penny arcade equates used games to piracy

[FaceFaceFace]

If you buy a used game the original owner must have purchased the game to begin with, so they did see a dime. It also means that that former owner cannot continue to use that product while with piracy they can, which is the key difference.

No they only saw the money ONCE for TWO sales of the game, cutting the profit they WOULD have made in half. Thats like one person buying and one person pirating. Half possible profit.

I still stand by the fact that pircay is ok if its a game you would never ever ever buy ever. I pirated a rom of pokemon mystery dungion. I wouldnt buy that game even at gunpoint. I would pay a penny for it ever. No potential sale is lost, i was never a customer. If the option of piracy wasnt there i wouldnt buy the game to make up for it.
That way you dont take away a potential sale.

In this case the guy has money, and wants the game but buys it second hand and so gets a game sale for NO money to the publisher when he could have got it new. Piracy is much much better if you stand by my rule of "If you want it buy it, if its a passing interest or for a cousin (my case) pirate it, you were never going to buy it anyway"

I'm gonna have to disagree. No potential sale was lost, true enough, but why do you deserve that game at no cost to yourself? Because you don't want it? That makes you better than people who actually do want it, who according to you then have to not only spend money on it but spend full price?

I've always thought the focus was off in this debate. A lot of people focus solely on what is good for the developer, and others focus solely on what is good for the consumer. Neither extreme can work, otherwise the result would either be a million dollar price tag or completely free games. Consumers deserve to be able to buy a physical object, regardless of who the money goes to, and developers deserve to have their work not be illegally downloaded. Hypothetically speaking, a game could be 100% pirated and no profit would be made, but at least one copy has to be sold before used game sales can start.

And yes Gamestop charges too much for recently released used games.

 

[Kagim]

I've pirated two roms, the pokemon one and the ocarina of time. I own the latter for the Gamecube as well because I payed for it. I just wanted to play it on my laptop. Piracy of a game i already own but to have it on a different platform is another instance i believe is ok. Ive already payed for it once because i loved it thats as much money the developers expected to get form one person anyway. One sale.

Now can you guarantee every single other person in the world who lives by your philosophy has done the same?

Here's where I get very very confused. Your saying the pop is worthless and not worth a cent to your dad. Then you say he sells it for PURE profit. Well that IS worth a cent isn't it? $1.75 exactly as you pointed out

But it's only POTENTIAL money. If that pop is stolen it result in a zero loss to my dad. Kinda like the way you refer to games as potential money.

And if that person wasn't going to buy it anyways. So even if that person DIDN'T steal it my dad STILL would not have gained any money.

Since he has made back his investment, hell more then his investment, he can now purchase another 24 bottles, of which only 11 must be sold, ending him with 36 bottles(As 11 were sold one was stolen) and still a small bit of profit.

As well....

. You can't have it both ways. The pop is either worthless OR its worth 1.75 of profit.

Hmm... When it comes to software, even IF the media is technically worth nothing, much like the pop after the 11th bottle, doesn't it seem like the publishers would want that profit. Isn't the game worth $28 in profit?(as that is the about all the money they make off the $60)

Hmm.. its almost as if there is a parallel. Both objects have a net worth of $0. Yet both represent profit.

And in both cases, the question is, well as long as I wasn't going to buy it can't i just take it for free? Either way there is no chance of profit, right?

And hey if i like the game, or pop, I can always come back and pay for it right?

I also had no idea your dad ran the shop just to break even and not to make money

And I had no idea video game companies were in the business to hand out free games to people who were, ahem, Uninterested in ever playing the game.

This example is a bit flaky but I see what your trying to say. Also your code argument was also a bit flaky.

Not really, there is a point to what i said, read above.

The reason your dad doesn't dump the pop is because AS YOU SAID ITS LIQUID PROFIT. The pop IS worth something beyond a potential sale. Its worth profit. 1.75 as you said.

No, its not. It's ONLY a potential profit. Once again, the investment is completely paid off by the 11th bottle. There for ALL it represents is the next profit.

You just admitted it has value to your dad as an item to be sold and TRANSFERRED.

Kinda like a video game is a product ot be sold and transferred right?

The code that makes the game online does not cost money. It is free.

Actually, the original code its copied from cost tens of millions of dollars to make.

