Poll: Buying Used Games is just as Bad as Pirating

[Danistuta]

I'll gladly pay full price if I really want a game when it's released. I don't begrudge the cost and I feel good giving money to the companies that make the games I enjoy.

However, I feel entirely justified in buying older games used.

After games have been available for a few months, they naturally drop slowly in price, but, with games that are maybe a few years old, it's very hard to find them new. In this case, it makes perfect sense to buy used games. Essentially, it's similar to swapping games with a friend - the used games are usually traded in as collateral by gamers anyway. They're just something someone else doesn't want anymore.

 

[Deleted]

And godammit, stop using the used car argument!

Whats the Used Car Argument?

OT: If a Game comes out and is good i buy it new. If a Game comes out and its Not Worth my money i buy it used. But not only that i buy it used at a store where i get 10-20% off cause i'm friends with the manager. If Companies start making better games then i will buy them new over used. But as it stands i'm not paying full price for something i am going to play twice then never pick up again.

People were saying "stealing games is bad because you wouldn't steal a car!" It is flawed because games are copied whereas cars are not.

 

[Stormz]

I only buy used usually if that's the only copy of the game available. Or if it's a Ps2 game because really, I'm never going to find a good brand new ps2 game. Most new ones are crap games no one wants to buy.

 

[Gindil]

And godammit, stop using the used car argument!

Whats the Used Car Argument?

OT: If a Game comes out and is good i buy it new. If a Game comes out and its Not Worth my money i buy it used. But not only that i buy it used at a store where i get 10-20% off cause i'm friends with the manager. If Companies start making better games then i will buy them new over used. But as it stands i'm not paying full price for something i am going to play twice then never pick up again.

People were saying "stealing games is bad because you wouldn't steal a car!" It is flawed because games are copied whereas cars are not.

No it's not!

Piracy is like stealing a car [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxtoaTF9hu8&feature=related]! And the RIAA is coming to get you, because they watch everyone, and they love to take your money, and they... They...

*ROFL*

Damn, I couldn't say that with a straight face. As I type this, I'm still amazed how people put so much value in their entertainment as to put it in the same league as a car or a house.

 

[slopeslider]

If I steal 1 copy of cod4 from the 20 in the backroom from my local best buy, and 20 12yr olds come with 49.99+tax to buy cod4, they can only sell 19. I have stolen an item.

When I pirate cod4, Best buy still has 20 copies to sell. I deprived them of no money. I used an unauthorized copy of cod4.
There's a difference, which is why the latter's called piracy but not the former.

Whether or not pirating new games is right, is different from piracy in general.

 

[WitherVoice]

I buy my games new because there are a few things I do not want: The hassle of trying various cracks and then being unable to upgrade, and physical media. Physical media is pretty much the bane of my existence; why the heck would I want a bloody DISK? I mean, if there is one, odds are the stupid game is going to ask me to change the bloody thing each time I want to play a different game.

This last thing is actually pushing me towards piracy at the moment. The DRM measures out there were never useful against pirates, so saying they are there to stop pirates is kinda like saying a spiked pit at your local game retailer is there to stop pirates. Pirates never come into contact with the DRM. Thus, semi-intelligent life forms can conclude, DRMs are entirely pointless and only a nuisance to our customers; let's stop using them. The games industry concludes that MORE pit traps at the retailer is what's required, and preferably also cyanide vapour emitters in the game boxes. It's getting to the point where a legitimate player can hardly play the game he has paid for, at which point MY reaction is: let's go see if someone has cracked this sucker so I can actually get to PLAY it.

Beating the used-market is simple. Put in some online registration, or even better, add some downloadable content that you get a code for on purchase... tie it to some kind of online account, and you're good to go. Steam is wonderful at this, and the only thing I have against EA's similar stuff for Bioware games is... well, that it's EA and they're pretty much the evil empire. I bet the piracy rate for WoW is quite minor, too.

 

[WitherVoice]

In my post I may have made statements to the effect that DRMs are akin to causing customers real bodily harm on the games industry's part. That was intentional; DRMs promote ulcers and do nothing else of note.

 

[Katana314]

I want to interject for one moment. After Square made FFX, they had a massive layoff of employees, who had to find other programming jobs. Our society is fairly mobile with odd exceptions such as Valve or Infinity Ward. Programmers, designers, writers etc, usually find other jobs fairly quickly be it EA or something else within the industry. I'm not beholden to have any of them keep their jobs simply because I decide that I don't find their game worth the retail price at day one. If I like a game, I buy it. Whether that's 10 years down the road or two, I don't see why I should try to hold their jobs in that interim.

