penny arcade equates used games to piracy

[DeathsHands]

So how do they feel about people renting games cheaper than pre-owned (and no profit to the makers after the renter buys the copy right?).

My god.

 

[Shilkanni]

No they only saw the money ONCE for TWO sales of the game, cutting the profit they WOULD have made in half.

The person who bought the game used was never going to buy it at full price! People who buy games used know where to find it new but they don't want it as badly, so they wait and pick it up 2nd hand.

This focus on killing the secondary market for their own product seems sick, and I haven't seen it in many other industries. A used market adds value to the new product.

The people who sell their games are factoring in that it can be sold when they make the initial purchase! If you stop them from being able to resell they will buy less games new.

I guess it comes as part of the 'service vs product' issue, we can sell a CD but not a live show.

I don't think you'll never be able to completely stop the secondary market though, people will even be able to trade accounts & logon details if necessary.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

So how do they feel about people renting games cheaper than pre-owned (and no profit to the makers after the renter buys the copy right?).

I would assume renting would be the same issue. You enjoy the work but you don't give "credit" to the original creators. However in my opinion renting is better because a renter isn't walking into a store with $55 of "game buying" money and spending that on something that doesn't benefit the publisher/developer. A renter is spending $20 a month on gamefly or whatever but he wouldn't be spending that $20 a month on new games anyway.

Also to all the people saying "copyright infringement is illegal and used games are legal" that isn't the issue and isn't relevant to this discussion. Even in countries where downloading for personal use is legal there is still the moral problem.

The issue is that just like piracy, used game sales don't benefit the creators. Is that statement accurate and if it isn't why not?

 

[crazypsyko666]

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.

I should remind people that someone does, in fact, need to go out and buy a copy of a game to crack it and pirate it. Used games are merely slower.

*NOTE* I am not for nor against used games, simply pointing something out and furthering the discussion.

 

[Kagim]

I should remind people that someone does, in fact, need to go out and buy a copy of a game to crack it and pirate it. Used games are merely slower.

*NOTE* I am not for nor against used games, simply pointing something out and furthering the discussion.

The problem is...

1) That is not always the case when it comes to people copying and distributing games on the internet. For example see the recent Halo Reach that was recently brought to light. Who paid the initial purchase on that? Has this happened before?

2) I would be hard pressed to believe that a single copy of Motor storm trades hands anywhere near as much as a single copy of an illegally copied version of it would.

3)The difference between the two yet again is that When copying and distributing a video game on the net the original poster is unlawfully replicating and distributing a product that he does not have legal right to copy and distribute.

Where as used games require that the original purchaser surrenders the game in question to receive money or credit for the product legally.

That is what most people are talking about. Not whether companies are getting screwed or not, but rather the consumers right to sell there stuff at there discretion.

I have the right to sell my possessions at a cost that i deem acceptable as long as said possessions are not transferring in such a way that it could, will cause harm to other people.

Selling an underage kid cigarettes is a health and safety risk.

Selling a game to my friend or trading it in to EB games will not pose a health risk to anyone.

On an aside these things are not at all what the PA comic was about. When in fact the PA comic was about people only being customers to the people they purchased said content from. First buyers are customers of the company, second customers are customers to the people they bought the product from.

However, the OP's misleading title thread, and opening statements slipping right into his own opinion is what most people are arguing over. Not the statement by Tycho and Gabe.

 

[Prof. Monkeypox]

Well I always wait for the price to go down a fair bit before I buy any game (because I don't have the disposable income to shell out $60 for each new game). If that means I have to buy used, so be it. Incidentally, I just got Fallout 3...

 

[squid5580]

No... I don't think they equated it to Piracy. They saw their point and, as Kevin said, it's like a parallel economy. What is happening is certainly something that DOES need to be sorted out. GameStop is making too much money from this business, and something, In my opinion, needs to be done.

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

They are doing something. It is like cars. You can buy a used car and Ford won't see a dime from that. But what Ford can do is make sure you need their parts for your car. So if your brakes go you have to give Ford money to get new brakes. Games have started doing the same thing. You buy the game used but you have to buy parts straight from them to get everything. Since GS or EB is under no obligation to share their profits and they aren't going to keep manufacturing the same games so we never need to buy a used game (since being 5 bucks cheaper is only 1 reason to buy used) I think what they are doing is great. It all works out for everyone.

I still don't see why GS/EB is evil but Gamefly is good.

 

[CLime]

The issue is that just like piracy, used game sales don't benefit the creators. Is that statement accurate and if it isn't why not?

