Lionhead: "Piracy these days on PC is probably less problematic than second-hand sales on the Xbox"

[Andrew_C]

I would like the people who think it is somehow morally wrong to buy second hand game to explain their reasoning, because I for one cannot see any logic to it. Is it morally wrong to buy a second hand car? To buy second hand clothes? To buy second hand books and DVDs?

 

[Frostbite3789]

I'm willing to bet someone will make the 'but someone purchased the copy I torrented' argument. 'Cause it holds so much water, lol.

Just a heads up, yo.

Just to play devil's advocate:

Someone purchased the second-hand copy you're buying. Y'know, the copy where neither the publisher nor the developer sees a cent of the sale on that game. In terms of what the developer sees, it really isn't that different. They just have to say stuff like this, for legal purposes.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Legally Piracy is worse. Personally I think second gaming leads to a higher loss in sales than piracy. Second gaming is more akin to console piracy where they go to a shop/guy to get it chipped then buy games off them. Still that is probably worse than the 2 of them. Anyway I think the online pass or something like pay an extra ?10 for the game and get ALL DLC free is probably the best way to "combat" second hand sales.

 

[Frostbite3789]

I'm willing to bet someone will make the 'but someone purchased the copy I torrented' argument. 'Cause it holds so much water, lol.

Just a heads up, yo.

Just to play devil's advocate:

Someone purchased the second-hand copy you're buying. Y'know, the copy where neither the publisher nor the developer sees a cent of the sale on that game. In terms of what the developer sees, it really isn't that different. They just have to say stuff like this, for legal purposes.

That isn't the point, though. Someone obtains an illegal copy of a game and then torrents it to millions of people. Second hand copies see a lot less exchange than that. And that is the point.

Millions? Really? That's especially ridiculous considering the company making this claim.

In all honesty, this is just Lionhead trying to rationalize why they've taken a dump on PC gaming over the last 5+ years.

The Movies had so much potential, but they just kinda stopped supporting it.

Fable: The Lost Chapters was a better version, so I'll give them that.

Fable II never made it to the PC.

Fable III is a year late, half-assed port, where they said a demo was coming out, then redacted that, because they knew it was a PoS.

Most people won't even think it's worth the hard drive space to torrent it, let alone the $50-$60 price tag.

This is just one big rationalization. "WE DON'T WANT TO DEVELOP FOR THE PC BECAUSE OF THOSE MEAN 'OLE PIRATES!" and as CD Projekt has proven, it's a load of bullcrap.

 

[tzimize]

No, because the former isn't illegal.

And we all know if it ain't illegal it can't be harmfull...

Both cases end up with the publisher geting nothing in return.

Actually, piracy can end up with the publisher getting money.

If you buy a game second hand, you sure as hell wont buy another copy if the game is good.

If you pirate it, you might buy it if its good.

So from an economical standpoint: Piracy is WAY better for publishers than second hand sales.

 

[Ranorak]

Legally Piracy is worse. Personally I think second gaming leads to a higher loss in sales than piracy. Second gaming is more akin to console piracy where they go to a shop/guy to get it chipped then buy games off them. Still that is probably worse than the 2 of them. Anyway I think the online pass or something like pay an extra ?10 for the game and get ALL DLC free is probably the best way to "combat" second hand sales.

No, the best way to combat second hhand games is just to make games I wouldn't WANT to sell.

I will never EVER sell my copy of Metroid Prime Trilogy.
Why not? Because it rocks.
I would never sell my copy of Oblivion or Morrowind either.

Make a good game, and people tend to keep it.
Spit out a basic RPG that lasts 10 hours with little to no additional content *coughfablecough* and sure, they sell it.

 

[Dastardly]

No, because the former isn't illegal.

When speaking about impact, I actually think the fact that secondhand sales are legal is exactly why they're a bigger problem. Piracy is an inevitable criminal event. Secondhand sales are perfectly legal, and even encouraged, so there are tons of outlets and aids and incentives provided for people to use it. Because it's legal, it's more readily available.

To a publisher, the financial impact of "a sale lost to piracy" or "a sale lost to the secondhand market" is exactly the same: a lost sale. But it's a safe bet that there are far more secondhand copies out there than pirated copies, since they are legal and openly available. So, from a strictly financial standpoint, the secondhand market represents a greater loss to the publisher than piracy.

