Poll: Boycott Rage

[CM156_v1legacy]

Yes they do, if the game is for sale used, it was already bought new and the publishers already got their money.

Fair enough, but its still their work being sold and resold. I don't see the problem of getting a cut of that profit if they don't already.

The problem is that they aren't entitled to be paid more than once per copy of the game.

Would you mind explaining to me why? I understand that they shouldn't if its just a friend selling the game to another friend, but if they game is being sold to Gamestop and then resold from Gamestop back to a customer, then the developer should get some of that profit. Be it in the form of it being sold back or it being sold to another person.

First Sale Doctrine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine]
That's why. They cannot controll what happens to a copyrighted item once they sell it once. They already made their money off of the "First Sale" and thus, get none when it changes hands. Even if the changing of hands is done for profit.

Yes they do, if the game is for sale used, it was already bought new and the publishers already got their money.

Fair enough, but its still their work being sold and resold. I don't see the problem of getting a cut of that profit if they don't already.

The problem is that they aren't entitled to be paid more than once per copy of the game.

Would you mind explaining to me why? I understand that they shouldn't if its just a friend selling the game to another friend, but if they game is being sold to Gamestop and then resold from Gamestop back to a customer, then the developer should get some of that profit. Be it in the form of it being sold back or it being sold to another person.

Sure, what CM156 said and I'll add a little to it.

They sell the game to you. You now own it and when you sell it, you (the owner) are entitled to all of the money. The person who bought it becomes the new owner and so on and so forth.

To push it further, should you sell the game to Gamestop. Should Gamestop pay you when they sell it because you once owned it? No and the same applies to the publishers. They sell it once and it is no longer theirs to sell.

Seems my post got eaten, so if this is a double post my bad. Yup double post sorry!

I agree up to the point where after its sold, the person who bought it can do whatever as long as they don't infringe on the copyright. This part however "The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained" is pretty dumb to me. It just seems that retailers have found a loophole where they don't have to inform the developer/publisher of how many copies of the used game they have sold and don't have to pay anything.

Think about it dear reader:
Why is it their obligation to give money back or inform them that a used sale was made on an item they already sold once? Why? There really isn't a reason. For the simple reason that the game they sold is no longer theirs (The publishers, that is).

 

[Epona]

Yes they do, if the game is for sale used, it was already bought new and the publishers already got their money.

Fair enough, but its still their work being sold and resold. I don't see the problem of getting a cut of that profit if they don't already.

The problem is that they aren't entitled to be paid more than once per copy of the game.

Would you mind explaining to me why? I understand that they shouldn't if its just a friend selling the game to another friend, but if they game is being sold to Gamestop and then resold from Gamestop back to a customer, then the developer should get some of that profit. Be it in the form of it being sold back or it being sold to another person.

First Sale Doctrine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine]
That's why. They cannot controll what happens to a copyrighted item once they sell it once. They already made their money off of the "First Sale" and thus, get none when it changes hands. Even if the changing of hands is done for profit.

I agree up to the point where after its sold, the person who bought it can do whatever as long as they don't infringe on the copyright. This part however "The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained" is pretty dumb to me. It just seems that retailers have found a loophole where they don't have to inform the developer/publisher of how many copies of the used game they have sold and don't have to pay anything.

Why does it seem dumb? Why should they be forced to reveal any sales information to the publisher or pay anything to the publisher?

 

[duchaked]

normally I don't care much if multiplayer is restricted if I don't get the game new because competitive mp isn't something I get into in a lotta diff games, but restricting stuff from single player...whoo well that's a bit of a hit hahaha

admittedly, while I don't like that practice starting, can't say I'm too happy about GameStop making so much profit from used games. okay so I love finding old games I never bothered to try out and they be super cheap, but maybe I'm just pissed that a new game is like $60 and then a used game that just game out is like $55...and yeah the developer will never see any of that 55

 

[xXAsherahXx]

Everyone on the Escapist complains about games not being daring enough. You want that to stop? Buy more new games so that devs don't have to worry so much about profit. Maybe then they can think about taking more risks.

I'm tired of the "I hate my locked content" argument. You COULD just wait for the price to go down and then buy it new. Of course you can still buy used games, but how about buying older ones that don't have much of an impact on profit margins?

As the industry has GROWN, the industry has become less daring. The reason is that they don't have to risk being daring, they know people will buy the next COD clone anyway. It's when people aren't buying that they have to start thinking out of the box.

You're correct, but I believe that, in addition, since the industry is losing a decent (not an "Oh my god, panic") portion of money through used games, they feel they have to put out shit they know we will buy to make up for the losses they think they have suffered. Also, another reason for the next COD clone is because they know that FPS transcend the Hardcore and Casual gamer market. They make generic shit for both markets to partake in for whatever reason those people had the bad taste for in the first place.

Make no mistake, the money guys in the industry KNOW they aren't losing money from the used market. They KNOW they aren't entitled to that money in the first place and so can't realistically count it as a loss. However, the Bobby Koticks of the industry also KNOW that all this sympathy for lost money from the used market is a gold mine and they are cashing in. They won't ever take it in front of a court because they know a court won't allow them to legally kill the used market but they will milk this for all it's worth and try to repeat the death of the PC used market via the use of DRM.

So when they speak of losses due to the used market, are they cooking the numbers the way they do with piracy? Ya know, 1 download = $60 lost? The game industry claiming a loss of sales in this manner is the same as me claiming a loss of $34 Million because I failed to win the lottery. In both cases the money never belonged to the people claiming the loss.