The better question is, why should we care?

Yes, the existence of the secondary market probably means that game developers make less money. So what? The developers and publishers are hurt a little, the consumer benefits a lot. That's called "efficiency," and it's a good thing. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Developers are under no obligation to make games for us at their own expense, just like consumers are under no obligation to choose the most expensive of multiple legal options of purchase. If developers aren't making enough money to compensate for their time and effort, they're free to stop any time they like. Until then, they're making games for themselves, and we're buying games for ourselves.

 

[AlternatePFG]

To the developers, it's pretty much the same thing as piracy, but honestly, if they want us to buy them new, lower the goddamn prices.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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.

Actually no they are starting to implement used online retail for online purchases such as this.

OT: If someone owns a product by buying it they have the right to sell it on. So preowned is not piracy in any way shape or form. As with actual piracy the people never see any money. This is someone who has bought the product is finished with it and or not satisfied with it anymore and wanting to sell on what is now that consumers property to do with as they wish.

 

[godofallu]

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.

The only reason it hasn't gone away for videogame companies is because they refuse to lower their price to reasonable standards.

I tried to buy Baldur's gate Dark Alliance and Diablo 2 the other day. The first game was 60 dollars new (it's been out for year and year and isn't even a current gen game) and the second is still 20 dollars.

Of course I ended up getting used copies of the games, I saved 55 dollars alone on Dark Alliance and another 10 on Diablo 2. If videogame companies were smart enough to go, yeah it's been nearly 10 years maybe we should make the game 10 bucks or so we wouldn't have to buy used.

I will try to work with a videogame company, but when their website sells the game for the full 60 dollars 10+ years after the game came out it no longer is my fault. It's their marketing teams.

Used game sales would be less common if developers kept their price realistic.

 

[GothmogII]

Publishers need to have some kind of contractual arrangement with the retailers that specifies that the retailer needs to provide a portion of the profit received from used game sales. I don't really see why this isn't the case already, but, obviously retailers would be reluctant to adopt such a thing, not to mention that if the publisher puts their foot down on the issue, are they then likely to find the retailer biting them back and refusing to sell their games at all?


Secondly...maybe someone's mentioned it already. Or maybe it's so obvious it doesn't need to be stated, but, used game sales keep older games in circulation. Both in stores, and online. It could be a very foolish plan to have a blanket ban on all used game sales, so there really should be some kind of limitation on such a thing, i.e. x amount of months before a seller can start selling.

Although...I have to wonder, so what if it is akin to piracy? So is book, cd, dvd, and many other types of selling and lending. What exactly makes gaming different in this regard?

 

[saintchristopher]

The simplest fact of the matter is that as of this generation, I can no longer afford to be a gamer purchase new games. It would be financially negligent of me to spend upwards of $60 upon the release of every new game I want.

Just imagine that you're a financially independent twentysomething (if you aren't) who wants to buy the new Halo, Fallout, Call of Duty, and Assassin's Creed games. That's $240 spent within two months of each other. If that's not a lot of money to you, then God Bless and go fuck yourself. But for a lot of other people, that's practically an entire paycheck.

I'm totally sympathetic to developers. But there is no way I can continue buying new games if the pricetag remains that high.

P.S. and WHY can't I afford new games? Because I work at Gamestop. TA-DA!

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

Right of resale, legality of used games trading, or the 'morality' of purchasing games used? None of those are the real issue - the problem with used game sales as an industry is precisely that it creates a parallel economy luring budget conscious game aficionados away from first sale goods. Used cars, used books, used furniture, used basically anything else - those are not vicious parasitic competition existing as a blight upon their respective industries, and the reason for that is simple: Used physical products are not as good as new. Obviously this varies on a case by case basis, but there is always an element of risk or some form of wear, damage, additional mileage, loss of warranty, etc.

Used video games are simply collections of data enclosed on physical media - so long as the media is in a readable state, the data is completely identical in every vital way to that of a new product sitting pristine on a shelf. When you typically buy used goods, you "get what you paid for" - well with used video games, you get what they paid for (they being the folks who buy new), except yours was cheaper. Unless you care about largely irrelevant trappings like manuals and boxes, you are receiving an identical product that costs less money.

All those folks who buy used games now and thus feel inclined to get outraged at being labeled as the functional equivalent of pirates, or compelled to yell at game publishers to "stop whining, used sales exist for everything else!" are missing the point that the products publishers and developers of console titles are competing with are their own titles, identical in every meaningful way, being sold by companies that exist precisely to sell those identical products in a way that does not net those publishers and developers any money; companies that in all likelihood will not even have a new copy of the game to sell to you, should you want one - their entire business model revolves around razor-thin product margins and relentlessly pushing used sales.

