penny arcade equates used games to piracy

[Crimson_Dragoon]

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

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

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

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

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

So by your logic, buying a used car is stealing from the car companies. And buying a house, as opposed to building one, is stealing from construction companies. This is BS.

When someone buys a game, they have a right to do pretty much whatever they want with it (other than things put copies online, which breaks copyright laws). If they want to sell it to someone (a person or a store), they have a right to because that game is their property. It's not illegal and shouldn't be treated like it is.

And you're really trying to argue that used games are worse than piracy because they take more money away? At least with used games, the actual game has been purchased at least once, which isn't necessarily the case with pirated games. And when people get money from places like Gamestop for used games, you know where that money usually goes? Towards buying more games.

 

[ReverendJ]

Ok, so the argument in favor of buying pre-owned is cost. So we drop initial prices. Not terribly difficult to figure out, you rewrite the formula to work in more units sold at a lower cost. Oh, wait... That would require a concession on the part of the developers. The hell with that, it's the consumers they're mad at, and it shows.

I'm sorry, but I'm not terribly comfortable with dropping $60 on a new game that could prove to be shit. I've been burned before, and unfortunately I am of such limited resources that every time it happened, it hurt... bad. Not that the developers who put it out were necessarily concerned, I'd given them my money so they marked it off as a 'win.' So when their next title comes out, well, sorry, I can't take the risk, not with things priced as they are. Bought a shit game and wish to recoup some of your losses? HAW HAW no, thanks for playing. Now listen to us hype the next P.O.S.

I buy new, whenever possible... and a lot of that has been on Steam, which sporadically marks things down to a level I can afford. There's no chance of having a physical copy I can pawn off, sure, and I've gotten burned there, too, but it was for a hell of a lot less than when I buy new.

EDIT: Oh... and as much as I may be in favor of being able to do whatever the hell you want with what you've bought, and thus support the used games market, it sounds like Gamestop is a pretty shady operation. I'm against that sort of B.S. wherever it's found, and here (joy of joys) it abounds on both sides of the issue. Yay.

 

[MisterStaypuft]

Lots of moronic car analogies here. Here's why they're moronic.

1) Why yes, if you are deciding between a new chevy and a used one, and choose the used one, you are making a conscious decision to not support GM's attempts to become a healthy company again.
This is exactly the point being made over at PA. You're not giving money to the developers, they have no obligation to make you happy.

2) there is a possible scenario where, when you buy a used car from its previous owner, the money you pay him is what allows him to be able to afford a new car. Contributing in a diffuse, second-hand way to new car purchases.
I suppose this is possible in games too, maybe my little brother needs 10 more dollars to go out and get Mass Effect 2, and I pay him 10 dollars for his old copy of Mario 64 or something. I've enabled him to make a new purchase. But notice that I've just helped EA, not Nintendo. Also note that in this scenario, if we make the transaction through Gamestop or similar, they make the process much, much less efficient by way of the huge difference between buyback price and used sale price.

3) I don't think anyone's going to protest the buying and selling of games that are no longer available new.

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

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.

It's the same principle with cars, reselling a car is fine but making a replica of said car and selling that is illegal in so many ways.

Games developers need to stop bitching.

I'm happy to see I was beat to it in one of the first replies. There is nothing special about games that makes the same rules that apply to everything else not apply to them. In the US, at least, we have this thing called the right of first sale [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine]. As long as you don't make additional copies (breaking copyright in the process), their control over what you do with it after they sell it to you pretty much does not exist. If I buy a game (or anything else, for that matter), I can play it, leave it sitting on my shelf, set it on fire, or give/sell it to someone else, and that's none of their business.

If they can't remain profitable while people sell used copies of games, they're doing it wrong. Either give people more incentive to keep the game/buy it new (preferably not artificially by including silly limitations) or stop spending such obscene amounts of money making the games in the first place. No, you are not guaranteed to make that $50 million back. If you want to take that risk, that's fine, but no one's obligated to buy enough copies at a high enough price for you to turn a profit just because it exists.

This is not used games killing the game industry. This is the game industry failing basic economics (or more likely understanding it perfectly but pretending they don't as an excuse to get away with things that are bad for the consumer but make it easier for them to make more money).

 

[mayney93]

So people who buy second hand cars are in fact car pirates?

that would explain the salesman's eye patch and wooden leg

 

[Kelethor]

Great job equating a used game purchaser to an overweight inbred sexist freak penny arcade.

This reminds me of a Christian mini comic I read once, where the professor teaching evolution would be a fat, loud, angry individual shouting about how much of an idiot you were if you believed in god, while the one Christian student was an attractive, young man telling us how evolution can't dis-prove creationism.

Subliminal messaging FTW >.>

 

[CobraX]

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 - Besides I don't give a fuck what you call it, I call it buying games at a reasonable price. $60 brand new, or $20 used.....

 

[Kagim]

Lots of moronic car analogies here. Here's why they're moronic.

1) Why yes, if you are deciding between a new chevy and a used one, and choose the used one, you are making a conscious decision to not support GM's attempts to become a healthy company again.
This is exactly the point being made over at PA. You're not giving money to the developers, they have no obligation to make you happy.

