penny arcade equates used games to piracy

[Gindil]

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.


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.

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.

... Bwuh? So let me get this straight...

I'm supposed to buy games new every 60 days (when games usually get their sales revenue). I don't have any thing else to consider such as daily living which might limit my income in any way. I might not pursue other interests that may make me decide to wait on a game but get it at a cheaper date.

I'm not supposed to rent a game, or go to Gamestop (which really is my choice). Let's just forget the fact that there are licensing deals that come into play when they rent a game (which gives developers money but I guess that's not important). No, they need to attack Gamestop because "it's a defacto monopoly" by serving to produce a healthy second hand market that allows people to get rid of Madden '06 when a retailer such as Walmart won't take back games.

No, we have a baseless ad hominem attack:

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

That attacks everyone who plays "used games" by saying it serves politicians... Bravo on your part. Not only is that wrong, that was pretty far out of left field. But I guess a "first sale doctrine" that protects not only Ebay but Gamestop, similar to how Google is protected from third party liability akin to Section 230 of the DMCA, is me being a "spineless person" by noting that even the law says consumers have a thing called choice in the US. I think that's far from the case.

Aside from that:
Used markets have been around for a long time. None of it serves the publisher/developer directly. Trying to have Toyota limit what I can do to a car I bought from Nissan isn't going to fly very well. I'll agree that if developers give more incentive to first time buyers, then that's fine. So long as they give others a similar shot, then it's fine (even though I can't agree with every method of the $10 deal). What I do see from the particular example given, is that they've hurt licensing deals with Gamefly (where people rent), and also could cause a split in the used market against them. People may decide not to get the game at all for no server support. Another thing is that the $10 code in licensing deals makes Gamestop That. Much. Richer since that money allows them to hold the game and the code for later customers. And guess what? It's probably not a 50/50 split. In the end, the developer probably gets (max) $2.50 out of that sale. I don't even want to think about people renting Madden with the exact same scenario... 1 game disc, 5 people? It's like a license to print money.

And obviously, trusting PA for advice when they roll a 1 on their Knowledge (what the hell they're talking about) isn't going to convince many people to change their minds about the functionality of used game markets.

 

[Gindil]

In other news it seems that PA has had more to say on the subject [http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/27/room-481/]:

It turns out that used games are a tremendously controversial issue. Part of the reason response to the comic and post has been so massive is that (aside from our inflammatory presentation) this conversation has been a long time coming. The thing for the commentariat to do about this issue typically is to carve out as populist a stance as possible, to cluck and tut tut about it so as to ingratiate themselves to you as much as possible, and then follow up by posting a picture of a belt buckle. That strikes me as a bit precious.
Because this is the Internet, every argument was spun in a centrifuge instantly and reduced down into two wholly enraged, radically incompatible contingents, as opposed to the natural gradient which human beings actually occupy.
People who buy used games are not pirates, by definition. Used games (used everything, really) are and will continue to be a legal and protected form of commerce. Other industries have done what they can to co-opt, destroy, or harvest those markets, but their existence is settled law. What I have said is that the end result of that purchase from a developer perspective must be indistinguishable. Isn't it? That is the question I couldn't answer. I still can't answer it. And because I couldn't, I had to change the way I invested my leisure dollar.
People want to talk about used cars, or libraries, or any other thing really, but I'm not talking about the universe in general - I'm talking about the tiny part of it I have any control over. That bit up there is the part I can't resolve: the moral dimension contained within the purchase. Yes, I'm giving somebody money when I buy used. Is that sufficient? What is the end result, and what systems am I sustaining by doing so?
I'd rather not think about things like this, believe me. I'd rather be Mr. Perpetual Good Times, but I'm not built that way. On the whole, I'd say thinking has been a tremendous inconvenience.

