penny arcade equates used games to piracy

[AndyFromMonday]

I refuse to pay the publisher for a game they themselves did not make.

 

[Kagim]

Spoiler

Don't you? ^^

I am not surprised...

Actually capitalism is actually a really good idea.

However like any other isms they should never be taken to an extreme or all or nothing deal.

Off topic i know but I'm one who believes it takes a touch of everything for a society to thrive.

 

[Stormz]

So getting a game for free is better then paying money for it still? oh cool!

What if the game is old and hard to come by new? then what? I have to suffer because I can't find a new copy? no thanks, I'm better off just pirating it then.

 

[Shilkanni]

What is ethically the right thing to do is up to each person individually.

Legally:
Buying New is Legal
Buying 2nd Hand is Legal
Copyright Infringement of something you don't own is Not Legal.

Economically:
Buying New gives Money to a Retailer
Buying 2nd hand gives less Money to a Retailer
Renting a game gives less Money to a Retailer
Copyright Infringement gives no Money to anyone

100 People willing to Pay Full Price for a game and keep it = 100 Sales
100 People not willing to Pay Full Price for a game, lets say:
* 40 buy the game New and Sell it when done (record 1 'new' sale)
* 60 buy the game 2nd Hand (record 0 'new' sales, some bought it after 2 previous owners)
= 40 new sales

100 People rent the game (Rental places might get away with having only 10 copies)
= 10 new sales

Part of what gives a product 'value' is how much you could sell it for if you no longer want it.

Attacking the 2nd hand market for your product is insanity and I can't believe it's working.

 

[AWAR]

Spoiler

Don't you? ^^

I am not surprised...

Actually capitalism is actually a really good idea.

However like any other isms they should never be taken to an extreme or all or nothing deal.

Off topic i know but I'm one who believes it takes a touch of everything for a society to thrive.

Exactly and what we are experiencing now isn't exactly that.

 

[GothmogII]

What is ethically the right thing to do is up to each person individually.

Legally:
Buying New is Legal
Buying 2nd Hand is Legal
Copyright Infringement of something you don't own is Not Legal.

Economically:
Buying New gives Money to a Retailer
Buying 2nd hand gives less Money to a Retailer
Renting a game gives less Money to a Retailer
Copyright Infringement gives no Money to anyone

100 People willing to Pay Full Price for a game and keep it = 100 Sales
100 People not willing to Pay Full Price for a game, lets say:
* 40 buy the game New and Sell it when done (record 1 'new' sale)
* 60 buy the game 2nd Hand (record 0 'new' sales, some bought it after 2 previous owners)
= 40 new sales

100 People rent the game (Rental places might get away with having only 10 copies)
= 10 new sales

Part of what gives a product 'value' is how much you could sell it for if you no longer want it.

Attacking the 2nd hand market for your product is insanity and I can't believe it's working.

The retailer makes money off the initial sale, then makes more money with second-hand sales, this bit is where people are having the problem. I don't rightly know how it works it's in entirety, but, I think what currently happens, is that the game shops essentially buys the product in bulk off the publisher/manufacturer, and then is free to sell it at whatever price they see fit. This usually means a significant markup.

Actually, can anyone tell me how much influence the publisher actually has on pricing after the retailer has purchased the goods? Or indeed, what the average price of a videogame actually is when it's being sold to a retailer but before it hits the shelves?

So:

Buying a new game gives money to retailer (correct, and, remember, at this point the publisher has most likely -already- been paid for the goods, by the retailer.)

Buying 2nd hand gives less Money to a Retailer (Sort of, retailers will vary on the money they'll part with for a traded in game, the most I've ever seen was around ?10 personally, but yeah, in addition to that, they'll usually lower the price, so a $60 game becomes a $30 game, it's less, but it's still pretty good for the retailer.)

Renting a game gives less Money to a Retailer (This is also true, however, due to the nature of renting, they can potentially recoup even more money that the initial price of the game, so they buy a game from the manufacturer for $60, and rent it out for $5 for a week, within about 12 weeks worth of renting, they'll have their money back etc. However, it doesn't work exactly like that, as there is also rental licensing fees to take into account which apparently cost quite a bit on top.

Copyright Infringement gives no Money to anyone (Can't argue with that.)

I guess, the real issue is that retailer is taking a product and selling it twice.

 

[Shilkanni]

Sometimes I wish I could pirate a product and then wire the developer money and have it recorded correctly on the balance sheet. I want my $$$s to say:
"Thanks for the great game, please make more like it. I didn't need any help with getting a copy though guys, and I didn't need help finding out about it so don't let your Publisher have any money for advertising, distribution, or sales. Pay them a fair portion if they bankrolled your project or supported you in other ways, and to keep useful online services (like servers, stats, online matchmaking, but not DRM) available."