2) there is a possible scenario where, when you buy a used car from its previous owner, the money you pay him is what allows him to be able to afford a new car. Contributing in a diffuse, second-hand way to new car purchases.
I suppose this is possible in games too, maybe my little brother needs 10 more dollars to go out and get Mass Effect 2, and I pay him 10 dollars for his old copy of Mario 64 or something. I've enabled him to make a new purchase. But notice that I've just helped EA, not Nintendo. Also note that in this scenario, if we make the transaction through Gamestop or similar, they make the process much, much less efficient by way of the huge difference between buyback price and used sale price.

3) I don't think anyone's going to protest the buying and selling of games that are no longer available new.

Most people are not commenting on PA's stance on Used games, but rather the OP saying its worse then the P2P network of games, movies, and music. Which is bull.

Edit: Remember, PA didn't technically say that they were the exact same thing. The poster implied it then kicked it up a notch with his own beliefs, many people very likely didn't even read the link, or are simply replying to OP's own opinion, and not PA's.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

I think the point is that it is an inconsistent position to say you are morally against piracy because it hurts devs/publishers by denying potential revenue, but be fine with used games which arguably hurt devs/publishers even more for the exact same reason.

 

[Sev72]

Look, if I buy something I now own that thing, be it a disc with a program on it or a batch of corn fritters. Now if someone had some way to make an exact copy of my corn fritters without taking my corn fritters that would allow them to consume that product as well as me. However, if I sell them the corn fritters that I bought I can no longer use my corn fritters. Do you see the difference?

 

[Tatl Tael]

Pre owned games are way cheaper to buy than new. i have a pre owned copy of assasins creed that i got for 5£. I cant afford a new game but I wouldnt want to pirate it

 

[Sev72]

I think the point is that it is an inconsistent position to say you are morally against piracy because it hurts devs/publishers by denying potential revenue, but be fine with used games which arguably hurt devs/publishers even more for the exact same reason.

I won't speak for everyone but I don't pirate things because it is against the law. I am fine buying used games because it isn't against the law.

Mandatory double post apology

 

[Gazisultima]

So basically what it boils down to, is publishers wanting more money than they already have. So greed. Why am I not surprised?

I think the recession has hit publishers more than we think if they suddenly speak out against used game sales, when said sales have been going on since games became mainstream.

 

[Robyrt]

The problem is not used games. The problem is Gamestop.

Gamestop has 22% of the video game market in the US (Target, Best Buy and Walmart have 50% between them). It operates on a bizarre but highly profitable business model that, unlike other media chains, pushes new and used merchandise to the same consumer at the same time, thus undercutting the natural price curve of new games. It has enough market share and hardcore cachet that no publisher can afford to say no to them, so they've resorted to a guerrilla war via DLC, online sales and OnLive.

The only other major media store that asks customers, "Do you want to buy used?" is Amazon. They too are beating traditional stores to a pulp. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

 

[Bubbay]

With 50 replies, you'd think that more than one responder would have actually read the Penny Arcade article.

PA is not saying that the used games market is morally on the same ground as piracy, they're saying it's economically on the same ground. This is indisputably true -- the developers don't see a dime of this secondary market. The only person I saw who honestly tried to put them morally on the same footing is the OP.

With all of the analogies to the car market, I think it's important to point out a key part of this market: yes, you are paying a lower cost, but you are also getting less of a product. A used car will have more miles, more wear and tear, less of a warranty (if it has any warranty at all), etc. All of this factors into any decision to buy used vs. new.

With the used game market, you have historically gotten the exact same product. There is no difference between the used game and the new game and this leads into the main part of PA's (and THQ's, who PA was discussing) argument -- companies are now including features that will only work for the initial buyer in an effort to encourage the primary market. This is what was causing the real uproar, not any imagined ethical argument over the used game market.

FWIW, I agree with the game companies adding in additional features that are exclusive to the first buyer. There needs to be some sort of tangible incentive to buy new over used.

 

[Kagim]

I think the point is that it is an inconsistent position to say you are morally against piracy because it hurts devs/publishers by denying potential revenue, but be fine with used games which arguably hurt devs/publishers even more for the exact same reason.

Nooo...

Because File sharing video games, movies and music that you haven't even originally purchased in the first place is not something you have the right to.

While on the other hand when you legal acquire video games through EB, friends, or a garage sale you have the legal right to sell or barter that singular and particular copy of said product.

I have no right to upload Bioshock to torrent sites or lime wire regardless if i paid for it or not.

I have the right to sell my copy of Bioshock to my friend, coworker, next door neighbor, or random ebay buyer.

I have the right to exchange my personal property to anyone willing to trade with me.

 

[Firoth]

So schools are pirating text books and educational software? Those bastards! And libraries...taking money away from book writers...Dear gods piracy is everywhere!

As far as I'm concerned, I bought the game, so the company got their money. If I want to let a friend barrow my game, or even have my game, that's my choice. I don't have the game anymore that way, so it's not like he got it for free, he got it for the price that I payed for it. They company still has my $60 or whatever, and there's still only my one corresponding game to go with it.
What would happen to multiplayer games then? Would all my friends have to pay a certain amount into my console in order to play it? I mean, they didn't buy the game, I did, so they would technically be enjoying the game for free.