Poll: Buying Used Games is just as Bad as Pirating
- Thread starter Deleted
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd like to take what you said here over.Jandau said:
There's dfferent forms of pirating. I knew a guy who'd buy the game at full price, but would then burn it onto the disks and sell them at like $5-10 per game.
That is actually pirating, and in the instance you're talking about, he's on the same as the second-hand sales.
(I'm not praising piracy, but I'm saying it's actually kind of on the same level as what you were talking about.)
I think a lot of people forget that pirates can sell games (for cheap). If I wanted to, I'd do it. My friend actually made quite a bit of money. He bought a new game for $60, then sold it to 10 people for $10. He made a $40 profit!
-----
*shrug* I guess in the end, piracy is still worse because more people will be able to get their hands on it, but second hand sales aren't the best things in the world either.
Ever gone into a jewelry store? (someone mentioned this earlier) Most jewelry stores will NOT have a used jewelry section. One of the main reasons being that if you're buying something special for a special someone, you might want it new. No girl (or guy) would really want a used engagement ring. (Note: This is the thought process of the jewelers, I have a cousin who works in one.) No one wants earrings that have been stuck in someone(s) else's ears.
Gamestop and EB Games both PROMOTE buying used games or trading in you games for store credit, which you can then use to buy a used game.
And which the accessability of Gamestop, more and more people are trading in games that have been preused. Used games get traded in and picked up, traded in and picked up. A copy of Soul Calibur could have switched owners a countless number of times.
-
I guess it's up to you guys which you think is worse.
I personally bought a pirated Bully game for $5 (it was new at the time) and I loved it so much that I bought the Scholarship Edition for 360 for $30 and it was new and from gamestop.
I don't know a lot about rented games, cause i take too much time with my SP games, and countless hours on MP games to ever had rented a game, so i didn't really think about it.LordZ said:
But honestly, think about how many copies of a game gets pirated, i doubt theres a single game that has been rented out thousinds of times.
If someone new rented it every day, for a single day only, it would still take the game almost 3 years to be rented out 1000 times (365x = 1095) And thats only for 1000 times.
Will a game-disc even stand 10 hours of use a day for 3 years?
You are taking something you didn't pay for, which is stealing. Same thing as when you borrow a CD from someone. Basically, when you buy a CD, game, dvd, etc. you are paying for the rights to use it, you don't technically own it... Or that is what I was told in one of my college classes... half of them have some ethics thing so can't remember which it was...Wewk said:
Does buying a used car hurt the car industry?
Do you always buy a house brand new?
Do you go to auctions or use Ebay?
Hmm... maybe devs should just suck it up? Re-using things is efficient and practical. It allows a return on your investment.
As to 'physical vs data', that only applies to pirated games really. Second hand games can be damaged or slightly scratched, meaning less potential life span from them - a potentially inferior product, as with all second-hand deals.
Do you always buy a house brand new?
Do you go to auctions or use Ebay?
Hmm... maybe devs should just suck it up? Re-using things is efficient and practical. It allows a return on your investment.
As to 'physical vs data', that only applies to pirated games really. Second hand games can be damaged or slightly scratched, meaning less potential life span from them - a potentially inferior product, as with all second-hand deals.
If a person takes on the "business approach" of piracy (i.e. they make copies and sell them on) then that is a f***ing disgrace to any media industry. If someone just sells their only full-copy of a game then it's okay.
[If someone can't see the different in those two sales, raise a question and it can be discussed.]
If a person downloads a game (a game which can only legally be obtained via a legit registered distributer) for free then there's different variations on this which I can see. I'll mention a few but not all.
Variation 1: Person downloads game with intentions of never buying the game.
Variation 2: Person downloads the game with the intentions of buying the game if it's fun.
Variation 3: Person downloads the game out of protest against the assholes who decided to implement a limited install number of the game.
Variation 4: Person cannot obtain a copy of the game in their country.
I support Variations 3 & 4 fully.
[If someone can't see the different in those two sales, raise a question and it can be discussed.]
If a person downloads a game (a game which can only legally be obtained via a legit registered distributer) for free then there's different variations on this which I can see. I'll mention a few but not all.
Variation 1: Person downloads game with intentions of never buying the game.
Variation 2: Person downloads the game with the intentions of buying the game if it's fun.
Variation 3: Person downloads the game out of protest against the assholes who decided to implement a limited install number of the game.
Variation 4: Person cannot obtain a copy of the game in their country.
I support Variations 3 & 4 fully.