Instead if I go into a store and buy a game my $$$s are saying:
"This store is important, I hope it stays in business. Pay the factories that churned out the cardboard and CD, and the logistics company which brought it here. Pay the people who created the game just enough for them to keep doing what they love. Give most of my money to the publisher though, so they can spend more on advertising, lobbying government, propaganda wars against the second hand market, studies and advertising campaigns to exaggerate and vilify piracy, intrusive interference with the developers... and perhaps most importantly a big bonus for your gamer-hating, flight-attendant-molesting CEO."

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

Sometimes I wish I could pirate a product and then wire the developer money and have it recorded correctly on the balance sheet. I want my $$$s to say:
"Thanks for the great game, please make more like it. I didn't need any help with getting a copy though guys, and I didn't need help finding out about it so don't let your Publisher have any money for advertising, distribution, or sales. Pay them a fair portion if they bankrolled your project or supported you in other ways, and to keep useful online services (like servers, stats, online matchmaking, but not DRM) available."

Instead if I go into a store and buy a game my $$$s are saying:
"This store is important, I hope it stays in business. Pay the factories that churned out the cardboard and CD, and the logistics company which brought it here. Pay the people who created the game just enough for them to keep doing what they love. Give most of my money to the publisher though, so they can spend more on advertising, lobbying government, propaganda wars against the second hand market, studies and advertising campaigns to exaggerate and vilify piracy, intrusive interference with the developers... and perhaps most importantly a big bonus for your gamer-hating, flight-attendant-molesting CEO."

Man THIS so hard it isn't even funny. Then again I mostly play f2p mmos nowadays...

 

[SithLibrarian]

There is nothing wrong with the Used Game market. Especially when it comes to games that are hardly worth their $60 price tag ("Modern Warfare 2" and "Halo ODST" for example).

 

[Wicky_42]

Selling a CD you bought isn't illegal and no one objects to it, but making copies and selling them is, rightly, illegal. The same should applies to DVDs, books and should apply to games, reselling a single game is perfectly fine both morally and legally and is completely not relatable to piracy. Making multiple copies of said game and selling them, however, is wrong and is piracy.

Boom. Done and done. You should have the right to sell on anything you own. Companies who are afraid to let their products actually be owned by their purchasers (Apple, I'm looking hard at you) are frustratingly pathetic. It also irks me that PC games have no resale value. Where's the justice in that?

 

[Echo136]

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.

I dont give a damn if it is or isnt about legality. You are trying to justify stealing a game versus putting the money back into the economy by buying it from the "Oh so horrible" retailer, Gamestop.

In scenerio 1, he's stealing product, and I see no justification for that. Pirating keeps money out of the publishers hands and the retailers.

In scenerio 2, the money may be going to the bloodsuck machine as you put it, but its being fed into the economy, unlike in scenerio 1, where there is absolutely no positive effects at all. And anyone who buys a used copy for $50 isnt even worth me wasting the breath to call them a dumbass anyways.

Looking at this LOGICALLY and not with an obvious hatred towards Gamestop, Scenerio 2 seems a lot better to me.

 

[WilliamRLBaker]

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.

but they dont see the dime from that 2nd customer.
I do agree that its not piracy but its not happy and good for developers.. rampant used sales are bad for developers.

 

[CLime]

Marginal cost. The studio doesn't make a new game every time someone buys it. They could create 1000 digital copies for basically nothing compared to the cost of making the game itself. As long as everyone that is willing to pay for the game does so, the studio does not care a whit whether or not those copies are distributed to other gamers or just deleted. It has no impact on their profit.

Unlike the soda, which can be consumed by exactly one person, the studio pays the same cost whether one or a hundred people digitally download a game.

Also, it's stupid to ask whether you're "entitled" to something if you don't "want" it. What you mean to ask is, is it OK to take something you want if you would never be willing to pay full price for it. That was answered several pages ago, but I'll reiterate: no. It's not OK because it removes the incentive to earn the money to pay for games if you could get it for free with no work.

Hopefully this will be the end of bad analogies.

 

[fletch_talon]

They specifically say "from the perspective of the developer". Its not intended to say, "buying used games is morally wrong". They are saying that if you buy used games, you lose the right to complain about the service of the developers, because you are not their customer.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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.

This is precisely the argument that the penny-arcade post rallies against. Yes, the saw money for the game sale precisely once. Then you purchased the game again and they got nothing. From their perspective, your action is precisely the same as a pirate as you have deprived them of a sale from which they may receive income. If you are comfortable with such an arrangement, so be it. It is perfectly legal after all. Just don't try and rationalize it by explaining someone already paid for it.