 

[Rhiehn]

The fact that the game is only ever used by one person at a time is what separates used games from piracy, do you think it's wrong to pay your friend 20 bucks for his copy of something? Saying "it was bought twice but the company only got money for once" is bullshit, perhaps gamestop exploiting people who are dumb enough to trade in their games for a quarter of their worth is wrong, but buying or selling used games is totally fine, what if you asked a friend to go buy a game for you, and when he got back, you paid him for it. Essentially, the situation is the same, because your money didn't get to the developers, but the money for the copy of the game did, and your friend no longer owns the game. Any other used market, such as car dealerships and pawn shops are exactly the same as the games industry, only with them, the middle man doesn't mark things up as excessively.

 

[Slappybob]

It must be nice for them to have an opinion when they get handed ever game they want for free in advance.

 

[gphjr14]

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.

Which is exactly why I sell my used games on eBay, I get more back. Its just greed on the part of game developers they're not starving or going bankrupt they just want more money.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

In other news it seems that PA has had more to say on the subject [http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/27/room-481/]:

It turns out that used games are a tremendously controversial issue. Part of the reason response to the comic and post has been so massive is that (aside from our inflammatory presentation) this conversation has been a long time coming. The thing for the commentariat to do about this issue typically is to carve out as populist a stance as possible, to cluck and tut tut about it so as to ingratiate themselves to you as much as possible, and then follow up by posting a picture of a belt buckle. That strikes me as a bit precious.
Because this is the Internet, every argument was spun in a centrifuge instantly and reduced down into two wholly enraged, radically incompatible contingents, as opposed to the natural gradient which human beings actually occupy.
People who buy used games are not pirates, by definition. Used games (used everything, really) are and will continue to be a legal and protected form of commerce. Other industries have done what they can to co-opt, destroy, or harvest those markets, but their existence is settled law. What I have said is that the end result of that purchase from a developer perspective must be indistinguishable. Isn't it? That is the question I couldn't answer. I still can't answer it. And because I couldn't, I had to change the way I invested my leisure dollar.
People want to talk about used cars, or libraries, or any other thing really, but I'm not talking about the universe in general - I'm talking about the tiny part of it I have any control over. That bit up there is the part I can't resolve: the moral dimension contained within the purchase. Yes, I'm giving somebody money when I buy used. Is that sufficient? What is the end result, and what systems am I sustaining by doing so?
I'd rather not think about things like this, believe me. I'd rather be Mr. Perpetual Good Times, but I'm not built that way. On the whole, I'd say thinking has been a tremendous inconvenience.

The bolded part is important. He is saying that from the perspective of the developers, there is no functional difference between a used copy and a pirate copy. So far nobody has disputed that claim. They dance around it by talking legal and illegal, and saying the original owner can't enjoy the game but we aren't talking about that. We are just looking from the perspective of the developer/publisher.

So from that perspective, how are used games different from piracy?

 

[Irridium]

If I buy a used game, why should the publisher/developer get the money? They already got payed when someone bought the game new, then that person was done with it and sold it/traded it in to get some of their investment back.

They already got paid for the game. At this point they're just whining like children.

 

[silversun101]

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.

Obviously you haven't followed PA for all that long.

How is agreeing with a video game company that they would like to make money off the games they have created pandering to corporations? The PA guys are standing up for the artists and programmers and creative minds behind these projects who are being cheated out of the money they deserve for the product they've labored on. This sense of entitlement, especially to a piece of media, makes me sick. I'll say it straight: You do not deserve to own that product unless you have paid for the right to do so. This condemns pirates right out of the gate, but there is a vast grey area where used games are concerned. The problem being addressed is once you've made your purchase, that particular copy is now your property for you to do with as you see fit (within the confines of the law, of course), including selling it so someone else.

 

[Macgyvercas]

If new games were cheaper, I wouldn't buy them used. I'm a fucking college student! I have very little spending money. You want me to buy new, developers, lower the damn prices! Your move, games industry.

/rant

Also,

Alright, time for me to come clean here. This entire used games debate is stupid. I think both sides are overreacting and exaggerating the truth by quite a bit. Yes it's true that not a single dime spent on a used game makes it back to the developer, and all in all I agree with the idea of having to pay for something like a new license to pay online, or giving new purchases exclusive content that used copies don't get. And I always recommend buying new, but if someone doesn't want to spend full price on a game, then who am I to tell them what to do with their hard-earned cash?