What your friend is doing is actually worse than just pirating it offline, or at the very least far more illegal. He's profiting off someone else's work. Pirating for personal use is frowned upon, but rarely does anyone go to jail for that. Distributing and selling pirated software is something people get jail time on a regular basis. Also, it's not on the same level as used game sales even in principle, since he's not only making profit, but also doesn't have to give anything up for it. In used game sales, at least the seller has to part with the existing copy in exchange for cash.VanityGirl said:
As for the jewelry store thing, you can sell used jewelry at some jewelry stores and in pawn shops. Also, you can sell off your jewelry for raw material. Heck, you can even do it online. The only reason people are a bit reluctant to buy used jewelry in higher-profile stores is the sentimental value (which you mentioned), but that doesn't apply to games since I've yet to hear about an Engagement Game...
Also, games don't lose much in value when used. As long as the disc is undamaged, it is a complete product. The little that is lost is from the physical aspects of the producs (like the manual), but those are secondary. The main thing you are buying either works or it doesn't.
A example: You go into a store and find.... borderlands for.... 400 USD and than find a used borderlands totally new for 300 USD witch one will you buy? Really, cheaper for me better for me.
Buying used games is just as bad as pirating eh? Well that's a partially misleading statement. For one, piracy isn't legal or moral, while used game sales, as exploitative as some of the markets may be, are.
But the crux of the issue boils down to this: From the perspective of the content creator, regarding impact to their bottom line, what are the respective impacts of second-hand game sales versus piracy?
And there we can quite clearly state that piracy and buying used are equivalent - whether you download a game off the nets or pick it up used from Gamestop, the publisher and developer see precisely the same amount of money: $0.
The notion that "the used game had at least one sale, so they got more money from that at least", while comforting, is also a fantasy - used games are not purchased in addition to the rest of game sales, they are game sales, just being sold again. If nobody ever sold any of their copies of a game and sales figures otherwise remained constant, there would be absolutely no difference in profit between a title without a second-hand games market and one with a thriving second-hand market, so far as the content creator is concerned.
In the eyes of publishers, there is little difference between the people playing used games and the ones playing pirated copies - they received no money from either camp. So the answer to the question "is buying used games just as bad as pirating?", when asked regarding the bottom line impact to publishers' sales figures, is a resounding Yes.
In fact it's actually worse, because the key difference between pirates and used-game purchasers is the willingness to spend money - pirates don't pay for things at all, but people who buy used games are in fact buying them with money. Money that the publisher never sees a dime of, making them the great untapped market of people that are otherwise their customers, except for the part where the publisher receives any financial benefit from them.
Hence why you see initiatives like EA's Project 10 Dollar - stopping piracy is a pipedream and there's no profit in it anyways, since pirates are effectively non-customers who end up with your product - while it's clearly not fair that they get to play your hard work without paying for it, it makes much more sense to focus on the people playing your hard work that paid somebody else for it, since they at least have demonstrated a willingness to pay.
Each and every time a used game is sold, the purchaser represents a lost sales opportunity for the content creator - this is a fact. Whether there would have been any benefit from chasing after that sale is questionable, depending on the specific price - lowering prices to attract more sales will only work if the decrease in price is outweighed by the resultant increase in demand, and some used-game buyers only purchase things when they are well past the point of elasticity and thus of no particular benefit to the publisher anymore.
But the bulk of those used game sales are probably selling for just a bit cheaper than the SKU for a new retail copy, and publishers understandably look upon those figures and wonder how they can redirect those market forces into a pattern of behavior that ends up with them getting the money, not the gaming pawn-shops. Bundling content free for owners of new copies of the title but at cost for everyone else, which diminishes the value of a used copy because it's now missing stuff, is one attempt to shift consumer spending patterns away from the used market - and if they can't convince you not to buy it used, at least they might make some money off of you from DLC sales.
[HEADING=2]Should you feel bad about buying things used?[/HEADING]
Oh heck no, you're buying a luxury good - there's no implicit requirement that your purchase should "support the developers behind it", just that you end up with what you wanted to purchase (and that you didn't steal it, because stealing is wrong). If that's something you actually care about (and you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to by any means), well then you would want to avoid buying used, because you might as well have pirated it for all the benefit the people you're claiming to be supporting see.
But the crux of the issue boils down to this: From the perspective of the content creator, regarding impact to their bottom line, what are the respective impacts of second-hand game sales versus piracy?
And there we can quite clearly state that piracy and buying used are equivalent - whether you download a game off the nets or pick it up used from Gamestop, the publisher and developer see precisely the same amount of money: $0.
