penny arcade equates used games to piracy

[RowdyRodimus]

Is this Penny Arcade, the ones that have that shittastic comic and the XBL games? If so, maybe they should stop using trademarks and images of game companies without paying a royalty for it, then their opinion on used games and how it hurts the "developer" (Who already got their money from the publishers, who are the evil people we are supposed to hate, that dont get the money from used games a second time. Publishers use the term developer because they know that it will make 1/2 the fandom feel bad for the poor mistreated developers).

 

[Aardvark Soup]

I do not see how buying used games differs in any way from buying used films, books or any other product. Yes, of course publishers miss profit because of this. So what? The second-hand market is a completely legal and justified phenomenon: if you buy something, you own it and may decide what to do with it. That includes selling. There is no reason why the games industry would be exempt from this. They should really stop whining and just live with it.

 

[Rhiehn]

In order for someone to buy used, someone else had to buy new, and either not like it, or get tired of it, which is usually a game flaw.

 

[Gindil]

Aardvark Soup, if they stopped whining, they might actually put all of that extra energy to making better games. It would be MADNESS!

No, let's blame piracy and used sales for us gimping our own games so people can't play them. Yeah, that works a lot better.

 

[Cliche]

In a free market, scarcity = value.
Games that sell tons of copies are given a platinum label and a price reduction, obviously for the purpose of competing with the 2nd hand market. Therefore, the 2nd hand market serves a very useful purpose in regards to increasing competition and lowering prices.
But when it comes to piracy, demand = value and comparing this to 2nd hand sales is silly.

 

[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.

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.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. However, why exactly should that be translated into: We should therefore implement features that punish the second hand consumer such as limited installs for PC games, or, limited content such as no multiplayer or lack of certain game features for single player with console games?

This is a point that I'm going to keep repeating until someone puts up an argument against, but to re-iterate: This is a problem between the retailer and the publisher. Not the publisher and the consumer, and it's a foolish and misguided idea to take out their monetary woes on the consumer rather than dealing with the retailer directly and ensuring that they get their share of the money from used sales.

It's saying, "I don't like that you're getting twice the money I'm getting, I'm going to make it so no-one gets any money from a repeat sale! And to do that, I'm going to inflict measures upon your customers to prevent those sales." And frankly, I find the whole thing childish.

 

[Chunko]

In a free market, scarcity = value.
Games that sell tons of copies are given a platinum label and a price reduction, obviously for the purpose of competing with the 2nd hand market. Therefore, the 2nd hand market serves a very useful purpose in regards to increasing competition and lowering prices.
But when it comes to piracy, demand = value and comparing this to 2nd hand sales is silly.

I always felt that game rental companies were good to the industry because they brought down piracy and providing gamers with a similar service while still supporting companies by buying the games. Would you agree?

 

[Superior Mind]

I understand why game companies are a little iffy about more people playing their game than those who have bought it without them seeing any of the profits. It's never nice to miss out on a bit of money that you feel you deserve.

My question is simply, what the fuck makes them think they are different to any other producer of goods that can be freely traded?

You may argue that a game store that trades in pre-owned games so they can re-sell them for their own profit, neglecting any revenue for the game's producer is somewhat wrong - but come on. It's just trading and it's certainly not unique to the gaming industry. I would also argue that regardless of whether you see game stores profiteering from this, remember that game trading offers a service which a company is legitimately able to charge for. Also consider that through game trading people buy MORE non pre-owned games, (trade in two games, get one at half price,) meaning people will buy games that they otherwise wouldn't, putting more money back into the gaming industry and to the game companies which negates any adverse effect from the trading of games anyway.

See?

In very simplified terms:
MORE GAME TRADING = MORE GAME SALES = MORE MONEY TO GAME COMPANIES

Moving on. I can trade one of my posessions with somone else, say a DVD. The producer of this DVD doesn't see a cent from this despite the fact that somone else has 'consumed' their product without having paid them specifically for it. But that's just trading. What makes game companies think that they are special?

And you know what, I think a licencing system, where you don't buy the game but more the licence to play it, would be fair if implimented correctly with perhaps a price drop in the actual product signifying that to own the game and to play the game are two different products/services.

But it wouldn't be implimented fairly. What have we seen from game companies, specificly the big ones, that suggests that this would be anything other than an invisible tax, a revenue grab for a phantom product that doesn't actually have a market value? If we accept them at their argument then we open the door for us to be fucked over, and personally I think we've been pretty damn liberal in allowing game companies to give us the runaround.

