penny arcade equates used games to piracy

[Gunner 51]

My thoughts on this are...

Publishers are nothing more than wholesalers, they aren't entitled to a second share of the profits IMO.

A Game Retailer orders 500 games from a publisher who represents (I used that term in the loosest possible sense) a developer. The retailer pays the publisher and all is fair and above board. This is where the publishers should bow out of the market, they have sold their products and have their money from the retailers.

The retailer then sells it's stock to the gamer on with a mark-up to make profit. (Minus staff salaries, overheads, rental, utilities etc.)

Gamer is out of pocket and has completed the game after a few days and wishes to try something new. But he's a bit short on cash and wants to try the next game, so the retailer offers a convenient way to make up the difference. (By offering to buy the old game there and then - albeit though nickel and diming.)

But this is where things get silly - the retailer who has bought the game off the gamer, has resold it on for near enough full-price. This is not a matter for the publisher, but a matter for government / trading standards or some form of financial ombudsman.

The only people getting hurt by the retailers are not the publishers. They had their money when they sold 500 games to the retailer.

The publishers have no right to dictate who the gamer should sell their games to.

 

[Eternalsun]

Why do you care?

 

[Shilkanni]

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.

You really don't get it.

Firstly - I don't buy 2nd hand games and I haven't sold or traded in a game in the past 10 years. I'm only arguing about it because I don't like it when people are tricked into thinking something is bad when there is nothing wrong with it. Nothing wrong with it morally, nothing wrong with it legally. Of course you are giving the gaming industry less of your money, just like when you buy a game on sale... no-one is arguing this. If it's all giving the gaming industry more money you can buy multiple copies or something, or shop around for the highest price.

The ability to SELL a game (or any product) makes it worth more to the buyer.

If I know I can sell something for $50 I might be more likely to buy it for $100.
If I know I can buy it used a little after release I might wait and buy it used.

By this method two cheapskates who never were going to buy the game for $100 might end up resulting in 1 sale.

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.

It's only equivalent to an 80% piracy rate in a bizarro-world where there's something wrong with selling something you're not using... or buying 2nd hand products.

I'd also suggest that any game where the average copy is resold four times after the initial purchase it might just be a terrible game that no-one wants to keep, and they're lucky they sold a million units.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

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.

Since pretty much forever, ownership has implied equity. Your money doesn't disappear when you put it into a thing. It's still there, in "thing" form. As a consumer, you have a long-established legal right to salvage a portion of your ownership equity through resale of assets. This applies to everything - clothes, cars, homes, books, movies, and video games.

Publishers hate the idea of resale because it diminishes their profits, but that's sort of how consumer rights function. They exist to protect us from purely profit-driven entities with no moral or ethical compunctions. Despite what the PR lackeys might tell you, theoretical profit loss does not mean someone's committing a crime. Yes, they'd make more money if pre-owned sales were illegal. They'd also make more money if competition were illegal. Or negative reviews. Or rentals.

The publishers should be active participants in the resale market. They should facilitate the trade-ins, which would give them some measure of control over (and ownership of) the process. Instead, we have an enormous disconnect between them and us, and Gamestop has filled that chasm with disgusting profiteering. Now the game makers are utilizing Gamestop's greed as ammo in their assault on a consumer right that is probably a few minutes younger than the very concept of "the consumer". It's transparent and offensive.

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"

This is just the worst argument.

If something is free to anyone, it's free to everyone. Why should anyone pay for games if you don't?

If your disinterest justifies your theft, how can you prove that disinterest - especially when pirating the game objectively proves an interest level greater than zero/aversion?

What happens to the industry when everyone is suddenly (and conveniently) disinterested in everything?

Why are the most pirated (and apparently least interesting) games also the best-selling (and most interesting) ones?

I could spend all day shooting holes in this argument, but all that matters is this: if everyone treated the industry the way you do, we wouldn't have an industry. A system's rules must necessarily promote, first and foremost, the continued existence of the system. Violating these rules is a willfully destructive act, and it is rightly condemned by anyone who enjoys the products of the system.

You're a leech. At least have the fortitude to own it.

 

[Signa]

Personally, I agree with the OP 100%. If I'm going to buy a game, it's because I like it and want to see more of it. If I buy used, then the people who I need to make the game for me are not going to get any money. I may as well as just pirate the game at that point because it makes fuck-all the difference in the end. At least if I pirate something I still have my money. The real folly of used games is it makes you feel like you've done your job as a consumer because you have bought the game and you own it. It might be legal, and it might be fair, but it did nothing to help the people you should be trying to support with your purchase. With piracy as the alternative, there is no sense of ownership, and I'd still be encouraged morally to buy the game I liked.