How do you know specifically that companies are not losing money? Of course they are, it's common sense, but that doesn't mean they are losing ENOUGH money to make a difference. I understand how your analogy is set up, but the only difference between you and the company is that the company is losing profits from its own products while you never make anything or gain anything. It's arguable whether or not the industry is losing a substantial enough amount of money to make a difference, but they are still losing money, and it is logical from a corporate view to try and make it up.

Pirating isn't much of a gripe to me also because most people don't know how to do it or get their console modded accordingly.

 

[Epona]

Everyone on the Escapist complains about games not being daring enough. You want that to stop? Buy more new games so that devs don't have to worry so much about profit. Maybe then they can think about taking more risks.

I'm tired of the "I hate my locked content" argument. You COULD just wait for the price to go down and then buy it new. Of course you can still buy used games, but how about buying older ones that don't have much of an impact on profit margins?

As the industry has GROWN, the industry has become less daring. The reason is that they don't have to risk being daring, they know people will buy the next COD clone anyway. It's when people aren't buying that they have to start thinking out of the box.

You're correct, but I believe that, in addition, since the industry is losing a decent (not an "Oh my god, panic") portion of money through used games, they feel they have to put out shit they know we will buy to make up for the losses they think they have suffered. Also, another reason for the next COD clone is because they know that FPS transcend the Hardcore and Casual gamer market. They make generic shit for both markets to partake in for whatever reason those people had the bad taste for in the first place.

Make no mistake, the money guys in the industry KNOW they aren't losing money from the used market. They KNOW they aren't entitled to that money in the first place and so can't realistically count it as a loss. However, the Bobby Koticks of the industry also KNOW that all this sympathy for lost money from the used market is a gold mine and they are cashing in. They won't ever take it in front of a court because they know a court won't allow them to legally kill the used market but they will milk this for all it's worth and try to repeat the death of the PC used market via the use of DRM.

So when they speak of losses due to the used market, are they cooking the numbers the way they do with piracy? Ya know, 1 download = $60 lost? The game industry claiming a loss of sales in this manner is the same as me claiming a loss of $34 Million because I failed to win the lottery. In both cases the money never belonged to the people claiming the loss.

How do you know specifically that companies are not losing money? Of course they are, it's common sense, but that doesn't mean they are losing ENOUGH money to make a difference. I understand how your analogy is set up, but the only difference between you and the company is that the company is losing profits from its own products while you never make anything or gain anything. It's arguable whether or not the industry is losing a substantial enough amount of money to make a difference, but they are still losing money, and it is logical from a corporate view to try and make it up.

Pirating isn't much of a gripe to me also because most people don't know how to do it or get their console modded accordingly.

They can't be losing money from used sales as they have no claim on money made via used sales. You can't lose money that you never had a claim to.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Think about it dear reader:
Why is it their obligation to give money back or inform them that a used sale was made on an item they already sold once? Why? There really isn't a reason. For the simple reason that the game they sold is no longer theirs (The publishers, that is).

Why does it seem dumb? Why should they be forced to reveal any sales information to the publisher or pay anything to the publisher?

The developers put time and money into the game. Its their game overall and while yes they shouldn't be allowed to say what people do with the game as long as they don't infringe on the copyright, they should be able to see just how much retailers are making off the used sales and get a cut for it. Its still their work being sold over and over again.

Buy it or don't touch it. No one is entitled to entertainment for free. If you want free entertainment, go take a walk in the woods.

Exactly.

As devs, we sell not just a game but an experience to you. While hopefully said entertainment experience would be enjoyable, good or bad, we can't take that experience away from you if you decide to sell the game (or movie, or book). Unlike physical items which degrade from wear and tear and age, the content itself does not. Sure the disc or book might get damaged, or you lose out on the manual and such, but the important part is the content itself which will never degrade.

That's why it's justified in a way to count used and pirated copies as lost sales even if the person would not have bought it in the first place. You've now experienced the entertainment, without reimbursing the creators - kinda like reading the movie summary on Wikipedia ("Oh, so HE's Luke's father!").

Seriously this bizzare idea that Publishers are getting paid on an individual sale-by-sale level boggles my mind.

Used sales DO hurt the developer, not just for lack of money returned, but also in metrics on how many copies have been sold. Obviously a game store won't tell the publisher how many used copies are sold, as the publisher would demand a portion of the sales. But if a studio sells 250,000, but an extra 500,000 end up playing the game due to the lower cost of used sales, it creates a skewed perspective that 33% of actual player base bought the game. And that could result in a studio getting less funding from a publisher for their next game, under the image the game did not sell.

That's where the "if I liked the pirated/used copy, I'll buy the next one" support line kind of dies: if you don't support the developer NOW, there might not BE a chance for a sequel.

Rentals get around this because the publishers (should) get reports on how often a particular game is rented and pay for it at a reduced cost of course, which adds up over time to be more than the game itself (hopefully), so it's not a one off purchase. Same goes for LAN/net cafe shops.

Now, I support the notion that games should be cheaper. As we saw with Valve's L4D sale awhile back, a drop in price to $10 or $20 from $40 resulted in an increase of 1000% in sales or something. But there are certain stigmas with games in the $20 or less price being indie, shovel ware or bargain bin and not worth playing. We need to get away from that image.

Thought this was a pretty good sum up of another point sort of relating to this one. Its a different argument I know, but still.