That's what they mean when they say it's "more problematic." They're not talking morally--I don't think any of them really object to secondhand sales on moral or legal grounds. They just mean that's the problem that results in a greater loss of income.

 

[onilinksword]

I would like the people who think it is somehow morally wrong to buy second hand game to explain their reasoning, because I for one cannot see any logic to it. Is it morally wrong to buy a second hand car? To buy second hand clothes? To buy second hand books and DVDs?

Your argument has a major flaw: The developer of the second hand object(s) is no longer supporting the product that you are buying. Levi's doesn't care if you're wearing a used pair of jeans. They made it, shipped it off, and made their money. What the user does with it isn't their problem. Many games need to keep servers running to maintain the multiplayer element. That costs money. If a second hand user comes along, they are costing the company money rather that just enjoying the product.

Yes this argument has flaws too. For example many games don't have multiplayer, but this does show how interactive mediums can cause problems in conventional thinking. We have to think more outside the box here.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Legally Piracy is worse. Personally I think second gaming leads to a higher loss in sales than piracy. Second gaming is more akin to console piracy where they go to a shop/guy to get it chipped then buy games off them. Still that is probably worse than the 2 of them. Anyway I think the online pass or something like pay an extra ?10 for the game and get ALL DLC free is probably the best way to "combat" second hand sales.

No, the best way to combat second hhand games is just to make games I wouldn't WANT to sell.

I will never EVER sell my copy of Metroid Prime Trilogy.
Why not? Because it rocks.
I would never sell my copy of Oblivion or Morrowind either.

Make a good game, and people tend to keep it.
Spit out a basic RPG that lasts 10 hours with little to no additional content *coughfablecough* and sure, they sell it.

No some people will always sell the game anyway. Also would it not be better to pay an extra ?10 for DLC you know is going to come anyway and will probably cost in excess of ?30 when most it should be free anyway. Probably only ?10 of it is worth the money anyway so you are basically just preordering you DLC. Also what is wrong for paying ?10 for an online pass when you buy second hand? It doesn't affect first time buyers one bit.

 

[Adzma]

There is only one legitimate reason to buy pre-owned games and that is if the game itself is relatively old and difficult to get brand new. Otherwise just shell out the extra $5, I somehow doubt you'll miss it. Particularly the Americans of the Escapist who only have to pay $60 for their games...

 

[harvz]

i sincerely believe this to be true.

people are thinking "but second hand games are legal while pirated versions arnt", this sort of thinking is wrong. many people who buy from 2nd hand will beat the game and sell it back, getting another 2nd hand, playing it and so on. you could probably burn through 5-10 games before you've spent the amount of just 1 of those at launch...and only the 2nd hand store will turn a profit.

im not saying that you would have bought all these games new but you probably would have bought 1 or 2 had the used game system not been there and thats where the problem lies.

mean while, pirating, while costing the industry money (dont be stupid, its like the limewire case, the industry assumes every copy pirated would be bought new on launch day and thats where the total comes from) was always going to exist, whether its downloading, black market or simply lending/trading friends the games your not playing. someone will make it happen.

im not trying to defend the pirates but seriously, try this formula for every one of the 2nd hand games stores.
(used games profits-used games expenses)/5
i would approximate that to be about how much, if you want you can halve it again, it would still be a huge amount of lost income.

thanks for listening to my rant

 

[DEAD34345]

Morally, they are exactly the same as far as I'm concerned. Either way you're getting the game without having to pay the publisher. You can say that second hand sales are better overall for the industry because someone bought the game originally, but the actual act of buying a game used has the exact same effect on developers as pirating one.

Saying "Someone else has already bought this, so it doesn't matter." when buying a used game is no better than any of excuses pirates have. Yes, someone else paid the developer for the game, but you did not. Yet you still get to play the game.

 

[FarleShadow]

I actually think developers shouldn't make their games unplayable to pirates, rather they should take the 'Troll the pirates' approach that Michael Jackson game did by replacing the music tracks with those Vuvuzela. Or significantly degrade the graphics.

I actually believe more that 2nd hand sales affect devs more than piracy does, simply because someone who readily pirates games is unlikely to buy a copy of a game, while someone who buys games will likely continue buying games.

I think that's why they have those 5 machine lockouts on games, not for pirates, who could likely find a workaround, but for second hand sales.