Gamestop is a parasitic parallel economy - they prey on the industry that provides them with their products by re-purchasing them for a pittance from customers and then turning around and selling them for almost as much as the original price, which they do while the game is brand spanking new; comparing them to a used car dealership is woefully off the mark. Used car emporiums are competition for new car sales only in the sense that both of them revolve around selling you a car - new cars and used cares are not the same. Used video games and new video games are, or at least they always were in the past. This is not about publishers being greedy, it's about finding a way to compete with the retailers who have become their direct competitors by turning an entire generation of folks with money in hand and a willingness to spend it into non-customers.

Seen in that light, things like online pass and the like make perfect sense - the people complaining about them? Yeah, those aren't actually the customers of the companies implementing them. If they piss you off and you solemnly vow never to buy anything from them again and actually go through with that vow, but you always bought that company's games used? They have lost no money whatsoever from you, you were NEVER their customer in the first place. It doesn't even matter if the people buying their games used now all decide to stop, that's just money they were never going to see not ending up in the hands of the likes of Gamestop; unless implementing such measures somehow leads to a reduction in new game sales, they have nothing to lose - either they get some money from a huge segment of the market that has never provided them any income before, or they receive the same amount of money from that market segment ($0). You cannot make less money than you already do from used game sales as a video game publisher.

So if you don't like having features held hostage or removed from your games because you didn't buy them new, well that's just too bad for you - you're not a paying customer of the folks who made those decisions, and catering to the desires of people who do not give you any money isn't good business sense; you get what you paid for now.

 

[Sev72]

If you buy a used game the original owner must have purchased the game to begin with, so they did see a dime. It also means that that former owner cannot continue to use that product while with piracy they can, which is the key difference.

Way to miss the point dude =P

What the OP means is this:
Say, for instance, 1 copy of FarCry 2 is sold then the publisher sees the money for that copy...Said guy finishes FarCry 2 the proceeds to sell the game...Another guy picks up the used copy of Farcry 2 and buys it and finishes it, then sells it again etc etc etc

now say the first guy payed full price for Farcry 2 and 20 people bought that copy after it had been sold, bought, played, finished, sold etc, then thats £39.99 (or whatever percentage of the sale they get) for the 1 copy the original guy bought, yet 20 other people after him have played the game without the developer seeing a penny since it is used.

In Laymans terms, 1 guy helped the developer and 20 people after him played the game without helping them
New: Developer gets paid
Used: Developer does NOT get paid

So in conclusion I agree totally with PennyArcade on this matter (for the first fucking time) as people who play pirate games don't pay the developer of whatever game they are playing

Same goes for rental companies like LoveFilm:
For example, 20 copies of FF13 are bought by them, so theres the developer paid for 20 copies of the game.. They go on to rent the game, say, 100 times...That makes a loss of 80 potential copies of the game sold due to people who call themselves gamers not giving a damn about the dedicated team who made said game

Im not claiming innocence on the "used games" matter as Ive bought plenty of used games before...I just feel dirty for doing so as those people that made the game should be paid for their work by the people they are setting out to entertain

Way to miss the point of my post, dude. I realize that the developer sees no money from used game sales the same as they wouldn't with piracy. My point is that with piracy the original still continues to own that product, while selling a used game the original owner can no longer use that product. While both hurt the developers one of them is illegal and there is a difference if you read my post.

 

[AugustFall]

It is not piracy it is a black market, you buy something and then undercut the original price selling the exact same product.
You can't equate it to anything else because really only digital media doesn't degrade over time or become less than the original product.

 

[Sev72]

Sorry for the double post but: Ok, yea I agree that used sales hurt developers just like piracy does but what would your solution be to used games? It is perfectly legal, it's a thriving industry and it probably won't go away anytime soon. Is there anything that can realistically be done about it?

 

[teebeeohh]

sry but buying a game does mean leasing it from the publisher, it becomes my fucking property and i can do whatever i like with it, including resale. Would anyone say buying a used car kills the automobile industry?(and besides what would we with all the sleazy guys in grown suits)

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

The better question is, why should we care?

Yes, the existence of the secondary market probably means that game developers make less money. So what? The developers and publishers are hurt a little, the consumer benefits a lot. That's called "efficiency," and it's a good thing. Morality has nothing to do with it.

If morality has nothing to do with it then from a purely practical perspective you might as well pirate.