I see game companies who are arguing that video game trading and re-selling is wrong as incredibly short signted and greedy. Every time a games company's sales go down the look for outside reasons why their product isn't bringing in revenue and every fucking time the finger points to us, their consumers rather than figuring out what they're doing wrong. Same with this thing. "Oh we don't think we're getting enough money and it's YOUR FAULT FOR TRADING YOU EVIL HEATHENS!"

So yeah, I'm fucking staunchly opposed towards any move to criminalise or "protect" against game reselling, trading and renting. There's nothing wrong with it and any moves against it just seems life coffer-stuffing.

(By the way, I'm a PC gamer, I don't own a console, therefore trading and re-selling doesn't apply to me anyway.)

 

[Cynical skeptic]

You realize this debate is completely pointless, right? The only people defending used games are the people who actually buy used. They run off on tangents and quibble in semantics but never actually address the core of the issue. That, as far as a publisher/developer is concerned, they are not buying a game.

If a game sells a total of one million units, but every copy is sold used an average of four times, thats equal to an 80% piracy rate. 80% of the people who played the game didn't pay a dime to anyone who mattered.

Retailers engaged in the used game model make more money off used sales than new sales. Hence the reason they're pushed so hard. This, by definition, can't change. If the price of new copies is reduced (which can only happen if publishers decide to take a smaller cut per copy), used prices would simply match the reduction. Whats worse, theres no guarantee retailers will view the reduced publisher cut as a cue to reduce shelf price. So they make even more money on new and used copies.

The argument that because used copies transfer ownership, its not equal to piracy doesn't exactly work. These aren't bikes or cars we're talking about here. These are consumable products that are neither destroyed by the act of consumption or depreciate in any real way. A game is as good as it was the day of release as twenty years later. Disc "rot" is rare and mostly caused by improper storage.

If someone made a toilet that recycled waste back into whatever was eaten/drank, and people started returning food to supermarkets after they'd already eaten it, the food industry would cease to exist overnight. Supermarkets would become resellers rather than retailers. People wouldn't want to eat McDonald's every day or if they ate something they didn't particularly like so they'd trade in for something different. This is basically how used gaming functions. You've already consumed the product. In a perfect world, it would cease to exist afterwards. But it doesn't. You've eaten your food but your plate appears untouched. The server is happy because s/he'll still get a 15% tip, and has fresh food to serve to another customer, but the kitchen staff only gets paid when they make something new.

Also, the reason film and music don't complain too much is because film makes most of it's money from cinema, music makes most it's money from concerts. Music views CDs and mp3s as advertising for concerts and other merchandise. Film, in the US at least, already takes a cut of all rental proceeds or forces chains to buy rental licenses at more than $100 a copy. If the rental copies are sold as "used" by the rental chain, they even get a cut of that. If video games had something similar, there'd be no complaints.

So... yea. You aren't smart for buying used or trading in. You're just getting conned. Since most pirate games with can go online these days, you are gaining literally nothing for paying money for a pre-owned copy of a game.

Its also funny how many of the kneejerk arguments are identical to piracy. "they should make better games!" "games cost too much!" "I wouldn't have bought it otherwise!" Its just hilarious how people will defend used games with the same justifications for piracy, then denounce piracy with the same denouncements for used games. Its like standing between two mirrors facing each other, except both the mirrors are made from impact molded retardation.

 

[Alandoril]

That's just a stupid argument.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

You realize this debate is completely pointless, right? The only people defending used games are the people who actually buy used. They run off on tangents and quibble in semantics but never actually address the core of the issue. That, as far as a publisher/developer is concerned, they are not buying a game.

If a game sells a total of one million units, but every copy is sold used an average of four times, thats equal to an 80% piracy rate. 80% of the people who played the game didn't pay a dime to anyone who mattered.

Retailers engaged in the used game model make more money off used sales than new sales. Hence the reason they're pushed so hard. This, by definition, can't change. If the price of new copies is reduced (which can only happen if publishers decide to take a smaller cut per copy), used prices would simply match the reduction. Whats worse, theres no guarantee retailers will view the reduced publisher cut as a cue to reduce shelf price. So they make even more money on new and used copies.