But a surprising number of people seem to want to make it downright illegal to sell used games, or at least make it just as looked down upon as piracy. I mean come on now, really? I don't know how much money retailers make supplying and selling new games, but would they make enough to stay afloat? Would people visit game retailers as often if you couldn't get used games at discount prices? And what about older games that you can only buy used? Should it become impossible for people to experience older classics that might never see the light of day on download services?

Personally, I think things are pretty much working fine the way they are. Developers make money off of new purchases when people buy them at stores, stores make money and stay in business by selling the games that get traded in. And another thing, what about all this speculation that games might one day only become available through download? Apparently, Gamestop has tried to come up with a way to remain relevant if that happens, and it already looks like they would be screwed. [http://www.destructoid.com/this-is-how-gamestop-will-tackle-digital-distribution-182276.phtml] (Seriously, would YOU still go there?) Obviously, Gamestop won't last long one way or another if this happens, but couldn't we at least still go there to get the older games for those retro Xbox 360 games that aren't showing up for online resale? Or will we have to resort to buying over-priced rare copies of old games off of eBay just to play them? (Assuming no one bitches about that, too)

And where did this sudden hatred of used games come from, anyways? I don't remember people debating this a year ago.

This wins.

 

[silversun101]

Whoa, that posted 3 times. My mistake.

 

[silversun101]

[ignore]

 

[silversun101]

Alright, time for me to come clean here. This entire used games debate is stupid. I think both sides are overreacting and exaggerating the truth by quite a bit. Yes it's true that not a single dime spent on a used game makes it back to the developer, and all in all I agree with the idea of having to pay for something like a new license to pay online, or giving new purchases exclusive content that used copies don't get. And I always recommend buying new, but if someone doesn't want to spend full price on a game, then who am I to tell them what to do with their hard-earned cash?

But a surprising number of people seem to want to make it downright illegal to sell used games, or at least make it just as looked down upon as piracy. I mean come on now, really? I don't know how much money retailers make supplying and selling new games, but would they make enough to stay afloat? Would people visit game retailers as often if you couldn't get used games at discount prices? And what about older games that you can only buy used? Should it become impossible for people to experience older classics that might never see the light of day on download services?

Personally, I think things are pretty much working fine the way they are. Developers make money off of new purchases when people buy them at stores, stores make money and stay in business by selling the games that get traded in. And another thing, what about all this speculation that games might one day only become available through download? Apparently, Gamestop has tried to come up with a way to remain relevant if that happens, and it already looks like they would be screwed. [http://www.destructoid.com/this-is-how-gamestop-will-tackle-digital-distribution-182276.phtml] (Seriously, would YOU still go there?) Obviously, Gamestop won't last long one way or another if this happens, but couldn't we at least still go there to get the older games for those retro Xbox 360 games that aren't showing up for online resale? Or will we have to resort to buying over-priced rare copies of old games off of eBay just to play them? (Assuming no one bitches about that, too)

And where did this sudden hatred of used games come from, anyways? I don't remember people debating this a year ago.

Actually they are already doing a trial run of this new awards system in select cities to very positive results. Yes, they are rewarding the regulars with accumulative points and promotional discounts, but more importantly they are creating buyer loyalty in new customers, soccer moms and the like, who would just as likely go to walmart to purchase their son's games. Now when Timmy wants The Adventures of Radical Guy 5, mom will say "Wait, I have that GameStop card. I can earn points if we buy it there."

 

[Naheal]

Calumon: ...Are we really arguing over a webcomic?

Penny Arcade tends to have a good point in these regards.

OT: I'll take a neutral stance in this. Both the publisher and the distributer need to make money in this market. When we see digital distribution, a la Steam or Impulse, no distributer sees a dime of it. However, when you go to buy a used game, the devs don't see a dime of it... also, you do need to listen to your wallet, so... I'm on the fence here.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Drop the price on all games to 49.99 and we will talk. Until then, I refuse to pay 60.00 for a game that will most likely turn out to be a big pile of steaming shit. I pay full price for a new copy of a game when i know it will be quality.