While the bottle of pop isn't even worth a nickle to make.

As it is a COPY. I can copy and paste this text for free. Am I a thief?

While that copy might be free, your copying a program that cost tens of millions of dollars ot make and thousands of hours of peoples times.

Where as the pop is once again. No long has a dollar value assigned to my dad as every bottle after the 11th is actually FREE to him. and the company that made the pop itself has already been paid 12 times its worth.

Never called you a thief. Just that the idea that you or anyone else deserves to take anything, be it code or a car, on the grounds of "Well i wouldn't get it anyways" is broken logic and self entitled bullshit.

I'm not calling you a thief here man, I honestly don't care if you download everything forever. Its the simple fact that you, and no one else, deserves a product for free unless it is given by the current owner in full.

Have i stolen this text by pressing cntrl C contrl V. No I'm coping it.

Your the one freaking out about stealing, as I have never accused you of stealing or equated it to stealing, merely annoyed at the poor logic behind the entitlement.

No one is down anything. Your dad is down 1.75 profit when you take pop. You said its worth 1.75 to him. Then you said its worth nothing. Its either one or the other.

Don't you think a publisher views the 'copy' as worth profit to them. Its a copy of a game they published that your not paying for. Its worth something to them. Despite the fact you say its worth nothing.

You see, that is kinda what I am trying to get you to see. That just because the code you got didn't cost the company money directly it still has a monetary value attached to it by the publisher.

But the company and my dad don't lose a dime when you take one of there product, however they both see the lost profit. Regardless of your excuse. A company won't turn away from a lost profit any faster then my dad would, and nor should they.

In both cases nothing could stop you from turning around and paying for it. If it were alright to then someone could just turn around and pay for that bottle of pop.

Someone could just turn around and pay for that video game.

Oddly enough the idea of just letting people take shit out of a store and hope they come back and pay for it is seen as stupid yet people think publishers should just let people take there games and trust they will pay for it if it's good?

Eggs are free to make, that doesn't make them worthless.

Wait, if eggs are free to make and that doesn't make them worthless why are game copies free to make but worthless.

Actually, that code wasn't free to make. Publishers have to pay out tens of millions to generate that code.

Not to mention eggs cost money as well. After all you don't just think eggs into existence.

Your argument is pop is so cheap its worthless. This isn't true because AS YOU SAID its worth 1.75 to your dad just as the FREE EGG has a value to someone despite the fact it costs nothing to acquire.

FREE EGG has a value to someone despite the fact it costs nothing to acquire.

has a value to someone despite the fact it costs nothing to acquire.

That video game has a value to someone. Despite the fact it costs nothing to acquire.

You might say "Well ma friend billy ALWAYS pays for his games he downloads!"

I'll ask, can you guarantee everyone, everywhere, always does the same with honesty and integrity?

Downloading that video game might not be a direct loss to companies but it is STILL a loss of profit.

Simply by saying, "Well i wasn't going to get it anyways so i deserve it for free" is what drove my to bother you in the first place.

I still stand by the fact that piracy is ok if its a game you would never ever ever buy ever.

I'm trying to get you to see a step further beyond your computer screen. I'm not talking about straight laws and rules. I'm trying to explain to you that in both cases, despite no DIRECT loss the company views it as a loss to profit, and rightly so.

Piracy is COPYING something.
Theft is TAKING something to deprive someone else.

No.

Piracy is committing acts of violence and theft on the high seas.

What your talking about is unlawful distribution of an IP and copyright infringement.

Theft is physical deprivation.

I'm not calling them the same crime at all.

However I am trying to point out the flaw in the idea that you deserve something for free because you decided your not going to buy it.

Which is what this has been from the beginning between you and me. Your the one who seems to feel i think it's the same as stealing.

I have a problem with the self entitlement statement. The whole "XXXXX... so i deserve it for free" irks the shit out of me.

You cannot argue this away, this is a fact. They are different even if its only on this basis.

I'm trying to be civil, so i want say my favorite two words here. However once again, I am not arguing they are the same crime. Only that you do NOT DESERVE IT FOR FREE JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SO.

So in the end.

What entitles you, or anyone else who claims they have no interest or desire to play the game, to play the game for free when a person with genuine interest should have to pay?