The argument that because used copies transfer ownership, its not equal to piracy doesn't exactly work. These aren't bikes or cars we're talking about here. These are consumable products that are neither destroyed by the act of consumption or depreciate in any real way. A game is as good as it was the day of release as twenty years later. Disc "rot" is rare and mostly caused by improper storage.

If someone made a toilet that recycled waste back into whatever was eaten/drank, and people started returning food to supermarkets after they'd already eaten it, the food industry would cease to exist overnight. Supermarkets would become resellers rather than retailers. People wouldn't want to eat McDonald's every day or if they ate something they didn't particularly like so they'd trade in for something different. This is basically how used gaming functions. You've already consumed the product. In a perfect world, it would cease to exist afterwards. But it doesn't. You've eaten your food but your plate appears untouched. The server is happy because s/he'll still get a 15% tip, and has fresh food to serve to another customer, but the kitchen staff only gets paid when they make something new.

Also, the reason film and music don't complain too much is because film makes most of it's money from cinema, music makes most it's money from concerts. Music views CDs and mp3s as advertising for concerts and other merchandise. Film, in the US at least, already takes a cut of all rental proceeds or forces chains to buy rental licenses at more than $100 a copy. If the rental copies are sold as "used" by the rental chain, they even get a cut of that. If video games had something similar, there'd be no complaints.

So... yea. You aren't smart for buying used or trading in. You're just getting conned. Since most pirate games with can go online these days, you are gaining literally nothing for paying money for a pre-owned copy of a game.

And what I don't get is how the people defending the used game market can't see that. They say games cost too much, well that is what pirates say. They say it doesn't hurt anyone, well that is what pirates say.

Then they get into the whole legal vs illegal argument but it takes a spineless person to base his moral judgments on the arbitrary and mostly self-serving decisions of politicians.

The yard sale/ebay market isn't a problem. It is a problem when the de-facto game retail monopoly Gamestop tries its damnedest to siphon money away from its suppliers, the ones who do the actual creative work.

 

[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.

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.

I'm not trying to justify anything. Please point out anywhere in this thread where I said "piracy is good". If you can't man up and admit you are wrong.

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.

A used buyer keeps money out of the hands of publishers, and chances are without the pressure of gamestop clerks he would have given that money to the publishers. A pirate doesn't spend money in the first place.

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.

How is scenario 2 better from the publishers perspective? That is the question being asked in this thread.

 

[veloper]

One way to look at it, is that the developers will get money if I buy 1 new game and pirate 10, but not if I buy 10 used games.

On the other hand, being able to resell his game later, may have been a consideration for the guy I bought it from.

In any case, you're a smart and legit if you trade used games 1:1 with other gamers. You're a moron if you use the shop as a middleman.

 

[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.

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.

This very argument has already been lodged against movies and music and it has not been uncommon for writers and publishing houses to complain from time to time that libraries and used book sales are harmful.

The argument is not that reselling is illegal. Given the simple fact that it is not currently illegal means such an argument would be pointless as a simple check of the facts reveals the truth. The argument is that, from the perspective of a developer or publisher, the groups that spent millions of dollars and hundreds (if not thousands) of man-years producing a game, the groups that takes the majority of the risk in the endeavor, the act of buying a used game is fundamentally equivalent to an act of piracy. The correlation is simple enough: in either case a person gets to experience the game content but the people who assumed the risk of paying for the production and expended an incredible amount of effort see nothing in return. That one is perfectly legal has no impact on this correlation.

This is precisely why companies have been trying to figure out a way to get something out of a used game sale. Retailers aren't keen to allowing others a cut in the profits and this has lead to things like EA's project 10 Dollar. The premise here is simple enough - you ensure that a used copy of the game has less value than a new copy but allow people to purchase the difference if they choose. I personally support such a measure in a very general way, but once the game becomes unplayable or a significant portion of the content is locked (such as gating the online functionality entirely) then I have a problem as you are no longer selling me a product of lesser value but rather a broken product that I can pay to fix.

I can understand why people purchase used games of course. In some cases it's out of concern for price (though the difference of five bucks from the new version is often all but irrelevant). In other cases it's because the only version available is going to be used. Sometimes people do it precisely because it is a legal way to deprive a company of income but still play the game, often in order to punish a perceived injustice or transgression. I will not say people shouldn't purchase used games, simply that attempts to dismiss the argument fall flat when you say "but someone else already paid for it!".