 

[M920CAIN]

You know guys... game publishers are arse holes. If you buy a movie dvd/bluray, you see the movie and you sell the dvd afterwards would it be fair if the guy who buys the dvd used gets to see just 90 percent of the movie, because the other 10 percent is locked cause he didn't buy it new? or maybe a grim view of the future: you buy a track cd with some nice songs, but you have to activate the music online before you can use it... (i know we got itunes nowadays... just saying)... and if say you lend the cd to a friend so he can listen to it for a weekend he can't listen to the last song cause he doesn't have the required activation protocols... protocols... protocols... protocols... protection... protection... protection... 20 years ago people only had to worry about scratching the game disk... nowadays... you got download services, user account and password, serial key for game install, serial key for online activation, serial key for dlcs... etc... it just takes more of your time (and money) before you get to play the game...

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

The developers put time and money into the game. Its their game overall and while yes they shouldn't be allowed to say what people do with the game as long as they don't infringe on the copyright, they should be able to see just how much retailers are making off the used sales and get a cut for it. Its still their work being sold over and over again.

What makes games so special that they deserve a cut of second hand sales when courts in the good ol US of A have ruled that everything else under the sun does not?

Here's the thing: It's not their game. They lost claim to call it "theirs" the moment they said to someone "Alright, thanks for the money. Here you go".

It's no longer theirs, which is where your argument falls down. They made it, yes. But because they said "We'd rather have money than this"(Which is a smart choice, mind you), it no longer belongs to them.

Telling the numbers wouldn't do anything. Like, at all. And, like any used industry, they don't get second hand money

 

[health-bar]

One sided view is one sided.

Used games do not give money to the developers, only to the company selling the used game.
this is a way so even if people buy used the developers and publishers get their earned money.

they are circumventing a system that circumvented them out of money.
its just good business.

They (the publishers) are circumventing a perfectly legal, pro-consumer system (the used market) so they (the publishers) can get money they are NOT entitled to.

Are you "pro-let's rob a bank for the poor people" too?

firstly i must sarcastically say: robin hood robbed the rich and it worked out for him.

I never said the system was illegal. The used game system ONLY benefits the company that is selling it in the store. Publishers and developers are not getting ANY money from used games. Its like Napster, one guy bought it and shared it with everyone else. The fact that companies are pissed because now people just "share" the game instead of buying it is perfectly reasonable and they should take whatever steps they want to make money on a game they made.

Why should they not get paid for a product they made?

 

[Epona]

The developers put time and money into the game. Its their game overall and while yes they shouldn't be allowed to say what people do with the game as long as they don't infringe on the copyright, they should be able to see just how much retailers are making off the used sales and get a cut for it. Its still their work being sold over and over again.

Sorry don't agree. Does any other industry operates in this way?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Its like Napster, one guy bought it and shared it with everyone else.

Nope. Not at all the same.

Allow me to tell you why piracy is very, very different.

1.) Used games do exist as part of a secondary market. When someone sells their games to a store for credit, they will occasionally use that credit to fund a new game sale. They may also become a legitimate regular retail supporter of further new copies based on a positive experience they had with a used copy (much more likely than a pirate who got something for free actually deciding to spend money on it's sequel no matter how much they liked the one they got for free).
2.) No new copies are created. In a used game sale you're still only seeing a unique copy bought and sold, so the magnitude of profit damage is kept in relative check. With a pirated copy, however, even if we assume that the original ripped copy was a legitimate purchase, it is still able to spawn infinite copies of it's own. A single copy of a used game may see, for example, 10 owners. A single pirated copy, however, may be stolen by hundreds of thousands.

Why should they not get paid for a product they made?

They did. When they sold the product the first time. It's no longer theirs. See my above post.

 

[Epona]

One sided view is one sided.

Used games do not give money to the developers, only to the company selling the used game.
this is a way so even if people buy used the developers and publishers get their earned money.

they are circumventing a system that circumvented them out of money.
its just good business.

They (the publishers) are circumventing a perfectly legal, pro-consumer system (the used market) so they (the publishers) can get money they are NOT entitled to.

Are you "pro-let's rob a bank for the poor people" too?

firstly i must sarcastically say: robin hood robbed the rich and it worked out for him.

I never said the system was illegal. The used game system ONLY benefits the company that is selling it in the store. Publishers and developers are not getting ANY money from used games. Its like Napster, one guy bought it and shared it with everyone else. The fact that companies are pissed because now people just "share" the game instead of buying it is perfectly reasonable and they should take whatever steps they want to make money on a game they made.

Why should they not get paid for a product they made?

Well, Robin Hood was also considered an outlaw so there ya go.

The used game system benefits gamers and the entire industry. It is because people could pick up great games for cheap when they were out of print or just more expensive new that helped bring more people into gaming. Have you never heard of a person picking up a used game and liking it and becoming a fan of the franchise and/or developer and becoming day 1 buyers for the next game/games?

Lastly, they do get paid for their game. On the FIRST SALE. Every game up for sale used was already bought new.

 

[sharpsheppard]

Yes, they're totally screwing them over by. . . giving their paying customers something extra for their support. Goddamn, that is some true evil there.

They are devaluing the product once it is purchased.

So they are doing what is essentially basic economics? Seems legit to me.

In any other used market, once something is purchased and used the value depreciates. If you buy a new car, the second you drive it off of the lot the value goes down. The same should be said about games once the game is put into your console and started up. What developers are doing is essentially giving you the extra oomph for buying it new, just like a new car will have that extra oomph over a used car of the same type.