If someone honestly never, ever, ever were going to play the game why are they looking for and downloading it? Why are they playing it even if your friend only e-mailed you it. If you had no interest in it why not just delete it? Unless of course you DID have an interest in it.

That game does have a monetary value to someone. If you can't see past the black and white well then.. I can't really help you now can I?

 

[archf13nd]

The concept of used games is that you now have the power if you didn't like something to trade it in and get something for it. I like compensation for my pain. The developers got their money at some point when a person bought the original copy, and surely there are tons of people buying new copies everyday. So they don't need to complain and if it was really 'piracy' it wouldn't be happening.

 

[Meggiepants]

So we should never buy anything used, because someone, somewhere, isn't getting money from that transaction. How tragic.

He isn't saying don't buy used. He is saying that, just like piracy, buying used (or renting) doesn't support the publisher.

And by extension if you want to support the publisher then the only option is to buy new, preferably in the first week of release.

And if you REALLY believe in the publisher you pre-order as soon as you are able. That shows a willingness to transfer the risk that the game is crap from the publisher to yourself.

What I'm saying, as I have for years, that used games are morally equivalent to piracy for this very reason. So it is hypocritical to decry piracy as is the party line on this website, yet not condemn used sales or rentals in the same breath.

And you, much like Tycho, are saying that buying used is equivelant to stealing.

"If I am purchasing games in order to reward their creators, and to ensure that more of these ingenious contraptions are produced, I honestly can't figure out how buying a used game was any better than piracy. " from PA's website.

He's dancing around the point, but the both of you are saying that buying used is so similar to piracy, that you can't really see the difference.

My argument, most of which you chose to ignore, is basically why do we specifically call out gaming as being special and unique? An industry wherein selling your used property to another person is tantamount to selling something stolen?

If I steal a new car off the lot, that is stealing. Society on a whole has judged it as such. Therefore it is illegal. If I buy a car, then sell it to another person, that is the transferring of my property to another person.

The same is true of a book, which is something that can be completed, like a game. If I read a book, then sell it to another person, society has declared this action is perfectly fine. I am not stealing that author's work, I am merely selling my property to another person. I did not "rent" the book. I own the physical medium.

Games aren't different. If you say "We aren't buying games to play them, we are buying them to support the company." Then I say "Malarky."

If all you wanted to do was support a company, you'd send them money. Cold, hard cash. You wouldn't expect anything in return. You aren't supporting a company, you are buying a product. If the product sucked, you would complain. Because you are a customer, not a supporter. You would not give them money unless they gave you something in return.

If you declare that buying and selling used games is the same as stealing, than every rental, every used DVD, every garage sale, all those things are stealing money from the person who originally created the product. You can't have it both ways. Either selling used items is stealing or it isn't. Games can't be singled out.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

Well you put together a valid arguement. I must say you changed my mind on a few points. I will still pirate games i already own though. For example an old nes game i payed for ages ago i may pirate onto the computer. This is just so i can play it faster and without having to get my nez out of the attic. Ive done this with old n64 games i have lying around but sold the n64 ages ago.

My arguement of if i wouldnt buy it i havnt taken away a potential sale isnt meant to competely justify piracy. Its meant to dispell the bull of "your depriving the company of a sale". I cant guarentee that everyone plays by my rules. If they banned piracy i wouldnt mind too much. Ive pirated 4 games 3 of which i own already on the old consoles.

Im not going to do the "immovable fantaic" stance here and im going to admit defeat. You argued that well and im surprised im admitting i find piracy far less ok than i used to.

I didnt say you called me a theif, i was happy you didnt take it down to such a base level. What i was doing was arguing against the main point that "piracy = direct theft". While iot might not be a direct theft the shop comparison was good. Your dad doesnt need to tell that pop. So it doesnt have any inherent value really. But its still wrong to take it.

I think we all agree mass piracy is crap and loads of people just pirate every game that comes out. I dont like these people. I support modern franchises. I didnt feel bad about pokemon though, im sure they can take the hit for a single pretty old game, and i compensated for it by assisting a sale.

Anyway in conclusion:
Your right. Piracy for the most part is wrong. I love steam because i get multiple copies. I pirate games i have on console already for that very reason. I have infinite copies and can put them where i like, on my laptop or my desktop. If they stamped out piracy and had digital delivery i would be a happy person.