When you buy a used car, you still need to get said vehicle repaired. Replacement parts are made by the vehicle manufacturer and they often make a profit. Movies make a significant portion of their income at the box office, months before the video release. Music has tours and concerts to supplement album sales. The one revenue stream that exists for all games is the direct to user sale and used games bypass that revenue stream entirely.

 

[MercurySteam]

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.

You post honestly sounds like something Andy Oliver [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100606-Used-Game-Sales-are-a-Bigger-Problem-Than-Piracy] once said.

But think about it. If it was made so that games could only be played by he person who bought it then you would never be able to lend or borrow games from your friends, trade it in once you get tired of it or return it as part of a return policy. These things effectively make up most of the rights you earn when you purchase a game. Stripping these rights away will mean that you will never be able to 100% own a game. So I ask you, where is justification in that?

As for the very existence of a preowned game market, you have to remember that there is a market for everything, legal or otherwise.

Also remember that there aren't any game shops (that I know of) that solely depend on the sale of used games. Do take note that running a preowned game market is also very complex and risky.

 

[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.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. However, why exactly should that be translated into: We should therefore implement features that punish the second hand consumer such as limited installs for PC games, or, limited content such as no multiplayer or lack of certain game features for single player with console games?

This is a point that I'm going to keep repeating until someone puts up an argument against, but to re-iterate: This is a problem between the retailer and the publisher. Not the publisher and the consumer, and it's a foolish and misguided idea to take out their monetary woes on the consumer rather than dealing with the retailer directly and ensuring that they get their share of the money from used sales.

It's saying, "I don't like that you're getting twice the money I'm getting, I'm going to make it so no-one gets any money from a repeat sale! And to do that, I'm going to inflict measures upon your customers to prevent those sales." And frankly, I find the whole thing childish.

The problem lies in the fact that, traditionally, the relationship between the consumer and the developer (the group people generally care about anyhow) has not been direct. Instead, the relationship is that the consumer pays the retailer, the retailer pays the publisher, and the publisher pays the developer. When you purchase a used game, the latter half of that relationship ceases to exist.

The reason I can support (generally, see previous post for caveats) a publisher and developer ensuring a used product has less value than the new product is precisely because these individuals are the ones who assumed the risk. They are the ones who poured years of their lives into its creation. The consumer is left with precisely the same right they have always had in this arrangement: to buy or not to buy. You can choose to purchase a used copy knowing you'll receive a degraded product in much the same way you can choose to purchase a used car knowing precisely the same thing.

As to your argument, the problem remains between the consumer and the publisher/developer. That the retailers profit from said problem is irrelevant as they are simply fulfilling the function of the middleman. It is a consumer choice to purchase used just as it is the consumer's choice to purchase new. Be it a choice based on ignorance, indignation, malice or thrift is irrelevant. The simple fact that the choice remains with the consumer means the problem will inevitably be solved at the consumer level.

This is precisely why direct sales from a publisher are such an attractive option. The trouble is, a significant portion of game sales still occurs at various retail chains that hold a tremendous amount of power in the relationship. There are solutions to the problem of course:

Outlaw used media sales - This is the least attractive option because the consumer's right to choose is infringed upon and their rights regarding a purchase are eroded further. Beyond that, such an action would all but ensure many, many chains of stores would rapidly fold.

Monetize the used market - This is the compromise option where the consumer retains the same basic rights as before and the retailer maintains its stake in the business but ensures that publishers and developers have some degree of access to the revenue stream.

Direct to consumer sale - This is the most attractive option for consumers and developers. In the case of digital distribution, the reduction in overhead alone (shipping, packing, printing and disc production) can mean a significant increase in the revenue stream. A direct sale to the consumer leaves the price free to fluctuate readily. If the direct to consumer sale also included a corporate buy-back program similar to what already exists at chains like Gamestop, the publisher and developer instantly see an enormous boost to income. This means that fewer sales can lead to a profit which encourages risky endeavors (innovation is inherently risky). The problem is that, as it stands right now, this endeavor is all but impossible to switch to entirely. Worse still, such a model instantly puts game stores out of business entirely. Still, this is the direction that things seem to be going but it the process takes time. Games have operated under the current retail based model for decades and there are a lot of interests at stake.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Well doesn't apply to me as I hate buying used games. Something about the disk being used by another person just doesn't sit well with me. Also the one time I did buy used games, 2/3 of those didn't work. I always buy new games whenever I can.