Essentially, when you buy a new product it should feel like a new product. If you buy a used product it should feel like a used product. Used markets exist for every other industry because of depreciation, so when you buy used you know you are getting a product inferior to a new version of said product. Now that games are doing the same thing, people feel they have the right to complain when in reality they don't. Gamers aren't entitled to shit when they buy used, just like people who buy used in any other market aren't entitled to anything.

If Ford slashed the seats when you resold the car, then it would be the same and it would be unacceptable.

The difference is that a car getting NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable. A game getting ARTIFICIAL wear and tear by the publisher in the interest of making more money is not acceptable, nor should it be.

No offense, but you're starting to grasp for straws now.

The difference is that games are an ARTIFICIAL MEDIA, not physical like a car. That is part of why everyone is getting so worked up about all this: they look at the game as a physical item. I don't know about you, but when I buy a game I pay for the data on the disc, not for the disc itself. I don't go and throw the disc like a frisbee, I play with the data of the disc. So why should someone who pays half the price of my get access to everything I have access to?

What is going on here is that people like you are getting butthurt that the $40 they spend on a game, which not a single cent is going back to the people who made it mind you, are not getting the exact same quality as someone who paid $60 for. The developers and publishers get not a single thing from you, why should they give you anything in return? Lets go back to a car example, since everyone seems to love those. You buy a Ford truck used, and after a day of driving around the engine craps out. You call Ford and demand that they do something about your engine, even though you didn't give them a cent of your money. Then when they tell you that since you didn't buy it from them they can't do anything you decide to boycott Ford altogether.

tl;dr You didn't support the developer/publisher so why should they support you

It's you who are grasping at straws. Games are a product, not an artificial product but a real product. When you buy a CD, you want the music but music isn't just floating in space (else it would be free), it's attached to the media, permanently.

You know though, you may be on to something, perhaps digital code really is artificial and as such, has no value. Like music floating in the air (from the radio), it can be grabbed for free with the correct device (an antenna in that case). Pointing out that games are artificial isn't going to help your case.

None of this matters though because the bottom line is that NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable because it is naturally (can't be avoided) or accidentally occurring. ARTIFICIAL wear and tear is done on purpose and it can be avoided.

Good for you, you can figure out how to take one point said and run with it while ignoring the whole rest of the post. I'll humor you though, lets go with your radio example. With the radio, we can all listen to music for free simply by purchasing the radio and tuning to the station we want to listen to. Here's where the example falls apart though: the radio company paid for the right to play the music over the air, so the musicians have already got their cut. Same goes with television when they air a movie: they paid for the right to air that for us. The difference here is that with a used game the company got paid for the price of one game, while with radio and TV the companies get paid a lot more than the price of one song on iTunes or one DVD.

I want you to answer me a serious question though. One I mentioned earlier but you utterly bypassed. Why should the developer/publisher/company/etc. support you when you buy used? No other industry supports customers who buy their products used, why should the game industry be any different?

Also not part of the argument, but artificial wear and tear can happen naturally. It's called data erosion, and it happens over time to any data-based media. Perfect example: I have a copy of Earthbound for the SNES. The cartridge itself is fine and the connection between it and the system is perfect, but the game now freezes and doesn't load properly in some areas. This is due to the data on the cartridge eroding due to age. It takes a while, but artificial wear and tear does happen.

In this case, the artificial wear and tear is done on purpose. So your Earthbound example doesn't count. Especially since it's an SNES cartridge and nothing was purposely withheld to punish you if you bought it used.

I don't understand how this issue has anything to do with supporting used buyers. If they just left this so called bonus content on the damn disc, there would be no need to support used buyers.

I will answer though, they should support used buyers because they want them to buy the next game in the series on day one. Making your own game look bad to used buyers isn't very smart.

I can accept your last point, as it is a very valid point, but the other side to that is who's going to stop them from just buying the next game used? True there will be people who buy the next game new, but the fact remains that the buyer hasn't supported the previous release.

The point before it throws me for a loop though. By leaving the disc exactly the same for both new buyers and used buyers, they are essentially giving the same thing to people who gave them no support as they gave to the people who did give them support. It makes the new buyers feel inferior because they are paying more for the experience but getting the same. That is where support from the developer comes in. In the example of RAGE, they are giving an extra level to people who bought it new. This just becomes special since it is already on the disc, so it is pretty much day 1 DLC that you don't have to connect to the internet to get. Who says they aren't going to have a patch they release online that lets people who bought it used experience the level?

In short, they're rewarding the person who paid more with more content. A great example of this is the Cerberus Network in Mass Effect 2. People who buy used couldn't get the extra stuff from the Cerberus Network unless they paid. That was easily a ton more content than this, yet the Cerberus Network caused little to no uproar.

Ah, so the goal is to punish used buyers because it may hurt the feelings of new buyers? It's funny how we hear that publishers shouldn't have to support used buyers but they aren't simply ignoring used buyers either are they? No, they are fighting used buyers and this can't end well.

Your argument about Cerberus network seems to be "since there wasn't much complaining then, people need to STFU now". Sorry, that's not much of an argument.

ONCE AGAIN MODS (FUCKING ANSWER THIS TIME), IF THE CAPTCHA IS FOR SPAMMERS AND BOTS WHY THE FUCK DOES EVERY POSTER HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.

I have to refresh damn near everytime now because the captcha is unreadable. Can't you guys program it to not show up for legit posters or is there some reason you want to fuckin torture everyone?

