crimsonshrouds said:
The problem with the used games equal piracy or is worse than piracy is that everybody seems to ignore the fact that the games that are bought used were once new.
On the contrary, that fact is quite often alluded to by those who would equate used games to piracy.
crimsonshrouds said:
Seriously the gaming companies just want more money and the more half-wits who agree with them the better it is for them to make a profit.
I want to interrupt you for a moment for a number of reasons. First, you engage in rhetorical fallacy for the second time, but here it is quite direct where you dismiss people on the other side of the argument as stupid. Second, because I'd like to sarcastically point out that you cracked the code!
Yep, a business wants to make a profit. Scandalous!
crimsonshrouds said:
Now i have no problem with companies wanting to make a profit. . .
Except you just said you did in the previous sentence, but please continue.
crimsonshrouds said:
. . . but forcing people to purchase codes to get access to everything their copy has to offer pisses me off. Why? You may wish to ask.
I will indeed ask! Why?
crimsonshrouds said:
You go purchase a used car but for the car to work you have to pay the company that made the car for a code that allows the car to drive. A car that you just paid for. Any person would be fucking pissed about that. Then you would have some extremely thick people going. "But dude, the company that produced that car deserves compensation, otherwise its just stealing from them"
I love the "used other consumer product" argument, I really do. On the surface, your claim still appears to be correct and yet, a closer examination reveals that there are distinct differences. When a car is used, its inherent value has degraded as a result of use. Parts wear out, efficiency decreases and so forth. You pay less for this product because it is, in fact, a lesser product than it was new. No reasonable person would pay the price of a new car for a used car when the vehicle is unarguably an inferior example of said vehicle. If you look beyond that, the vehicle manufacturer still has a stake in said vehicle. They are the ones who produce replacement parts in most cases and as such they still turn a profit on the maintenance of said vehicle. Better still, since the warranty is guaranteed by the dealer rather than the manufacturer in this case, such service actually generates a profit rather than a loss.
Games on the other hand do not naturally degrade. Certainly a disc can be damaged, but in such a case the result is a non-functioning product that can easily be returned or exchanged. A used copy of a particular game includes the same information and data the new copy did.
Finally, you managed to squeeze two different fallacies into a single sentence by constructing a straw man and an ad hom.
crimsonshrouds said:
Then you have the arguement over online gameplay. Do i even need to answer this one?
Since you have not even made clear what the argument is, or defined your stance upon it, I would say so.
crimsonshrouds said:
*looks over at idiots flipping me off* -sigh-
Really? Again?
crimsonshrouds said:
The money for the online gameplay comes from the first purchase of the used copy.
Seriously i shouldn't have to explain this...
On the contrary, I really hope you do.
crimsonshrouds said:
The arguement seems to be acting as if their was going to be an increase of people on online servers which doesn't happen unless the game was stolem from the retailer. Otherwise the purchaser of the used copy is taking the place of the first purchaser.
Depending upon the game in question, there may be a cost associated with maintaining the service. Some games offload this on the players and use a p2p connection. This is, generally speaking, a functional solution but is often seen as inferior to other options. From the glaring problems caused in some cases thanks to a host advantage (if nothing else, the host is guaranteed to have the lowest latency) to problems switching hosts in the event of a problem to the annoyances of having to deal with periods of terrible performance while hoping the host will switch to someone else, you'll find plenty of people will argue against such a route. Other games use dedicated servers, which unfortunately have a cost associated with them. Beyond simply paying for the hardware and software required to run the server (not the game itself obviously, but rather security software, OS and the like), you have to pay for bandwidth, electricity, a space for the server to live, the salaries of people who ensure they stay operational and so forth.
This has primarily been a concern since consoles became the primary platform for most sorts of games. Previously, if people wanted to play a game the cost of doing so was passed on to the community anyhow. Indeed, this is still the case today with any of a number of PC games.
The basic point is that, if there is a cost associated with such an endeavor, and historically this cost has been fielded by the players themselves, why is there a problem now? My guess is that, for the first time, the attempt to transfer the cost is seen and felt by a significant portion of the player base.
There have been other attempts to do the same thing. Call of Duty periodically puts out a new pack of maps. While you aren't exactly forced to buy them to keep playing the game, you will be regularly kicked from servers when it rotates to a map you don't have. This has the same effect as simply charging for online access and yet people don't really complain; indeed, they are often pleased when such content becomes available. One might pause and wonder why, and again the reason is simple enough: you have an illusion of choice. You can opt to not buy into the scheme. Sure, your play experience will degrade but at least you still have access. This is in spite of the fact that such a scheme affects people who purchased the game new as well.
What it really comes down to is that people complain at length about this precise issue and yet I feel no real compulsion to side with them. You
choose to purchase a game used, you
argue that it is your right (and I completely agree that it IS your right) and in doing so you cut the people who took all the risk associated with making a game, the people who poured years of their lives into its production out of the loop. And for what? An 8% discount? With such a snub, why would the developers and publishers actually care what you think when they gate access to content?
crimsonshrouds said:
/end rant
Sorry just got pissed
I agree that I ought to have the right to sell a game that I own. I also agree that I ought to be able to buy a used game if I see fit. But, where I differ from you is that I will not begrudge a company if they attempt to force a stake in the used market. I think some of the mechanisms that have been tried (such as gating access) are a bit heavy handed certainly but I also realize that I can always just choose to purchase a game new. People make the "price" argument all the time but the reality is that I don't personally see that savings of five bucks to be worth dealing with the headaches, nor do I feel that gamestop has a greater right to my money than a company does.