That also said, who buys box games anymore who isn't on a console with steam being so goshed darn useful. (And with special deals for those games you wanted, but didn't want to pay full price).

 

[PlasmaFrog]

Second hand sales aren't moral or legal in their eyes if they're not gaining any profit.

Honestly, I adore the fact that I can generally buy games used and save a couple of dollars. Is there a problem with this? No, not at all. It's just that developers seem to be diving into most problems these days head first due to their reputation, which in the long run can either turn into greed or strong business motives, which are both of the same really.

 

[Cpt Corallis]

If it is available from a location where the money will in some way end up with the developer, that is where I will buy it from.

Piracy takes that sale and funding away. So I do not pirate.

Probl;em is these second hand sales rarely if atall actually pay anything to the publisher, the game outlet gets all the money.

This is a fallacy. The game outlet gets all the money regardless of whether you buy used or new. Here's how it works: when you buy a brand new game, the retail outlet doesn't take half your money, put it in a pretty envelope with a ribbon on top and send it to the publishers/developers. The reason for this is that the publishers already got their money when the shop ordered in the games to put on the shelf. Do you think publishers just loan shops their games to display, until they actually get sold? For every game you see on display in a game shop, the publisher was paid. When you buy a new game, the shop uses your money to help recoup the cost of ordering in games in the first place. If a game proves popular, and they sell all their current stock, then they will order in more, and the publisher will get more money. But it all focuses on the shop's expenditure. Even if you buy new, your money is going entirely to the shop.

As for used sales, there's nothing wrong with it. It's a legal market, offers many people with less money to spend the same chance to play games as us, and what many people forget, it is entirely dependent on the first-hand market to get product into circulation anyway. For example, EA may complain about how such-and-such a game didn't do so well because 1 million people bought it second-hand. However, this ignores the fact that for 1 million people to be able to buy the game second-hand, another 1 million people at least must have bought the game first-hand, then gone on to sell it back to Gamestop. And that ignores entirely the number of people who bought the game at launch and kept hold of it. Sure, occasionally a game will be bought and sold by Gamestop 2 or 3 times over, but these numbers are generally in the minority.

For a game to be have a thriving second-hand market, it must have had at least an initial thriving first-hand market in order to supply it. Games don't magically teleport from the publisher's warehouse to the second-hand section of GAME without any transaction inbetween.

Lastly, if publishers are so worried about second-hand sales, then maybe they should focus on creating games which people will want to hold on to. The reason games are now sold second-hand so much isn't just because of the high cost of each game at launch- it's because publishers and developers have spent so long copying each other, following each other, and sponging off each other that many gamers have now come to see modern games as entirely interchangeable and dispensable. Why should EA expect someone to not sell their copy of BattleShooter6 when next month is seeing the release of FutureWarSoldier7, and to most people the games are practically identical, differing only in their 'new-ness'. If you've helped create a market where practically all shooters are pretty much the same, then you have no right to complain when someone sells your game to purchase the latest and flashiest one. If you didn't want that to happen, you shouldn't have made a game so samey as everyone elses.

There's a reason games like Shadow Of The Colossus cost a small fortune to buy second-hand off places like Amazon. Games like those are beloved old gems, and people will only part with them for some serious moolah. I am certain that a considerably higher percentage of people who bought SotC kept it than people who bought Black Ops or Fable: The Next One.

I realise that the publisher doesn't receive a cut of the profits on every game sold but surely however, if a game shop orders 500 copies of "killdeath shooter 20" and receives 200 of those back in trade in deals and then sells those on, then that will be 200 games (give or take a few damaged copies) that the store has not had to buy from the developer and can resell to the consumer. This means that the developer/publisher has not received any money for the "resale" of those 200 games, which, had the trade in market not been there, would have meant the shop had to order 200 more fresh copies.

Also, I completely agree with you about the idea of creating games which people would want to keep. I will never ever give up my Gamecube and my copies of Wind Waker, Rogue Squadron 2 and Pikmin. Why? Because I love those games. The problem in my eyes is that Games are beginning to be viewed as disposable, rather than something to be kept and treasured. This needs to be addressed by developers.

 

[Dastardly]

I would like the people who think it is somehow morally wrong to buy second hand game to explain their reasoning, because I for one cannot see any logic to it. Is it morally wrong to buy a second hand car? To buy second hand clothes? To buy second hand books and DVDs?