The notion that "the used game had at least one sale, so they got more money from that at least", while comforting, is also a fantasy - used games are not purchased in addition to the rest of game sales, they are game sales, just being sold again. If nobody ever sold any of their copies of a game and sales figures otherwise remained constant, there would be absolutely no difference in profit between a title without a second-hand games market and one with a thriving second-hand market, so far as the content creator is concerned.
In the eyes of publishers, there is little difference between the people playing used games and the ones playing pirated copies - they received no money from either camp. So the answer to the question "is buying used games just as bad as pirating?", when asked regarding the bottom line impact to publishers' sales figures, is a resounding Yes.
In fact it's actually worse, because the key difference between pirates and used-game purchasers is the willingness to spend money - pirates don't pay for things at all, but people who buy used games are in fact buying them with money. Money that the publisher never sees a dime of, making them the great untapped market of people that are otherwise their customers, except for the part where the publisher receives any financial benefit from them.
Hence why you see initiatives like EA's Project 10 Dollar - stopping piracy is a pipedream and there's no profit in it anyways, since pirates are effectively non-customers who end up with your product - while it's clearly not fair that they get to play your hard work without paying for it, it makes much more sense to focus on the people playing your hard work that paid somebody else for it, since they at least have demonstrated a willingness to pay.
Each and every time a used game is sold, the purchaser represents a lost sales opportunity for the content creator - this is a fact. Whether there would have been any benefit from chasing after that sale is questionable, depending on the specific price - lowering prices to attract more sales will only work if the decrease in price is outweighed by the resultant increase in demand, and some used-game buyers only purchase things when they are well past the point of elasticity and thus of no particular benefit to the publisher anymore.
But the bulk of those used game sales are probably selling for just a bit cheaper than the SKU for a new retail copy, and publishers understandably look upon those figures and wonder how they can redirect those market forces into a pattern of behavior that ends up with them getting the money, not the gaming pawn-shops. Bundling content free for owners of new copies of the title but at cost for everyone else, which diminishes the value of a used copy because it's now missing stuff, is one attempt to shift consumer spending patterns away from the used market - and if they can't convince you not to buy it used, at least they might make some money off of you from DLC sales.
[HEADING=2]Should you feel bad about buying things used?[/HEADING]
Oh heck no, you're buying a luxury good - there's no implicit requirement that your purchase should "support the developers behind it", just that you end up with what you wanted to purchase (and that you didn't steal it, because stealing is wrong). If that's something you actually care about (and you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to by any means), well then you would want to avoid buying used, because you might as well have pirated it for all the benefit the people you're claiming to be supporting see.
lol dude I was told the same crap in my Business Ethics class in college.Assassin Xaero said:
I have never agreed with it. Sometimes I despise the law. I bet if the law was a person it would be a total dick.
I understand your point, and I myself stopped buying used a while back in order to support those publishers who I really enjoyed after seeing one too many potential game franchises I liked vaporized due to insufficient sales (poor Beyond Good & Evil). And for some gamers, used is the only legitimately affordable option. But I would not say that buying used is as bad as pirating.
Pirates are outside of the business model. They operate in one function and one function only, as thieves giving away multiple copies of something for free.
I would speculate, speculation only so don't jump on me for this, that a majority of used games are sold by retailers that also sell new games and other related products. In a way, you could say having used games is like having a door buster. You get into the store to get the cheap game, but when you are there, you are bombarded with advertisement for new games and gaming products. Not only that, but when you check out, you are hounded to buy new stuff.
Now, I'm not saying the developers lose nothing in the process, but obviously those stores are also working with game developers, so the relationship is somewhat symbiotic. I don't know that Gamestop would be able to exist without used games. But I bet they sold a respectable percentage of new copies of say, Mass Effect 2.
Pirates on the other hand, give nothing back to the developer. They are strictly parasitic. They have nothing to give. They are simply stealing. That's why I would say that the practices aren't analogous.
Pirates are outside of the business model. They operate in one function and one function only, as thieves giving away multiple copies of something for free.
I would speculate, speculation only so don't jump on me for this, that a majority of used games are sold by retailers that also sell new games and other related products. In a way, you could say having used games is like having a door buster. You get into the store to get the cheap game, but when you are there, you are bombarded with advertisement for new games and gaming products. Not only that, but when you check out, you are hounded to buy new stuff.
Now, I'm not saying the developers lose nothing in the process, but obviously those stores are also working with game developers, so the relationship is somewhat symbiotic. I don't know that Gamestop would be able to exist without used games. But I bet they sold a respectable percentage of new copies of say, Mass Effect 2.
Pirates on the other hand, give nothing back to the developer. They are strictly parasitic. They have nothing to give. They are simply stealing. That's why I would say that the practices aren't analogous.