If you thought FFX was mediocre and don't want to show support, you don't have to buy it. If they get fired for lack of sales, it's certainly not your problem. What I'm against is people buying used games to "be legitimate" and "show support" for developers they like.

Also keep in mind; if a game you want has a high retail price you can't afford or don't think is worth it, maybe it is humanly possible for you to NOT BUY THE GAME. There's this thing called Supply and Demand, and the price point where "how much you want the game" meets "how much you're willing to pay for it" meets, that's logically what the price should be. If it's too high, then that means "the game is not worth it, so I won't buy it." If Valve sold Episode 3 for $599 USD, you would not "HAVE" to have it. As long as it's imperfect, it probably wouldn't be worth your money. They wouldn't be taking the $599 from your pocket. If everyone followed this convention rather than going with whatever price point it happens to be, then I'm sure most game prices would turn out more reasonable.

Furthermore, this might lead to people actually considering cheaper games. A lot of people here are complaining, again, about not having enough money. Well, I guess that means you have less than $2 in your bank, because on Steam, games will sometimes literally cost that much. Logically, someone with as little money as you couldn't be buying a golden house filled with strippers, just as you can't afford a copy of every RTS to come out this year. Save money, spend wisely, and go for the cheaper games. In every industry except the digital medium, "I can't afford it" means "I CAN'T HAVE IT."

 

[joshthor]

used games hurt devs more. while piracy no money is ever in play, used games are bought by people willing to buy, but the dev wont see the money. thats the main reason im a strong supporter of project 10 dollar. pirates wont ever pay, but used game buyers might buy dlc if they like the game enough. the dev deserves at least some money.

 

[UkibyTheMaid]

I think that you can balence things a little.

I mean, I already bought loads of used games, specially older ones like those for N64, since finding one of these new these days is like trying to find a needle in a hay. But most of the games I've bought, all my life, are new. I have over 20 new and original DS titles and, because of that, I don't see 'much' problem if i go and download something about three or four of them to play on an emulator, since I already spent a good slice of my pay checks to buy original stuff.

Also, the fact that some titles are incredibly hard to find around here (and sometimes, I really don't feel like ordering a game from an international site and having to wait one month for it to arrive), I have to depend on 'piracy'.

To me, this whole subject has so many variables that can influence it that it'as hard to tell what (or who) is really 'dmaging' the industry.After all, people in the music industry are alays saying that, due to piracy, the industry is falling apart, but then you see CD release after CD release on sites and magazines and you wonder how the hell is everything falling apart when they have the resources to release CDs all over the world. Someone still must be buying CDs (me included. Got me three to four CDs last week).

I'm probably not making much sense (I'm terrible with words) but that's more or less what I think.

 

[sephiroth1991]

If this where true, then i have broken the law many times. If games stop being manufactured for example due to the poor sales and low demand of REC then they stop manufacturing them, so if someone in the future wants to get the game they have to buy a second hand one

 

[jboking]

Devs.
industry.

You seem to be using these two terms interchangeably, or at least, your logic is. They are not interchangeable. When we talk about the industry as a whole we are looking at every facet that helps put games in the hands of potential buyers. Retailers are part of the industry.

When someone buys a used game, who gets all of the money? The retailer. This then helps keep them afloat, which for smaller retailers, is incredibly important. Where I live we have a local gaming store. They have told me every time I go in to buy old used PS2 games or even to buy some new PS3 fiasco, used games keep them from closing down. Used games is a direct way of helping the retailer. If that company has to go out of business, then there is now an area of people that no longer have access to video games. That's worse for the industry as a whole.

P.S. I'm pretty sure your same logic about used games could be applied to renting games. In fact, by your logic renting could be more damaging, as it is focused almost solely around newer games that could be bought new at any retailer. Used games are more often than not, older games(I personally buy PS2 and Sega Saturn games incredibly often).

 

[Draco Kaiser]

I hate Used Games so I don't buy them period.