 

[XSA37]

I have to disagree with the OP here. It is true that the devs aren't seeing a penny of the sale, but that shouldn't matter. What is the difference between buying used games or renting them from Blockbuster. Or Gamefly for that matter. They aren't seeing any profit from those either. Capitalism allows you to buy and re-sell anything that you want to AS LONG AS YOU BOUGHT IT. That makes it so much different from piracy where the chain of buying and selling has been broken. Calling the resale of games piracy would be akin to calling the reselling of cars piracy, or the reselling of houses when the builders see no profit. Face it, it's legal and no worse than any other part of this economy which relies so heavily on buying, selling, and re-selling.

 

[MrHero17]

Something I've seen mentioned before(I think it was gamepro) is that if it's such a big deal to the publishers then why don't they start their own trade in services. Imagine if instead of selling a 60$ video game to gamespot for 20$ you could send it back to EA and get 30$ in EA game credit.

 

[CLime]

Edit: Double trouble.

 

[GothmogII]

If you buy a used game the original owner must have purchased the game to begin with, so they did see a dime. It also means that that former owner cannot continue to use that product while with piracy they can, which is the key difference.

Meaning games like Heavy Rain or God of War 3 suffer way more than the regurgitated trash like MW2. Do you believe that to be fair?

I wholeheartedly agree with the OP. Moralfags, you can hide behind laws and fallacies all you want, but the truth of the matter is, used game sales are, at the very least, a worse thing than piracy because used game sales actually equate to lost sales, as opposed to just pumping something off the net.

And yet never comes the notion that, gee, that it might be a problem that needs to be worked out between the publisher and the retailer. Nope, the customer is the one who should be punished because the publisher didn't see fit to negotiate -some- kind of protection and make sure that the retailer provides monetary returns from used sales to the publisher/developers.

Instead, we get forced obsolescence, while the retailer suffers not a bit.

As for whether or not it's -worse- than piracy as it's understood, I refuse to touch that piece of idiocy any more, as the arguements have already become cyclical:

Buying used is stealing potential profit.

But selling books and cars used is okay!

But that's not the same, information doesn't degrade!

No, but the media it's stored on does, causing the same effect anyway!

Buying used is still stealing potential profit!

...ad infinitum.

 

[CLime]

ITT: People make it obvious they have never read so much as an Arby's placemat on business or economics in their lives.

Geez, do I have to spell this out? When various states repealed their anti-sodomy laws, everyone didn't suddenly turn gay. Even the most bigoted homophobes don't cite the potential extinction of the human race as a legitimate reason to deprive gays of rights.

Unlike being gay, if piracy was legal everyone would do it. Yes, a small faction would probably continue paying full price so they could feel superior to everyone else, but not enough to keep the industry going. The incentive to produce games would evaporate.

With the secondary market, someone still has to buy the original game somewhere down the line. The industry still sells games at a profit, just fewer than they would if there were no avenue for resale. GameStop has been around for 25 years, and in that time the video game industry has still grown immensely.

Spell what out? You made an argument and I used that same argument in an analogous situation to prove that the original argument wasn't applicable.

Obviously everyone isn't going to turn gay but just as obvious to me everyone isn't going to pirate.

But in any case I can apply your same argument to used games or rentals. If everyone rented or bought used then not enough money would make it to publishers/developers to keep them making games. Obviously everyone can't rent or buy used because someone would have to buy the original but you have to concede that it is possible that in some situations used/rentals would make up the difference between breaking even and losing money.

The original point: Used games and rentals are no different than piracy from the publishers or developers perspective. The reasoning is that even though people consume the game the remuneration goes to someone other than the game creators and investors.

At this point I find it hard to believe you're not just being thick intentionally.

If piracy were legal, the vast majority would just never pay for games. How is that hard to understand? It's not terribly difficult to pirate at the moment, but it would be monumentally easier if the laws were stripped. Entrepreneurs would be able to establish and advertise virus-free websites where you could download any game at no charge, and they would still profit from ad revenue because they wouldn't have to purchase any merchandise. Combine that with no fear of government reprisal, and only the wealthiest elitists would continue paying for games- if stores didn't simply stop stocking games altogether. The industry would be reduced to Zynga and Popcap. In the long term, the pirates, customers, and companies would all be worse off.

