systems like these, and as long as they're smart and add content for buying new instead of just letting them use something that they should already have just for buying the game it'll work.

I guess we'll never agree.

Perhaps
I noticed you're Canadian, what's the deal with this issue in Canada?

It's pretty much the same, since it has to do with game publishers who work in multiple countries instead of governments, the issue doesn't really vary much by region.

 

[shadow skill]

The solution : Make physical copies of games succeptible to wear-and-tear (like rust, high explosives, or tasting/smelling like a sandwich so your dog eat it) so just like that car analogy, a used car will behave the same as a used game.. but eventually it will break and you will have to buy another one.
I wasnt serious.

Their solution is digital distribution. They might do it for consoles too, who knows. You cannot really sell or give back something if it isnt physical, and even less if the system doesnt allow for transfert. Plus it cost less to produce and distribute if its just data (steam)

DVDs and CDs are already prone to oxidation (The process that causes metal to rust.) and mechanical hard drives will eventually break. consumer grade digital storage media are not normally made out of nonreactive materials like gold.

The simple solution for PC's when it comes to digital distribution is to simply sell the hard drive itself. Let these publishers come and tell us that we don't own the hard drives we buy independently of them. There is no technical reason why people are unable to sell games to each other that were purchased digitally. Simply selling the key and transferring the activation permission to the buyer would be enough for a system like Steam. Incidentally rentals could work in much the same way.