I'm also sick of all the AWFUL analogies in this thread. Used games are not at all like used cars, or any other used product. Games are information, and you can't equate the same principles to a tangible product that you can to information.

Lastly, publishers need to stop bitching. They are going to complain every time they don't get the money they think they've earned, and the only difference between this complaint and their one about piracy is that no one is agreeing with them this time.

 

[Shilkanni]

The real folly of used games is it makes you feel like you've done your job as a consumer because you have bought the game and you own it. It might be legal, and it might be fair, but it did nothing to help the people you should be trying to support with your purchase.

You have done your job as a consumer.
Your job is not to pay the maximum price whenever possible!

It does indirectly support the people making the games, because a healthy used (secondary) market increases the value of the new product.

If no-one bought used games... No-one could sell or trade in games.
There are people who buy games new 100% and then sell them back for 50%.
For the people who do this a game costs 50% but they only get to have it for a while.
These people would buy less new games if they couldn't sell any of them back.

Of course you support the developer and their publisher more (probably much more) by buying new, but to say it somehow doesn't support the gaming industry at all or to compare it to piracy or stealing is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.

Used games are not at all like used cars, or any other used product.

Not like any other used product? Are they brainwashing you?
Books, Music, DVDs come to mind.

 

[Savagezion]

I strongly agree with what Shilkanni posted 5 posts up. And I will highlight these two points:

Minor revisions

Two people who never were going to buy the game for $50 might end up buying it at a half-off sale resulting in 1 sale.

Price drops are a marketing strategy people. You aren't "robbing" the company of anything. It pisses me off when I see people who don't understand how a free market works and claims it to be the opposite of what it is. IN the above scenario that was two people who were NOT going to buy. By dropping the price point, it resulted in more sales which is more money/profit. Consumers are NOT OBLIGATED to buy anything. Businesses however, are obligated to meet the demands of the consumer. It isn't the consumers job to figure out a way to meet the price point. IT IS THE JOB of the business to find the price point the consumer can meet.

How the hell does someone not grasp that? I understood that concept that in the 2nd grade.

If publishers were worried about this, they would drop their price point to make Used game distrubutors profit margins smaller. But obviously, it isn't worth doing it because they are obviously bringing in enough.

I'd also suggest that any game where the average copy is resold four times after the initial purchase it might just be a terrible game that no-one wants to keep, and they're lucky they sold a million units.

First off, the whole 80% thing Cynical Skeptic was quoted with is so freaking rediculous it can't be considered rationally. If it rained fish twice a week it would solve world hunger but it holds no real bearing on reality.
I bring up this point because it important to stress that if a game dev/publisher is making games you don't want to keep, there is a problem and it isn't with the consumer. I recently considered taking GTA4 to Gamestop to trade in for credit. Found out it was worth 4 dollars. So, I kept it. I mention that because most of the time, the tade off credit isn't worth it. Additionally, buying a new recent release as opposed to a used recent release at gamestop saves you 5 dollars. 5 dollars ensures you are the only person to have played that copy. In all honesty, Gamestop's incentive for dealing in used games just isn't that inticing overall.

This isn't a plague in gaming, its like this side thing that should be and is usually met with apathy across the boards. Not once have I heard of a dev or a publisher complain about used games sales costing them money. Even they dare not take that head on. Piracy at least people can see a point there but used games is nonsense.

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.

Honestly, I don't see Gamestop as being aggressive on this topic. It is just a ploy to get you to bring your butt back into their store. And my trade ins are worth the same amount even if I tell them I were to promise to spend it all on used games. GTA4 is worth 4 bucks no matter what I spend that 4 bucks on. If you are referring to the 10% off thing, then am I really suppose to get exctied over $0.40?
The trick here is a legal version of bait and switch. They bait you with the trade in system and once you are there, well you are a gamer. You will probably spend money. Especially, since you just got credit. Which title looks better? One that has been out for 6 months used (obviously, someone didn't like it) or the new one that came out last week that everyone is talking about? This tactic does 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.

Then more developers need to read your first sentence if it is truly that wide spread. You market towards your audience. Even by this standard, Gamestop is simply employing a smarter business strategy. Competative marketing is what I see here. The publishers offer you nothing if you buy their game and do not like it. Except the line "maybe you will like our next title, buy it." Gamestop will help you get something that you do like. So that your entire purchase was not in vain. Plus, they are aware there is a small market for used games.

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.

Gamestop isn't a monopoly. I have about 4 video game stores to choose from. The only problem is, Gamestop is the only one that offers gamers decent deals through trade in. One store will charge you 40 dollars for Mario Party 3 and claim it as a collectors item. IMO very few SNES games should sell for the same price as PS3 games.