Explain to me how they are hurting used buyers in this. They didn't remove anything essential from the game, so how are used buyers hurt? Because they didn't get an extra level? It isn't like they removed the final boss or something ridiculous like that. They decided to throw in an extra level for the people who bought it new as a reward, simple as that. There is no punishment for buying used, only reward for those who bought it new. Again, like the Cerberus Network in Mass Effect 2 or like the day 1 DLC in Dragon Age: Origins.

Also with my argument about the Cerberus Network, it isn't that there simply wasn't any complaining but how is it any different.

You think that something MUST be essential before it harms used buyers? We'll have to agree to disagree because there is no getting past this point. Further, if they get away with this you will eventually start slashing critical content and after that, you'll need a unique activation code to play the game at all. Just like PC games and at that time the used market will be dead. I just don't see how people can think "that won't happen to the console market". It will.

As for Cerberus, it's no different and just as bad. I mean really, did you think I was cheering for Cerberus while putting this down? NO!

so the worst thing that can happen if they do this is they kill off one of the things that makes them lose money I am all in for them killing off the used games market if it stops companys from telling me a gave they are going to sell for 50 bucks if worth 4 bucks

 

[johnboy424]

Personally I haven't quite decided where I stand on this issue. On the one hand, I want the developers and publishers to get money for my purchase, but as a high school student I don't have a consistent source of income and can barely ever afford to buy the games that I want new at full price. I think the developers should get money for everyone who enjoys their game, but the idea of excluding content from used game buyers makes me wonder what will happen when the only option is to buy a game used. I buy and play retro games fairly often and I hope that in the future, when current and next-gen systems are retro, I won't miss out on content when I buy a game used that can no longer be found new.

 

[SovietSecrets]

The developers put time and money into the game. Its their game overall and while yes they shouldn't be allowed to say what people do with the game as long as they don't infringe on the copyright, they should be able to see just how much retailers are making off the used sales and get a cut for it. Its still their work being sold over and over again.

What makes games so special that they deserve a cut of second hand sales when courts in the good ol US of A have ruled that everything else under the sun does not?

Here's the thing: It's not their game. They lost claim to call it "theirs" the moment they said to someone "Alright, thanks for the money. Here you go".

It's no longer theirs, which is where your argument falls down. They made it, yes. But because they said "We'd rather have money than this"(Which is a smart choice, mind you), it no longer belongs to them.

Telling the numbers wouldn't do anything. Like, at all. And, like any used industry, they don't get second hand money

I would apply to this every used sale if possible, not just games. No idea why the courts thought this was a good idea. I don't see it all. I think the law is terrible and that companies should get money if their stuff is being sold over and over again. I just can't agree with either of you on it. Work deserves compensation, be it used or new.

The developers put time and money into the game. Its their game overall and while yes they shouldn't be allowed to say what people do with the game as long as they don't infringe on the copyright, they should be able to see just how much retailers are making off the used sales and get a cut for it. Its still their work being sold over and over again.

Sorry don't agree. Does any other industry operates in this way?

Not that I can tell you. Never really gave it much thought, though I still believe that from any used sale profit that some of that should go back to the creator. Seems unjust that their work is being sold without any knowledge of how much or how much retailers are making.

Sorry, but I have to end this here. Need to go to bed now. It was a pleasure talking/debating with you both. Thank you for keeping it civil and clean!

 

[Epona]

Yes, they're totally screwing them over by. . . giving their paying customers something extra for their support. Goddamn, that is some true evil there.

They are devaluing the product once it is purchased.

So they are doing what is essentially basic economics? Seems legit to me.

In any other used market, once something is purchased and used the value depreciates. If you buy a new car, the second you drive it off of the lot the value goes down. The same should be said about games once the game is put into your console and started up. What developers are doing is essentially giving you the extra oomph for buying it new, just like a new car will have that extra oomph over a used car of the same type.

Essentially, when you buy a new product it should feel like a new product. If you buy a used product it should feel like a used product. Used markets exist for every other industry because of depreciation, so when you buy used you know you are getting a product inferior to a new version of said product. Now that games are doing the same thing, people feel they have the right to complain when in reality they don't. Gamers aren't entitled to shit when they buy used, just like people who buy used in any other market aren't entitled to anything.

If Ford slashed the seats when you resold the car, then it would be the same and it would be unacceptable.

The difference is that a car getting NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable. A game getting ARTIFICIAL wear and tear by the publisher in the interest of making more money is not acceptable, nor should it be.

No offense, but you're starting to grasp for straws now.

The difference is that games are an ARTIFICIAL MEDIA, not physical like a car. That is part of why everyone is getting so worked up about all this: they look at the game as a physical item. I don't know about you, but when I buy a game I pay for the data on the disc, not for the disc itself. I don't go and throw the disc like a frisbee, I play with the data of the disc. So why should someone who pays half the price of my get access to everything I have access to?

What is going on here is that people like you are getting butthurt that the $40 they spend on a game, which not a single cent is going back to the people who made it mind you, are not getting the exact same quality as someone who paid $60 for. The developers and publishers get not a single thing from you, why should they give you anything in return? Lets go back to a car example, since everyone seems to love those. You buy a Ford truck used, and after a day of driving around the engine craps out. You call Ford and demand that they do something about your engine, even though you didn't give them a cent of your money. Then when they tell you that since you didn't buy it from them they can't do anything you decide to boycott Ford altogether.

tl;dr You didn't support the developer/publisher so why should they support you

It's you who are grasping at straws. Games are a product, not an artificial product but a real product. When you buy a CD, you want the music but music isn't just floating in space (else it would be free), it's attached to the media, permanently.

