AngleWyrm said:
When you buy a used game [http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00000K4AX/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used&tag=vglnk-c21-20], who gets paid?
What about when you rent a game [http://www.gamefly.com/], who gets paid then?
It's a murky comparison. A preowned or rented game already has been bought (by the previous owner or rental store), so the developer/publisher has already got their cash. You're right that the dev/pub never gets to see the money associated with second-hand games (or third-hand, or fourth... at each resell money chages hands but the dev/pub is out of the loop). At least, not in a
direct way.
1) When people go to Gamestop or a similar store and trade in their old games, very often they'll do so to buy a new game, so money
does trickle straight back into the game industry. Here in the UK, the leading game shop (Game) offers significantly better store-credit than cash value for traded-in games and consoles, which encourages people to buy more games.
2) And when you rent a game from a rental service, I suppose you could say that if you play and enjoy the game, you're more likely to go out and purchase it permanently.
BUT - here comes the confusing bit -
You could take the exact same logic from point 2) to support piracy. People who have had a chance to try a game (and importantly, beyond the carefully selected content presented in a demo) could be argued to be more likely to go out and buy the retail game.
Also, people seem to think that if you pirate a game, you're DIRECTLY taking money out of the pockets of the poor old developers. In fact there are several intermediary stages. As far as I understand it, developers have ALREADY been paid through game stores' initial orders, based on the anticipated popularity of the game. I could pirate a game - hell, I could walk into Gamestop and walk straight out again with a dozen (physical) copies of a game - and the developers would not be
directly affected one jot. If I steal from Gamestop, it's the Gamestop Corporation who is out of pocket, not the game devs. And if I pirate a game - nobody has lost any real, existing money. The game shop has lost a
potential sale and the publisher will have to wait a little longer before the game shops place the order for the next shipment of games. Since it's just a potential sale that has been lost, one could argue (and with some justification) that if you had no intention or means to buy the game anyway, then there isnt even a missed potential sale as you were never going to give them money in the first place.
So, is denying a company potental sales a crime, or immoral? And if so;
Does this mean that a magazine that gives a game a poor or negative review has committed a criminal act, as this review could result in lost potential sales?
Food for thought, and if nothing else I hope people realise the "stealing a cake" analogy is an oversimplification).
NB: I think that people who profit from piracy - for example, reproducing and selling bootleg games - most definitely ARE both criminal and immoral.