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.

IMO that is the last thing this industry needs. Publishers already think they rank just below God. (I don't think you get egos like that by constantly losing money in a business field.) These are the same people who will force you to buy a new copy of a game you already bought if you use up your 5 installs you are allowed and not feel guilty about it in the slightest. Yet, here I have people telling me I am suppose to feel bad that I bought a game I was not fully convinced on when it came out. My last game I bought used was inFamous and I am glad I didn't buy it when it came out as it is the epitomy as to why moral choice in games are bad. Moral choice took an otherwise GREAT game there and tainted it for me. Making inFamous "alright". Thus to me inFamous was worth the 25 dollars I paid for it. It is not a game worth 50 bucks. Mass Effect, Dead Space, hell even GTA4 was worth 50 dollars. (And I didn't care for GTA4. But it was worth 50 bucks.)

As for Steam, I don't care for it. I have been denied to play games enough as it is and I don't even have that many games through Steam. Maybe if they can make it more stable and dependable. I don't like buying a game and then having someone say I can't play it on my day off for 3 random hours. I would prefer that system where you get games in the mail compared to steam.

 

[Savagezion]

STupid internet. (dble post)

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

SNIP

Ive already had this arguement with another user here, i conceded defeat, i accept my reasoning is poor, i wont pirate any games like mystery dungion again which is the ONLY one i accept it was wrong for me to pirate, and even then it ironically helped with a sale. Please dont go to petty insults such as leech, it demeans the whole debate.

As a matter of fact ive pirated 4 games. 3 of which i own on my NES and wanted on my laptop. The fourth was for a cousin to try out while he stayed over, mystery dungion. He then went and purchased the game, i have since deleted it from my computer. Please dont assume im some sort of piracy overlord when you dont actually know anything more about me than my views. I dont think pirating every new game is ok. I think pirating very very old games that iether, are not sold in shops anymore other than second hand, or you already own is ok. I would never, and have never pirated a game for the Xbox(360 or otherwise) the PS2/3 or the wii/gamecube. I always buy games from companies who have released them in the previous 10-15 years. After that i think that the profit they make is more dependent on new releases and as such pirating this game (that may not even be sold any more) barely damages their industry at all.

I personally wouldnt mind if piracy had a major clamp down, i just wouldnt be able to enjoy my classic games on my computer without iether, buying a NES again, or digging up these games from ancient second hand shops. I wouldnt be angry or demand i could do it again, its just a passing interest to find really old but fun games and play them on my laptop. How much money does nintendo make from mario 64? Well i dont feel bad that i pirated it, since i owned it before anyway but sold it onto a friend.

 

[StBishop]

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"

Well here's the thing, that second sale might have been non-existant if it were a new product. I'm not sure about in the US, but over here in GAME or GameStation, the difference between a brand new PS3 game (£34.99 to £39.99) and a previously owned copy of the same game (£29.99 - £34.99) can be quite significant.

The difference between pirating a game and buying it pre-owned, is that whilst the money from the sale of a pre-owned game won't go to the developers, it does go to the shop which they will use to pay wages and to buy in future stock. I worked at my local GAME for a couple months, the sales for New vs Pre-Owned titles was so vastly in favour of the pre-owned because of how cheap they are.

This explains why GAME head office are getting up everyones arses over here in AUS. Here, no one buys used,[footnote]In my experience, I realise that some people buy used but it seems rare[/footnote] they don't trust it. Alot of people think used games are going to be scratched and not work, which can be true, and most people, in my experience, would rather have a mint copy for an extra $10.00 which is less than an hours wage on minimum wage.

I've not seen a pre-owned game be any greater than a $10.00 saving.

Plus, all our games are over priced anyway. If you're paying $99.95 anyway, why not pay $109.95?

In regard to the topic at hand, yes, companies are greedy. No, used sales are not the same as piracy.

I see no reason you can't wait a week and buy the game for $10.00 more. If you've saved your pennies up for 3 months or whatever 1 more week won't kill you.

I've never understood the appeal of pre-owned games. I'm like the cheapest guy I know. I'll walk 5km's (like 2 miles) down the road for a 50 cent cheaper bus fare. If I'm going to be waiting i may as well do something useful with my time.
I'd rather buy a 2L bottle of Coca Cola that I won't drink all of, then carry it around all day and take it home to have later than save like 5 cents and get an ice cold 600mL bottle.

I just think that if you're going to say "I can't afford new games" then maybe you should consider not buying games.

Having said all of that, I don't have a problem with pre-owned game sales. I just don't understand them.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

This explains why GAME head office are getting up everyones arses over here in AUS. Here, no one buys used, they don't trust it. Alot of people think used games are going to be scratched and not work, which can be true, and most people, in my experience, would rather have a mint copy for an extra $10.00 which is less than an hours wage on minimum wage.