 

[Irridium]

Calumon: ...Are we really arguing over a webcomic?

Penny Arcade tends to have a good point in these regards.

OT: I'll take a neutral stance in this. Both the publisher and the distributer need to make money in this market. When we see digital distribution, a la Steam or Impulse, no distributer sees a dime of it. However, when you go to buy a used game, the devs don't see a dime of it... also, you do need to listen to your wallet, so... I'm on the fence here.

All those used games had to have been new. And if they're used, that means they were paid for, so the developer/publisher already got the money for those games. And the person who bought them didn't want them so they traded them in/sold them, recouping some of their investment.

Publishers/Developers lose nothing from used games, they're already been paid for those games.

 

[Gindil]

Calumon: ...Are we really arguing over a webcomic?

Penny Arcade tends to have a good point in these regards.

OT: I'll take a neutral stance in this. Both the publisher and the distributer need to make money in this market. When we see digital distribution, a la Steam or Impulse, no distributer sees a dime of it. However, when you go to buy a used game, the devs don't see a dime of it... also, you do need to listen to your wallet, so... I'm on the fence here.

I really think you should reconsider [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103008-Steam-Promotion-Saves-Introversion-From-Death] that position.

The bolded part is important. He is saying that from the perspective of the developers, there is no functional difference between a used copy and a pirate copy. So far nobody has disputed that claim. They dance around it by talking legal and illegal, and saying the original owner can't enjoy the game but we aren't talking about that. We are just looking from the perspective of the developer/publisher.

So from that perspective, how are used games different from piracy?

My rebuttal is still pretty accurate.

Used markets have been around for a long time. None of it serves the publisher/developer directly. Trying to have Toyota limit what I can do to a car I bought from Nissan isn't going to fly very well. I'll agree that if developers give more incentive to first time buyers, then that's fine. So long as they give others a similar shot, then it's fine (even though I can't agree with every method of the $10 deal). What I do see from the particular example given, is that they've hurt licensing deals with Gamefly (where people rent), and also could cause a split in the used market against them. People may decide not to get the game at all for no server support. Another thing is that the $10 code in licensing deals makes Gamestop That. Much. Richer since that money allows them to hold the game and the code for later customers. And guess what? It's probably not a 50/50 split. In the end, the developer probably gets (max) $2.50 out of that sale. I don't even want to think about people renting Madden with the exact same scenario... 1 game disc, 5 people? It's like a license to print money.

See also: Shamus Young [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/8040-Experienced-Points-Bargains-Are-for-Cheaters]

 

[Naheal]

Calumon: ...Are we really arguing over a webcomic?

Penny Arcade tends to have a good point in these regards.

OT: I'll take a neutral stance in this. Both the publisher and the distributer need to make money in this market. When we see digital distribution, a la Steam or Impulse, no distributer sees a dime of it. However, when you go to buy a used game, the devs don't see a dime of it... also, you do need to listen to your wallet, so... I'm on the fence here.

I really think you should reconsider [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103008-Steam-Promotion-Saves-Introversion-From-Death] that position.

No. Introversion is a dev, not a distributer.

 

[Gindil]

I'm sure that benefited Steam to a good ideal. How is their helping the little guy not assisting them?

 

[Savagezion]

The problem here is alot of people see this as a 2 sided coin, when it fact is is more like a 6 sided die. So lets roll into this. First, I don't see 1 single publisher or devloper complaining about this. As such, this is a hypocritical arguement. How is it "ok" to sell a used anything by these standards? As well people are bitching about a 200% markup that Gamestop employs when selling a used copy. Are any of you aware of the price markup the publishers you are defending are giving you? It is well over 200%. That is why so many crap titles that do poorly are released a year. Kotick already stated that if he could charge more he would. That is business, it is how it works. We all know Kotick doesn't need the money because he is struggling to feed his kids.
The reason things are marked up alot of times is because going into business you have to understand that not all of your product is going to sale. You need to garauntee that 20% of your product will, by itself, pay for your cost. (roughly) So when you rush out to buy a new title, you are in effect paying for those who do not buy. You are assuring the company that there is demand.