You know though, you may be on to something, perhaps digital code really is artificial and as such, has no value. Like music floating in the air (from the radio), it can be grabbed for free with the correct device (an antenna in that case). Pointing out that games are artificial isn't going to help your case.

None of this matters though because the bottom line is that NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable because it is naturally (can't be avoided) or accidentally occurring. ARTIFICIAL wear and tear is done on purpose and it can be avoided.

Good for you, you can figure out how to take one point said and run with it while ignoring the whole rest of the post. I'll humor you though, lets go with your radio example. With the radio, we can all listen to music for free simply by purchasing the radio and tuning to the station we want to listen to. Here's where the example falls apart though: the radio company paid for the right to play the music over the air, so the musicians have already got their cut. Same goes with television when they air a movie: they paid for the right to air that for us. The difference here is that with a used game the company got paid for the price of one game, while with radio and TV the companies get paid a lot more than the price of one song on iTunes or one DVD.

I want you to answer me a serious question though. One I mentioned earlier but you utterly bypassed. Why should the developer/publisher/company/etc. support you when you buy used? No other industry supports customers who buy their products used, why should the game industry be any different?

Also not part of the argument, but artificial wear and tear can happen naturally. It's called data erosion, and it happens over time to any data-based media. Perfect example: I have a copy of Earthbound for the SNES. The cartridge itself is fine and the connection between it and the system is perfect, but the game now freezes and doesn't load properly in some areas. This is due to the data on the cartridge eroding due to age. It takes a while, but artificial wear and tear does happen.

In this case, the artificial wear and tear is done on purpose. So your Earthbound example doesn't count. Especially since it's an SNES cartridge and nothing was purposely withheld to punish you if you bought it used.

I don't understand how this issue has anything to do with supporting used buyers. If they just left this so called bonus content on the damn disc, there would be no need to support used buyers.

I will answer though, they should support used buyers because they want them to buy the next game in the series on day one. Making your own game look bad to used buyers isn't very smart.

I can accept your last point, as it is a very valid point, but the other side to that is who's going to stop them from just buying the next game used? True there will be people who buy the next game new, but the fact remains that the buyer hasn't supported the previous release.

The point before it throws me for a loop though. By leaving the disc exactly the same for both new buyers and used buyers, they are essentially giving the same thing to people who gave them no support as they gave to the people who did give them support. It makes the new buyers feel inferior because they are paying more for the experience but getting the same. That is where support from the developer comes in. In the example of RAGE, they are giving an extra level to people who bought it new. This just becomes special since it is already on the disc, so it is pretty much day 1 DLC that you don't have to connect to the internet to get. Who says they aren't going to have a patch they release online that lets people who bought it used experience the level?

In short, they're rewarding the person who paid more with more content. A great example of this is the Cerberus Network in Mass Effect 2. People who buy used couldn't get the extra stuff from the Cerberus Network unless they paid. That was easily a ton more content than this, yet the Cerberus Network caused little to no uproar.

Ah, so the goal is to punish used buyers because it may hurt the feelings of new buyers? It's funny how we hear that publishers shouldn't have to support used buyers but they aren't simply ignoring used buyers either are they? No, they are fighting used buyers and this can't end well.

Your argument about Cerberus network seems to be "since there wasn't much complaining then, people need to STFU now". Sorry, that's not much of an argument.

ONCE AGAIN MODS (FUCKING ANSWER THIS TIME), IF THE CAPTCHA IS FOR SPAMMERS AND BOTS WHY THE FUCK DOES EVERY POSTER HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.

I have to refresh damn near everytime now because the captcha is unreadable. Can't you guys program it to not show up for legit posters or is there some reason you want to fuckin torture everyone?

Explain to me how they are hurting used buyers in this. They didn't remove anything essential from the game, so how are used buyers hurt? Because they didn't get an extra level? It isn't like they removed the final boss or something ridiculous like that. They decided to throw in an extra level for the people who bought it new as a reward, simple as that. There is no punishment for buying used, only reward for those who bought it new. Again, like the Cerberus Network in Mass Effect 2 or like the day 1 DLC in Dragon Age: Origins.

Also with my argument about the Cerberus Network, it isn't that there simply wasn't any complaining but how is it any different.

You think that something MUST be essential before it harms used buyers? We'll have to agree to disagree because there is no getting past this point. Further, if they get away with this you will eventually start slashing critical content and after that, you'll need a unique activation code to play the game at all. Just like PC games and at that time the used market will be dead. I just don't see how people can think "that won't happen to the console market". It will.

As for Cerberus, it's no different and just as bad. I mean really, did you think I was cheering for Cerberus while putting this down? NO!

so the worst thing that can happen if they do this is they kill off one of the things that makes them lose money I am all in for them killing off the used games market if it stops companys from telling me a gave they are going to sell for 50 bucks if worth 4 bucks

Yes, Gamestop making alot of money is wrong. So hey, do you get angry when game publisher post record profits or is that ok?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I would apply to this every used sale if possible, not just games.

You silly goose! Even things they've long abandoned to time? Why?

No idea why the courts thought this was a good idea. I don't see it all.

Consumer rights. How does a corperation get to dictate how you use something you paid them for? Answer: They don't.