You can't apply the same argument to rental and resale, at least without being called a fool, because rental and resale have existed and continue in the video game, film, book, and hundreds of other industries without preventing developers, directors, or authors from making a profit. It's pointless to postulate on what would happen if everyone started buying used when it's obvious that millions of people are happy paying full price for their games.

Even from the perspective of the developer, piracy and resale are nowhere near the same thing. Anyone who says otherwise is being irrational, spiteful, or just deceitful.

The secondary market is different from the black market because the former can and does exist in a healthy symbiosis with the retail market. When everyone is free to buy and sell new and used games, the market benefits. When everyone can take games for free, the market suffers.[/quote]

But it's only POTENTIAL money. If that pop is stolen it result in a zero loss to my dad. Kinda like the way you refer to games as potential money.

False.

Never mind that the analogy is a bad one to begin with, you're look at it entirely the wrong way. It's not that the first eleven cans are bought for full price and the rest are free. Your dad pays for every can 1/24th the price of the full pack. Besides money, he also invests his time and effort into purchasing and stocking the cans. He does this with the expectation that he will sell all the cans. Stealing a can, even if you would never have paid for it otherwise, is still depriving him of an object that took money, time, and effort to acquire.

"Potential money" is still money. In Scenario A someone takes a can without paying. In Scenario B someone pays full price for that same can. In Scenario C, someone pays full price for the can, then someone else mugs your dad, taking the money used to pay for the can. From a strictly economic perspective, your dad is no better off in Scenario A than in Scenario C.

The reason the analogy fails is that pirating a game does not prevent someone else from purchasing it. The marginal cost of creating a digital copy of a game is basically nothing, compared to the cost of manufacturing a physical copy for sale in stores. You're trying to compare shoplifting to piracy, and it's not working. I oppose both, but for different reasons.

 

[Kagim]

-snipe-

As you likely skimmed through and ignored most of what we were talking about I will try to be brief.

The point i was making was that the copy and code of a game has a value to the publishers over all. Regardless of any initial investment. Therefore the copy, while not a direct loss, is still attached to a particular dollar amount and it is correct for a Publisher to not be happy with the transaction, or rather lack there of.

One more as with copying a video game the holder can turn around and buy it. Just like someone who shoplifts a pop could just as easily turn around and pay for it.

I am not comparing the two directly as the same crime, but rather stating "The lack of interest in something does not entitle the product to you for free.", be it car or code. The comparison is by no means a direct analogy. That would be silly, and soemthing people always miss.

However in the lines of what was being discussed it is just. Using my dad's store is an example meant to show a parallel to "What if that logic was applied anywhere else". While the avenues of cost are indeed different the fact remains that when given the option of "download it for free" or "Pay 60 bucks" a number of people who would have normally bought it will take the cheaper route. That copy you made by downloading the game represents a game you SHOULD have paid to play. There is a monetary amount tied to that game, and you didn;t pay it.

I was never trying to say they are both the SAME thing. Rather when in the context of "As long as i don't want it it is okay to take it" the logic is broken. Simply on the count of the person who created, or financially backed said product, views that code you copied as depriving them of a source of money, and that they right are to feel that way. Just because people choose to label unpurchased video games as 'potential money' does not mean that no harm is done. That is why i choose those words by the way.

Not that the two are the same things.

As well you make a vital mistake again.

The marginal cost of creating a digital copy of a game is basically nothing, compared to the cost of manufacturing a physical copy for sale in stores

This is wrong. Not just because manufacturing a bottle of pop is actually cheaper then putting together the most simplest of game cases.

For starters creating the code itself? Millions upon millions of dollars are spent. The act of copy pasting the code is nothing, but the original code itself cost the publishers millions and developers thousands of hours. To wave this away by saying "Well the copy i got was free and didn't take them any time" is silly. This is something i already talked about however.

There are subtle parallels to both of these actions, not in a legal sense but more in a human sense.

Think of it like say, getting a hair cut.

You go to a hairdresser, they had a cancellation and a spot open for you to get cut. Should you get a free haircut from them because they wouldn't make any money anyways? It wouldn't cost them anything but time(Mine never involve any form of product, just scissors and a comb) and lets say nobody comes by during the hair cutting so no one else would have taken the spot.