I've not seen a pre-owned game be any greater than a $10.00 saving.

Plus, all our games are over priced anyway. If you're paying $99.95 anyway, why not pay $109.95?

In regard to the topic at hand, yes, companies are greedy. No, used sales are not the same as piracy.

I see no reason you can't wait a week and buy the game for $10.00 more. If you've saved your pennies up for 3 months or whatever 1 more week won't kill you.

I've never understood the appeal of pre-owned games. I'm like the cheapest guy I know. I'll walk 5km's (like 2 miles) down the road for a 50 cent cheaper bus fare. If I'm going to be waiting i may as well do something useful with my time.
I'd rather buy a 2L bottle of Coca Cola that I won't drink all of, then carry it around all day and take it home to have later than save like 5 cents and get an ice cold 600mL bottle.

I just think that if you're going to say "I can't afford new games" then maybe you should consider not buying games.

Having said all of that, I don't have a problem with pre-owned game sales. I just don't understand them.

Places like GAME push used sales so hard because there's a crap load of people who buy from Amazon, Play, eBay and other stores, then trade in at GAME (usually to use their 'we'll beat any trade-in price' policy). We usually ended up so flooded with trade-ins.

I don't know about stores elsewhere, but in the UK places like GAME won't accept scratched disks and they give discounts for games missing a manual or with a damaged case. Also, it's not a case of "I can't afford new games", it's just that sometimes the pre-owned are just as good for less (God of War III brand new came out at £39.99 most places. Within the first week, pre-owned copies were going for £29.99, a significant saving). Also most places will actually let you look at the disc and case before you complete the purchase.

Also pre-owned titles are great for a cheap thrill sometimes. PS3 games that came out a year ago that I didn't buy, have fallen as cheap as £14.99 (the price I picked up a second hand special edition inFamous for). All this being said, I'm a video game snob. I don't like platinum re-releases, I don't buy second hand on new releases. But I understand that not everyone can scrape together the £40 to get the latest PS3 or 360 game and would rather get it a tenner cheaper.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

I think there is a compromise solution but it requires education and initiative.

1. game buyers need to acknowledge that unless publishers get lots of money for games then game budgets will gradually shrink until there aren't any more spectacles like Mass Effect 3 or Bioshock. But the problem is that games are too expensive to buy new all the time.

Encourage everyone to buy games as gifts (hey publishers, more gift worthy collectors editions plx). People feel justified spending more on a gift for a friend than they would on themselves.

2. don't sell your games for less than 25% of new price to Gamestop. That is just a ripoff. Instead use Ebay or Craigslist.

3. don't buy a used game for more than 50% of the new price. Again that is a ripoff. Better to trade your game (http://www.goozex.com/trading/asp/welcome.asp)or rent it.

 

[Quiet Stranger]

I'll still buy used games, mainly because chances are there isn't new copies of the used game I'm buying

 

[Shilkanni]

1. game buyers need to acknowledge that unless publishers get lots of money for games then game budgets will gradually shrink until there aren't any more spectacles like Mass Effect 3 or Bioshock.

Games are doing well as an industry, profits are going up, budgets are going up. It's not an endangered industry. They are looking out for their shareholders and not the health of the industry or quality of games. Quality games continue to be made by skilled and passionate developers, not just big budgets.

It's not your responsibility as a consumer to pay as much as possible (in fact economics assumes you will look after your own interest).

Your other message is something I think we can agree on. Don't let yourself get ripped off by Gamestop, buying and selling on ebay & Craigslist are good alternatives. Offer to Buy & Sell from friends.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Of course you are giving the gaming industry none of your money

I fixed a typo there.

At least I hope it was a typo. I really hope you don't you think the video game industry sees any of the proceeds from used sales. Of course, after reading your post... I don't have much hope of this.

 

[Shilkanni]

...you are giving the gaming industry less of your money

If you're buying it used... someone bought that game. 1 new sale was made.
If you're buying it used... someone sold that game. That person gave full price upon initial purchase, but they got some of their money back. Often the people who sell games back go into the initial purchase knowing that they can sell it back! It's part of the value of owning a game to them and part of what they're paying for.

The person who made the 1st purchase and then sold it isn't a Hero and the 2nd person to buy it isn't a Villain. And neither of them wanted the game as much as someone who bought it new and never resold it.

All people who legally owned a single copy of a game at some point of it's life have contributed to the gaming industry. Not a lot... Between all of them they have only purchased one copy.

Gamespot is making most of the money, more than their share for sure when they buy games for peanuts and resells them at near full price.