 

[Kagim]

Double post lag, sorry.

 

[Kagim]

Marginal cost. The studio doesn't make a new game every time someone buys it. They could create 1000 digital copies for basically nothing compared to the cost of making the game itself. As long as everyone that is willing to pay for the game does so, the studio does not care a whit whether or not those copies are distributed to other gamers or just deleted. It has no impact on their profit.

Unlike the soda, which can be consumed by exactly one person, the studio pays the same cost whether one or a hundred people digitally download a game.

You just like.. ignore me don't you. You just keep going on and on and on not realizing the point behind anything we were talking about do you?

We were talking about entitlement, i was make reference to other products using the same idea behind why people felt it was alright to download a game under the assumption of "Well i wasn't going to buy it".

It was a way to explain why there is no entitlement to an object just by saying "Well i wasn't going to buy it anyways so i can get it for free".

If you were not going to buy it you shouldn't play it. Simple as that. That is what we talked about, that is what i got him to understand my side of.

What your rambling about, legality and who gets paid what, had NOTHING TO FUCKING DO WITH IT. The whole fucking conversation had to do with entitlement. Nothing.

FUCKING.

else...

Also, it's stupid to ask whether you're "entitled" to something if you don't "want" it. What you mean to ask is, is it OK to take something you want if you would never be willing to pay full price for it. That was answered several pages ago, but I'll reiterate: no. It's not OK because it removes the incentive to earn the money to pay for games if you could get it for free with no work.

Hopefully this will be the end of bad analogies.

You mean, you finally caught up to me and him from like, 8:00am? Wow. Good show. it only took you three wasted posts to repeat what i already explained to him early today. Good show!

 

[Sev72]

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.

This is precisely the argument that the penny-arcade post rallies against. Yes, the saw money for the game sale precisely once. Then you purchased the game again and they got nothing. From their perspective, your action is precisely the same as a pirate as you have deprived them of a sale from which they may receive income. If you are comfortable with such an arrangement, so be it. It is perfectly legal after all. Just don't try and rationalize it by explaining someone already paid for it.

Why hasn't this happened with DVDs then? Why hasn't this argument come up when reselling works of art? Or when the rights to music are sold, the original artist doesn't get paid at all.

I don't understand what the problem is with this. Yes someone paid once, no they aren't getting paid for the second consumer. Your point is...? It is perfectly legal and isn't really a problem if your game has staying power. Are you against garage sales too because the original producer isn't being paid the second time around? I paid for the game and I now own that game (the specific disc I have) I am allowed to do anything within the law I want to with it. i.e. resell it. This hurts the developer because they don't get paid again but I don't really see what the argument is.

P.S. Reading the news lately it would seem our debate doesn't really matter considering EA, Ubisoft, Sony and some other company have all decided to charge a fee for game that are paid online and bought used.

 

[mjc0961]

I think one of the guys they posted in their "going to the phones" part came up with a much better comparison than Tycho's stupid "it's like piracy" nonsense. Because come on, it is true that when you buy used, the people who made the game don't get money from you having a copy, but piracy is such a nasty thing that to compare something perfectly legal to something perfectly illegal is just completely stupid. Maybe think for a few minutes instead of just firing off whatever crap comes to mind (who am I kidding, their comic is nothing but firing off whatever stupid crap comes to mind) and come up with a comparison that makes a bit more sense, like one of their readers did:

"I am a gamer and a developer (art and animation side of things). Theres a lot to say here, but it really boils down to this:

What other customers expect a used product be be identical to a new product? Buying a used car comes with increased wear (and thus decreased function). Buying a used book means you are risking page damage or a broken binding. Buying anything used means that you get a cheaper price for decreased function or increased risk. It also requires a little more awareness on the part of the customer to make sure they are aware of what they are getting. In the video game case, if you know the game wont have multi-player used, you can adjust what you are willing to spend on it, the same way you might offer a few hundred dollar less for a used motorcycle due to rust."

 

[migo]

Attacking the 2nd hand market for your product is insanity and I can't believe it's working.

Ironically they're endorsing piracy indirectly.

Buy second hand = true lost sale.

Pirate = have money left over to buy new. Particularly when it comes to older games only piracy benefits the developers.

Incidentally, I think this is why services like OnLive are getting backing - I wouldn't be surprised if some companies only publish with them because of the control it gives them. Also, if they go with a model where you can only rent games for a certain period, the games that are popular and played the most earn the most money, while the shitty ones earn only a small portion.