So whether they cut your hair or not they would not result in a loss of any money, nor have lost the opportunity to gain any money. Either way by the end of the thirty minutes whether they give you the haircut or not they would be no richer or poorer.

Should you still be entitled to a free haircut?

They key word being ENTITLED.

 

[CLime]

However in the lines of what was being discussed it is just. Using my dad's store is an example meant to show a parallel to "What if that logic was applied anywhere else". While the avenues of cost are indeed different the fact remains that when given the option of "download it for free" or "Pay 60 bucks" a number of people who would have normally bought it will take the cheaper route. That copy you made by downloading the game represents a game you SHOULD have paid to play. There is a monetary amount tied to that game, and you didn;t pay it.

I was never trying to say they are both the SAME thing. Rather when in the context of "As long as i don't want it it is okay to take it" the logic is broken. Simply on the count of the person who created, or financially backed said product, views that code you copied as depriving them of a source of money, and that they right are to feel that way. Just because people choose to label unpurchased video games as 'potential money' does not mean that no harm is done. That is why i choose those words by the way.

Not that the two are the same things.

If you pirate a game that you would have paid for otherwise, the studio loses money.
If you pirate a game that you would never have paid for, the studio does not lose money.

Piracy is illegal because it's entirely impractical to distinguish those two groups. This is different from shoplifting, where the merchant loses some money even if you would never have bought the item in the first place. They're both illegal, each for their own separate, legitimate reasons.

Shoplifting a soda you had no intent of purchasing and pirating a game you had no intent or purchasing are crimes for different reasons. The latter hurts the merchant directly, while the former harms neither the merchant nor game studio, but is indistinguishable from crimes that do hurt the merchant and/or game studio, and is therefore outlawed.

The marginal cost of creating a digital copy of a game is basically nothing, compared to the cost of manufacturing a physical copy for sale in stores

This is wrong. Not just because manufacturing a bottle of pop is actually cheaper then putting together the most simplest of game cases.

For starters creating the code itself? Millions upon millions of dollars are spent. The act of copy pasting the code is nothing, but the original code itself cost the publishers millions and developers thousands of hours. To wave this away by saying "Well the copy i got was free and didn't take them any time" is silly. This is something i already talked about however.

There are subtle parallels to both of these actions, not in a legal sense but more in a human sense.

Think of it like say, getting a hair cut.

You go to a hairdresser, they had a cancellation and a spot open for you to get cut. Should you get a free haircut from them because they wouldn't make any money anyways? It wouldn't cost them anything but time(Mine never involve any form of product, just scissors and a comb) and lets say nobody comes by during the hair cutting so no one else would have taken the spot.

So whether they cut your hair or not they would not result in a loss of any money, nor have lost the opportunity to gain any money. Either way by the end of the thirty minutes whether they give you the haircut or not they would be no richer or poorer.

Should you still be entitled to a free haircut?

They key word being ENTITLED.

Emphasis mine.

Like I said, no knowledge of finance or markets. The total cost of a good, such as a video game, includes things like coding, art direction, voice acting, whatever. That's what you're talking about in your post. In the part of my post you quoted, marginal costs refers to only to the cost of producing an extra unit of whatever once all the infrastructure is in place and the initial work has been done. Never mind that you somehow confused "digital" with "physical." Downloading a cracked copy of a video game from a pirating site imposes no marginal cost on the game studio.

And because it costs the studio nothing, the haircut analogy fails. In that scenario, the barber is still spending both time and energy to cut my hair, unlike the game studio when their games are pirated.

Here's a better comparison: The barber has a cancellation. You photocopy his book on hairdressing and cut your own hair, in your own home, with your own scissors.

 

[migo]

I think this depends. If a new game costs $45 and the used one costs $42, then buying used pretty much is worse than piracy, you were willing to spend the money on the game at full price, but saved a few bucks and all the profit went to someone else.

No. I don't know if you work for a living or not, but there are people out there to whom $3 does mean something. If you buy one game a month for 14 months, that's a whole extra game you could afford by buying used.

The publishers aren't running a charity, why should the consumer treat them like one?