I think the law is terrible and that companies should get money if their stuff is being sold over and over again.
I just can't agree with either of you on it. Work deserves compensation, be it used or new.

Why should they get paid, in effect, twice, for something they sold once? They've done no extra work, sorry.

And this system could never be implamented without it being a nightmare on all involved.

 

[health-bar]

Its like Napster, one guy bought it and shared it with everyone else.

Nope. Not at all the same.

Allow me to tell you why piracy is very, very different.

1.) Used games do exist as part of a secondary market. When someone sells their games to a store for credit, they will occasionally use that credit to fund a new game sale. They may also become a legitimate regular retail supporter of further new copies based on a positive experience they had with a used copy (much more likely than a pirate who got something for free actually deciding to spend money on it's sequel no matter how much they liked the one they got for free).
2.) No new copies are created. In a used game sale you're still only seeing a unique copy bought and sold, so the magnitude of profit damage is kept in relative check. With a pirated copy, however, even if we assume that the original ripped copy was a legitimate purchase, it is still able to spawn infinite copies of it's own. A single copy of a used game may see, for example, 10 owners. A single pirated copy, however, may be stolen by hundreds of thousands.

Why should they not get paid for a product they made?

They did. When they sold the product the first time. It's no longer theirs. See my above post.

didn't mean to compare it to piracy like that. Just using an example.
either way. If a company loses ten sales for its every 1 sale then they lose truckloads of money.

why would they not want to capitalize on that?

 

[Epona]

The developers put time and money into the game. Its their game overall and while yes they shouldn't be allowed to say what people do with the game as long as they don't infringe on the copyright, they should be able to see just how much retailers are making off the used sales and get a cut for it. Its still their work being sold over and over again.

What makes games so special that they deserve a cut of second hand sales when courts in the good ol US of A have ruled that everything else under the sun does not?

Here's the thing: It's not their game. They lost claim to call it "theirs" the moment they said to someone "Alright, thanks for the money. Here you go".

It's no longer theirs, which is where your argument falls down. They made it, yes. But because they said "We'd rather have money than this"(Which is a smart choice, mind you), it no longer belongs to them.

Telling the numbers wouldn't do anything. Like, at all. And, like any used industry, they don't get second hand money

I would apply to this every used sale if possible, not just games. No idea why the courts thought this was a good idea. I don't see it all. I think the law is terrible and that companies should get money if their stuff is being sold over and over again. I just can't agree with either of you on it. Work deserves compensation, be it used or new.

The developers put time and money into the game. Its their game overall and while yes they shouldn't be allowed to say what people do with the game as long as they don't infringe on the copyright, they should be able to see just how much retailers are making off the used sales and get a cut for it. Its still their work being sold over and over again.

Sorry don't agree. Does any other industry operates in this way?

Not that I can tell you. Never really gave it much thought, though I still believe that from any used sale profit that some of that should go back to the creator. Seems unjust that their work is being sold without any knowledge of how much or how much retailers are making.

Sorry, but I have to end this here. Need to go to bed now. It was a pleasure talking/debating with you both. Thank you for keeping it civil and clean!

The publishers don't provide any work when a game changes hands. Why should they get paid?

So how would that work with private sales like garage sales, eBay or other types of private transactions? How would that work with cars, appliances, furniture, dishes, etc... You see, it just can't work nor should it.

It seems you are against consumer ownership completely as nothing will ever fully belong to a consumer. I really think you should sleep on it.

Had to refresh captcha 3 times to get something I could read and type. Is anyone else having these problems?

 

[sharpsheppard]

Yes, they're totally screwing them over by. . . giving their paying customers something extra for their support. Goddamn, that is some true evil there.

They are devaluing the product once it is purchased.

So they are doing what is essentially basic economics? Seems legit to me.

In any other used market, once something is purchased and used the value depreciates. If you buy a new car, the second you drive it off of the lot the value goes down. The same should be said about games once the game is put into your console and started up. What developers are doing is essentially giving you the extra oomph for buying it new, just like a new car will have that extra oomph over a used car of the same type.

Essentially, when you buy a new product it should feel like a new product. If you buy a used product it should feel like a used product. Used markets exist for every other industry because of depreciation, so when you buy used you know you are getting a product inferior to a new version of said product. Now that games are doing the same thing, people feel they have the right to complain when in reality they don't. Gamers aren't entitled to shit when they buy used, just like people who buy used in any other market aren't entitled to anything.

If Ford slashed the seats when you resold the car, then it would be the same and it would be unacceptable.

The difference is that a car getting NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable. A game getting ARTIFICIAL wear and tear by the publisher in the interest of making more money is not acceptable, nor should it be.

No offense, but you're starting to grasp for straws now.

The difference is that games are an ARTIFICIAL MEDIA, not physical like a car. That is part of why everyone is getting so worked up about all this: they look at the game as a physical item. I don't know about you, but when I buy a game I pay for the data on the disc, not for the disc itself. I don't go and throw the disc like a frisbee, I play with the data of the disc. So why should someone who pays half the price of my get access to everything I have access to?

What is going on here is that people like you are getting butthurt that the $40 they spend on a game, which not a single cent is going back to the people who made it mind you, are not getting the exact same quality as someone who paid $60 for. The developers and publishers get not a single thing from you, why should they give you anything in return? Lets go back to a car example, since everyone seems to love those. You buy a Ford truck used, and after a day of driving around the engine craps out. You call Ford and demand that they do something about your engine, even though you didn't give them a cent of your money. Then when they tell you that since you didn't buy it from them they can't do anything you decide to boycott Ford altogether.

tl;dr You didn't support the developer/publisher so why should they support you

It's you who are grasping at straws. Games are a product, not an artificial product but a real product. When you buy a CD, you want the music but music isn't just floating in space (else it would be free), it's attached to the media, permanently.