I don't think anyone I've seen is arguing that it is morally wrong. They're just saying that it poses a financial problem for publishers. They're not getting the money for this sale. The argument isn't that it is (or even should be) considered illegal or immoral. They've recognized it as the place where the most money leaks out.

This is a fallacy. The game outlet gets all the money regardless of whether you buy used or new. Here's how it works: when you buy a brand new game, the retail outlet doesn't take half your money, put it in a pretty envelope with a ribbon on top and send it to the publishers/developers. The reason for this is that the publishers already got their money when the shop ordered in the games to put on the shelf. Do you think publishers just loan shops their games to display, until they actually get sold? For every game you see on display in a game shop, the publisher was paid. When you buy a new game, the shop uses your money to help recoup the cost of ordering in games in the first place. If a game proves popular, and they sell all their current stock, then they will order in more, and the publisher will get more money. But it all focuses on the shop's expenditure. Even if you buy new, your money is going entirely to the shop.

There is nothing wrong/illegal/immoral about secondhand sales. But there's also no doubt that it causes financial losses to the publisher, and that those losses likely outweigh piracy. You're right that the publisher gets paid for all of the new copies that make it to store shelves, but there is another step in this process that raises a crucial issue:

Because secondhand sales are legal, they're actively encouraged and incentivized by the retail outlets. That means that people are made fully aware that these products will become available at a lower price very quickly. This can impact their decision to buy new or not.

Think about it--there are probably many people out there who would, if it came down to it, pay full price for a game. But if you're constantly making them aware of a perfectly legal and acceptable way they can get the full product at a lower price, if they put it off for just a week, they're most likely going to consider it. These "on-the-fence" shoppers, who would buy new within a certain timetable, are where the publishers are losing some of those new sales.

Additionally, knowing full well that they can take advantage of the "revolving door" of secondhand sales (and even some fantastic games get returned a lot because some players just don't like to replay things), they will order fewer new copies to begin with. (In the same way that the library doesn't order 500 copies of each new book, because they know they can meet their circulation needs with far fewer copies). That causes an up-front decrease in sales.

And that's the "problem" that publishers see with the secondhand market. They're not pushing to make it illegal (thought some foolishly push to make it more difficult unnecessarily). The whole "$10 unlock code" is a pretty good solution, I think. People get to buy the game at a reduced price and try it out. If they're pleased, they unlock the additional content for just $10. If that means they've paid a total greater than the original purchase price, that's on the retail outlet.

Which leads to my personal problem with the secondhand market: I buy a game for $60. I play it, I feel I've finished it, and so I trade it in toward another game. Maybe I get $10 credit. Then they repackage the game as USED, and put it back up on the shelf for $55. Really? You knock $5 off the game? It's blatantly inflating the price of a game artificially, just "because they can." That's the kind of thing people rage at college book stores for doing. Or game publishers even (when they charge the same for digital copies as for hard copies). Yet no one sees it as a problem here.

In contrast, I can get a used car for much lower than the original value. Hell, the value of a new car drops 15% as soon as you drive it off the lot, meaning a $25,000 car is down to down to $21,250 just because you took it home. A $60 game should drop to $51 as soon as the package is opened. Granted, depreciation of a game isn't cumulative as with a car, but I think it's reasonable to expect that a used product drops in value more than just 7-8%.

And that's all publishers are trying to do. One-time use codes that have to be purchased again for used copies, they're just a way of ensuring that a more appropriate amount of value is reclaimed after the original sale.

 

[IOneShotOneKill]

What it's implying is that anyone cares about the publisher apart from the publisher.
No-one does. Otherwise people wouldn't pirate games at all.
People want to get a good game for as cheap as they can. Publishers don't think about games being sold in general, just about their game.
E.G The Release of Fable 3 on Xbox was about the same time as Black Ops, Fallout NV.
£40 for a game individually is worth it, but when there's a few hyped up games coming out at once, and people want to buy all 3 they're going to look for the cheapest copy they can get, and you can buy a pre-owned copy for like £5-£10 cheaper than a brand new copy a week after release.

tl:dr People are always going to look for their entertainment as cheap as they can, anyone on the planet would rather spend £100 than £120 regardless of the state of the game creators/publishers.