 

[Gindil]

I want to interject for one moment. After Square made FFX, they had a massive layoff of employees, who had to find other programming jobs. Our society is fairly mobile with odd exceptions such as Valve or Infinity Ward. Programmers, designers, writers etc, usually find other jobs fairly quickly be it EA or something else within the industry. I'm not beholden to have any of them keep their jobs simply because I decide that I don't find their game worth the retail price at day one. If I like a game, I buy it. Whether that's 10 years down the road or two, I don't see why I should try to hold their jobs in that interim.

If you thought FFX was mediocre and don't want to show support, you don't have to buy it. If they get fired for lack of sales, it's certainly not your problem. What I'm against is people buying used games to "be legitimate" and "show support" for developers they like.

Also keep in mind; if a game you want has a high retail price you can't afford or don't think is worth it, maybe it is humanly possible for you to NOT BUY THE GAME. There's this thing called Supply and Demand, and the price point where "how much you want the game" meets "how much you're willing to pay for it" meets, that's logically what the price should be. If it's too high, then that means "the game is not worth it, so I won't buy it." If Valve sold Episode 3 for $599 USD, you would not "HAVE" to have it. As long as it's imperfect, it probably wouldn't be worth your money. They wouldn't be taking the $599 from your pocket. If everyone followed this convention rather than going with whatever price point it happens to be, then I'm sure most game prices would turn out more reasonable.

Furthermore, this might lead to people actually considering cheaper games. A lot of people here are complaining, again, about not having enough money. Well, I guess that means you have less than $2 in your bank, because on Steam, games will sometimes literally cost that much. Logically, someone with as little money as you couldn't be buying a golden house filled with strippers, just as you can't afford a copy of every RTS to come out this year. Save money, spend wisely, and go for the cheaper games. In every industry except the digital medium, "I can't afford it" means "I CAN'T HAVE IT."

You're confusing my argument with FFX. I used an older game as an example of what happens in the gaming industry. Once the job is done, they're gone. There are a few places that keep people and continue to update depending on the type of game (MMO, action, whathaveyou) but by no means was FFX mediocre when it came out. I'm not here to defend the game, you can read the metacritic for it when it came out.

Funny you bring up S&D. A game store has upkeep, inventory, and employees to worry about. It's not as if I don't understand Steam doesn't have to do all of this. The only thing they're paying for (in comparison) is server space and access to updates, making it far simpler to do than their competition in the retail world. Hell, we want to get technical, they pay their employees for being network engineers as well as software engineering gurus.

What I'm saying in my argument is that my choice of where a game comes from isn't going to change how a business decision comes down. Most games make their money in the first 60 days. Anything afterwards is mostly gravy. You get into digital distribution and that's more money in their pocket. And if they charge $5 for DLC? Even more money.

So, how does my decision to buy Baldur's Gate, another old game that the developer won't be updating, change their status as a defunct company? I find it at Gamestop, I'll buy it. And as I said, whether that's 10 years from now or two, it's my choice.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I bet if the law was a person it would be a total dick.

You mean... the government!? *dramatic music*

 

[Kair]

Buying used games is just as bad as pirating. This is because pirating is not bad.

 

[ModsDeleteThisAccountPlease]

Let me state my reasoning like this. The stores need money too. If buying used game supports my local store which I've been going to for years (EB Games FTW!), then I shall do so. I do buy new games, but only ones I'm dying for *cough* FFXIII *cough*.

 

[Pinguin]

No.

The RRP is calculated by publishers to fully repay them and the developers. (With the chunk taken by the distributors and the other links in the chain too of course.) When someone buys a game, the publishers get their pay. That paying customer has every right to lend it to a friend, or sell it privately so long as they aren't making a pirated copy (and publishers do plenty to ensure that can't happen).

Organised game trading through retail shops is just a more convenient way of organising these transfers of unwanted games. It's a good thing because it generate revenue for the distribution chain, which I'd say is still needed by the publishers. It also gives each game a wider audience and longer life in the public eye. If someone buys a second hand copy of a game and really enjoys it, they're likely to buy any sequels straight off as new games. And let's face it, publishers do like sequels.

It's funny how pundits, analysts and the representatives of the entertainment industries love to invent unprovable concepts like 'sales lost because of piracy'. Yet they shy away from similar extrapolation of figures like 'sales gained due to lending and second hand trading'. I think the latter has much more of a positive impact on sales than the former has negative.

 

[oppp7]

Ya, I pretty much agree. The only excuse I can give for preowned games being better than pirated games is that the developers allow it to happen.