You know though, you may be on to something, perhaps digital code really is artificial and as such, has no value. Like music floating in the air (from the radio), it can be grabbed for free with the correct device (an antenna in that case). Pointing out that games are artificial isn't going to help your case.

None of this matters though because the bottom line is that NORMAL wear and tear is acceptable because it is naturally (can't be avoided) or accidentally occurring. ARTIFICIAL wear and tear is done on purpose and it can be avoided.

Good for you, you can figure out how to take one point said and run with it while ignoring the whole rest of the post. I'll humor you though, lets go with your radio example. With the radio, we can all listen to music for free simply by purchasing the radio and tuning to the station we want to listen to. Here's where the example falls apart though: the radio company paid for the right to play the music over the air, so the musicians have already got their cut. Same goes with television when they air a movie: they paid for the right to air that for us. The difference here is that with a used game the company got paid for the price of one game, while with radio and TV the companies get paid a lot more than the price of one song on iTunes or one DVD.

I want you to answer me a serious question though. One I mentioned earlier but you utterly bypassed. Why should the developer/publisher/company/etc. support you when you buy used? No other industry supports customers who buy their products used, why should the game industry be any different?

Also not part of the argument, but artificial wear and tear can happen naturally. It's called data erosion, and it happens over time to any data-based media. Perfect example: I have a copy of Earthbound for the SNES. The cartridge itself is fine and the connection between it and the system is perfect, but the game now freezes and doesn't load properly in some areas. This is due to the data on the cartridge eroding due to age. It takes a while, but artificial wear and tear does happen.

In this case, the artificial wear and tear is done on purpose. So your Earthbound example doesn't count. Especially since it's an SNES cartridge and nothing was purposely withheld to punish you if you bought it used.

I don't understand how this issue has anything to do with supporting used buyers. If they just left this so called bonus content on the damn disc, there would be no need to support used buyers.

I will answer though, they should support used buyers because they want them to buy the next game in the series on day one. Making your own game look bad to used buyers isn't very smart.

I can accept your last point, as it is a very valid point, but the other side to that is who's going to stop them from just buying the next game used? True there will be people who buy the next game new, but the fact remains that the buyer hasn't supported the previous release.

The point before it throws me for a loop though. By leaving the disc exactly the same for both new buyers and used buyers, they are essentially giving the same thing to people who gave them no support as they gave to the people who did give them support. It makes the new buyers feel inferior because they are paying more for the experience but getting the same. That is where support from the developer comes in. In the example of RAGE, they are giving an extra level to people who bought it new. This just becomes special since it is already on the disc, so it is pretty much day 1 DLC that you don't have to connect to the internet to get. Who says they aren't going to have a patch they release online that lets people who bought it used experience the level?

In short, they're rewarding the person who paid more with more content. A great example of this is the Cerberus Network in Mass Effect 2. People who buy used couldn't get the extra stuff from the Cerberus Network unless they paid. That was easily a ton more content than this, yet the Cerberus Network caused little to no uproar.

Ah, so the goal is to punish used buyers because it may hurt the feelings of new buyers? It's funny how we hear that publishers shouldn't have to support used buyers but they aren't simply ignoring used buyers either are they? No, they are fighting used buyers and this can't end well.

Your argument about Cerberus network seems to be "since there wasn't much complaining then, people need to STFU now". Sorry, that's not much of an argument.

ONCE AGAIN MODS (FUCKING ANSWER THIS TIME), IF THE CAPTCHA IS FOR SPAMMERS AND BOTS WHY THE FUCK DOES EVERY POSTER HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.

I have to refresh damn near everytime now because the captcha is unreadable. Can't you guys program it to not show up for legit posters or is there some reason you want to fuckin torture everyone?

Explain to me how they are hurting used buyers in this. They didn't remove anything essential from the game, so how are used buyers hurt? Because they didn't get an extra level? It isn't like they removed the final boss or something ridiculous like that. They decided to throw in an extra level for the people who bought it new as a reward, simple as that. There is no punishment for buying used, only reward for those who bought it new. Again, like the Cerberus Network in Mass Effect 2 or like the day 1 DLC in Dragon Age: Origins.

Also with my argument about the Cerberus Network, it isn't that there simply wasn't any complaining but how is it any different.

You think that something MUST be essential before it harms used buyers? We'll have to agree to disagree because there is no getting past this point. Further, if they get away with this you will eventually start slashing critical content and after that, you'll need a unique activation code to play the game at all. Just like PC games and at that time the used market will be dead. I just don't see how people can think "that won't happen to the console market". It will.

As for Cerberus, it's no different and just as bad. I mean really, did you think I was cheering for Cerberus while putting this down? NO!

so the worst thing that can happen if they do this is they kill off one of the things that makes them lose money I am all in for them killing off the used games market if it stops companys from telling me a gave they are going to sell for 50 bucks if worth 4 bucks

Yes, Gamestop making alot of money is wrong. So hey, do you get angry when game publisher post record profits or is that ok?

way to let the point go over your head i am saying the used games market is a way bigger ripoff then this because the only way it can exist is by givng a loss of about 40 dollor to the person selling instead of the 15 for a code to the buyer