I'm making just enough money to be able to spend some of it on entertainment and not having to put everything into food and shelter, so I'm about as low for money as it goes, and the thing is, I'm not stupid enough to buy a used game for $42 from GameStop, a $3 discount over the new price, when I could land it for $15 on Craigslist. That's of course a side issue, but it is pretty retarded to buy used games at their prices - and the only time I do is when they're at the $10 range, or if Craigslist is rather bare and I need to trade in some games that nobody actually wants to buy. Buy a used game for 1/3rd of the price of a new game - no lost sale because it wouldn't have happened at that price anyway. Buy a used game at 95% of the cost of a new game, and it's a lost sale and more damaging to the companies than piracy.

 

[Echo136]

check it out here http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/25/

The basic argument is if you pirate the publisher doesn't see a dime, if you buy used the publisher doesn't see a dime.

I would go one step further and say used games are WORSE than piracy. Because with used games you are extracting money from the games market. A used game buyer has money in their pocket, and has shown a willingness to spend it on a game. A pirate doesn't necessarily have money or if they do is not willing to spend it.

In my opinion used game shops (and to a lesser extent rental places) are parasites leeching off of the creativity and risktaking of developers and publishers. You could claim that because someone knows they can resell a game they are more willing to pay the new price but I would argue that the amount is negligible compared to the amount a publisher doesn't get when someone purchases used instead of new.

Of course digital downloads and online purchases are going to murder games retailers just like they did record and book stores so I think the gamestop problem will go away in a few years.

So your saying that buying a product used, which instead of going into the hands of devs goes into the hands of retailers is WORSE than illegally obtaining a product which provides absolutely no economic stimulus at all, and I'll add again, is illegal. I dont see the logic.

 

[Mr. In-between]

I don't give a shit about the developers. I'll continue to proudly buy used not only because the majority of games these days aren't worth paying full price for, but because now I know how many pimple-faced tools will get their underoos in a knot over Bungie losing $13 on their latest "Capt. CRT monitor-for-a-head" adventure.

Want me to buy a game new? Give me some irl perks for a pre-order and not some half-ass "speshul in game armer" crap. I reserved Ocarina of Time 6 months before it was released and I got a t-shirt and a soundtrack CD; the least any of these lame developers can do now is throw me a collectible keychain.

 

[Kagim]

If you pirate a game that you would have paid for otherwise, the studio loses money.
If you pirate a game that you would never have paid for, the studio does not lose money.
Piracy is illegal because it's entirely impractical to distinguish those two groups. This is different from shoplifting, where the merchant loses some money even if you would never have bought the item in the first place. They're both illegal, each for their own separate, legitimate reasons.

Uggggggg.... How many times must i repeat myself...

I AM NOT SAYING THEY ARE THE SAME THING. AT ALL. THAT IS NOT WHAT ME AND THAT OTHER DUDE WERE TALKING ABOUT. AT ALL. I WAS TALKING ABOUT WHY LACK OF INTEREST DOES NOT ENTITLE YOU TO GET SAID GAME FOR FREE. NOT THE LEGALITY OF SAID ACTION.

Shoplifting a soda you had no intent of purchasing and pirating a game you had no intent or purchasing are crimes for different reasons. The latter hurts the merchant directly, while the former harms neither the merchant nor game studio, but is indistinguishable from crimes that do hurt the merchant and/or game studio, and is therefore outlawed.

Except...

We were talking about the issue of entitlement for the lack of wanting, not who or what it was hurting. If you actually followed our conversation and read the posts you would KNOW THAT.

Like I said, no knowledge of finance or markets. The total cost of a good, such as a video game, includes things like coding, art direction, voice acting, whatever. That's what you're talking about in your post. In the part of my post you quoted, marginal costs refers to only to the cost of producing an extra unit of whatever once all the infrastructure is in place and the initial work has been done.

And i am saying that financial back means publishers legitimately hold a monetary value in each copy someone illegally produces. Not whether or not it constitutes a direct loss to a company. Something that seems to keep slipping past you.

Once again. We were discussing whether the act of not wanting something ENTITLED you to said video game. Not WHETHER SOMEONE WAS LOSING MONEY.

Never mind that you somehow confused "digital" with "physical." Downloading a cracked copy of a video game from a pirating site imposes no marginal cost on the game studio.