I have been in sales for a while now and there are times where I could price drop to ensure the sale. I have had people complaining that it is "too expensive" as they are writing me the check. The key to that whole phrase is this "they are writing me the check". Obviously, it is not too expensive. I don't sell need merchandise, I sell luxury merchandise. The most common response I get on my job is "I don't need that". And my first response is "your right" followed by sales pitches, of course.
With this arguement you could also claim that people who wait for the price of a "new" game to drop are also robbing the company. I hate to say this but anyone with this kind of mentality are the people I love to see walk into my store. Someone with an obligation to buy is actually the person I would LOVE to give the cheaper price to but I can't afford to. It is the smart consumers and cheapskates who not only make me work for my money, but get the better deal. And I assure you nobody really "loses" money when they do. Because it was money that was never had in the first place. This quote:
"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it" is the key rule of sales.

The guy that feels obligated feels it is WORTH 120 (Arbitrary number) bucks today. The other guy feels it is WORTH 90. Both leave the store satisfied with their purchase. And the 120 dollar guy will stay satisfied unless he found out about the 90 guy I sold in the same day. I respect both equally, usually, because both usually did do what they could to match the price point. Some people out there just know how the game is played. Most act like they do, which is where the guy complaining about price as he writes the check falls in. He probably goes to a car lot and kicks tires.

So, to sum up, here we have a hypocritical arguement that games are the only merchandise that should be sold as new only. Video game publishers I assure you areaware of this taking place in the market and adjusted for it a looong time ago. Going into it, they mark up a game higher than a used game salesman. And there are plenty of other faucets we could go into. This ONLY touches the business aspect to it and even then only a small part of that.

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.

Using Gamestop here, Gamestop has purchased X amount of the game and have a license to sale the game at whatever price they want. When you buy your new copy, the publisher has already been paid. You are now paying Gamestop for buying that game ahead of time. There is some crediting that goes on, no doubt, but Gamestop doesn't make commision from 2k based on how many 2k games they sale. Your money is more like a reimbursement for Gamestop's troubles of getting the game for you the day it came out.

At least Gamestop are actually supporting the business. To claim that they are no better than pirates is ludicrous. The fact that there are so many legitamly SOLD copies of the game in circulation shows how many people DID pay the publisher. EVERY LEGITAMATE COPY of the game out there the publishers made their money off of period. Do not compare this to piracy, it makes no sense.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

At least Gamestop are actually supporting the business. To claim that they are no better than pirates is ludicrous. The fact that there are so many legitamly SOLD copies of the game in circulation shows how many people DID pay the publisher. EVERY LEGITAMATE COPY of the game out there the publishers made their money off of period. Do not compare this to piracy, it makes no sense.

I guess I should clarify the position a bit. Gamestop and every other retailer do take risk when they stock a game. The risk is that the game won't sell and their shelf space will not go to a game that would have sold.

My main problem is both the aggressive way Gamestop pushes used games and their whole incentive system to keep money away from the publishers. They give more money for trade ins if you agree to spend it on used games. That completely negates the argument that used game sales support the new game market.

Most gamers have a limited amount of time and money to spend on games. Once you recognize those limits you see that Gamestop is playing a zero sum game against the publishers for those game budgets. If Gamestop buys games used, marks them up 300% then of course they will market that aggressively to maximize profits. They contribute nothing to investing in or creating games but they extract value from the market that those creative works generate.

The problem occurs because Gamestop is the de-facto game specialty game store monopoly. The non-specialized options are Best Buy, Walmart and maybe Target but their selection is made by throwing darts at a game list. So instead of going back to publishers to invest in more games money goes to Gamestop stockholders.

If there was an option to buy direct from publishers that would be great but publishers have agreements not to compete with their retail distribution partners. I wish some big publishers would just say screw it and take the hit of cutting off Gamestop and selling games directly.

I think the final solution will end up being something like Steam for consoles. If Sony is smart they will allow full integration with Steam. If they do then they will totally shoot ahead of MS.