No, but it still means one less person will pay money towards there huge investment of tens of millions of dollars they put into producing said game.

And because it costs the studio nothing, the haircut analogy fails. In that scenario, the barber is still spending both time and energy to cut my hair, unlike the game studio when their games are pirated.

So... You imagine that video games are made by piling money up and thinking about video games?

Video games take thousands of hours and hundreds of people to make and produce. When you download a video game you are receiving those people TIME and ENERGY for free. Unless that means nothing to you.

That seems like a "As long as I deny it everything is alright."

Here's a better comparison: The barber has a cancellation. You photocopy his book on hairdressing and cut your own hair, in your own home, with your own scissors.

Nooo.

That would only be a correct analogy if instead of copy and pasting an entire game you went out and rebuilt the entire game yourself.

However your just taking THEIR hard work and energy and simply copy pasting it on your computer.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

So your saying that buying a product used, which instead of going into the hands of devs goes into the hands of retailers is WORSE than illegally obtaining a product which provides absolutely no economic stimulus at all, and I'll add again, is illegal. I dont see the logic.

Right so if someone happens to be a resident of Spain http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/03/spanish_judge_says_downloading_legal/ (precedent hasn't changed as far as I know) you would be totally OK with them downloading whatever, because you know it is legal there?

This discussion isn't about legal or illegal. And I'm not a lawyer but as far as I know non-profit copyright infringement is a civil tort not a criminal offense.

Here are 3 scenarios, you tell me which one is worst for the publisher.

1. kid has 0 dollars in his wallet, he goes to piratebay and downloads Generic Brown Space Marine Shooter 27. Publisher gets 0.

2. kid has 60 dollars, he goes into Gamestop with the intention of buying Generic Brown Space Marine Shooter 27. Gamestop register monkey says "you can save $10 if you buy a used copy". Kid likes saving $10 because he can spend it on Mountain Dew, so he buys used copy for $50. Gamestop makes $30, mountain dew makes $10, guy you sold back his game originally gets $10, and publisher gets 0.

In scenario 1 there is no way the publisher would get any money. In scenario 2 the publisher would have gotten money if the Gamestop bloodsuck machine hadn't gotten to the kid first.

In my opinion scenario 2 is worse from the publisher's perspective than scenario 1, but your opinion might be different.

 

[jasoncyrus]

check it out here http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/25/

The basic argument is if you pirate the publisher doesn't see a dime, if you buy used the publisher doesn't see a dime.

I would go one step further and say used games are WORSE than piracy. Because with used games you are extracting money from the games market. A used game buyer has money in their pocket, and has shown a willingness to spend it on a game. A pirate doesn't necessarily have money or if they do is not willing to spend it.

In my opinion used game shops (and to a lesser extent rental places) are parasites leeching off of the creativity and risktaking of developers and publishers. You could claim that because someone knows they can resell a game they are more willing to pay the new price but I would argue that the amount is negligible compared to the amount a publisher doesn't get when someone purchases used instead of new.

Of course digital downloads and online purchases are going to murder games retailers just like they did record and book stores so I think the gamestop problem will go away in a few years.

*facepalm*

You are seriously able to say that with a straight face?

So buying used at Gamestop...a games shop...which buys new games from publishers...and new consoles...and new gadgets etc...is taking money out of the games market?

Rrrriiiiigghhhhttt...>.>

EDIT:

Also, the penny arcade guys are just pandering to the corporations. They are cowards who are too afraid to stand up and say screw you.

Penny Arcade isn't comparing anything to piracy. They're saying if you want to support a company,buying used games won't help.

And they don't pander to corporations. They're one of the few who will call companies on their bullshit.

They are still bitching about it. Develops arn't struggling, arn't sinking. Publishers pay them what they are due and they use that to make more games. If the game is good enough and attractive enough people will buy new. If it doesn't give them a metaphorical hard on then i doubt they would ever buy it never at all. example: If fable 2 was on pc i'd buy it new in a heartbeat, because I love the franchise. I refuse however to buy crysis or warhead new because i'm just not into shooting aliens that much. If they had kept original crysis as killing just koreans then yeah sure i'd buy it new. Because killing human with a suit like that and a shotgun to the face is awesome fun to me. Aliens, not so much

 

[AWAR]

Don't you? ^^

I am not surprised...