the used games arguement is flawed

[crimsonshrouds]

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.

dun dun duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I might have just blown some peoples minds.

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.

Now i have no problem with companies wanting to make a profit 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.

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"

Then you have the arguement over online gameplay. Do i even need to answer this one? *looks over at idiots flipping me off* -sigh- The money for the online gameplay comes from the first purchase of the used copy. Seriously i shouldn't have to explain this... 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.

/end rant

Sorry just got pissed

 

[Thunderhorse31]

Thanks for straightening us all out. Now we can put these topics to bed.

...

right?

 

[Wayneguard]

Wow I honestly didn't even know people were seriously arguing for used game codes...

 

[Bosola]

Used games 'steal' dev profits in exactly the same why I 'steal' from Whirlpool by not willfully destroying my washing machine. The whole thing is absurd. That my choice somehow reduces their profitability, despite not breaking contracts, does not make me a 'thief'.

 

[Randomtime]

The argument is no differernt to any other media.

If a bookseller argued:
"you can't give that book to a friend, or sell it to a second hand bookshop, I own the copyright" - they'd be laughed at in court. When you own the physical media, you can do whatever you want with it (Yes, DVDs copying is protected by the DMCA in the US - but that's evil, and becides the point.)

Likewise, lending/selling a CD to a friend - protected.

As there's nothing different about a game (it's a form of entertainment) - the physical medium should be allowed to be purchaced and sold like any other form of entertainment (DVD, Book, CD, etc) - there is no difference.

 

[teisjm]

I'm really sorry to do this but...

Spoiler

 

[crimsonshrouds]

I'm really sorry to do this but...

Spoiler

its ok. I just saw some idiots defending the game companies and it pissed me off.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

This won't end it dude. You just started a flame war if the right people appear. There is a difference and I'm all for developers getting paid for their work but these guys that argue it may as well be piracy will always see it as just that and nothing will change their minds. Just leave it and no arguments occur.

 

[Dogstile]

Right. Because if you buy used it does good to anyone other than Gamestop and their fucking "BUY AT GAMESTOP NOW FOR PREMIUM CONTENT" deals.

I buy at blockbuster. Haha.

 

[Fiend Dragon]

Not that I mean to directly defend the publishers viewpoint, but you seem to have the missed the point.

Someone else bought that game first. You are interested playing the game. You are also willing to pay for the game, even though you want to save a little cash.

You buy the game at discount, and get your enjoyment out of it. Thus, you have received your value out of the product, and those who worked to make it receive nothing.

Now, the value of 1 game has served 2 people and the profit from that second consumer is lost.
If that same copy is sold used again, another potential profit is lost.

It sounds a little extreme, but as far as the publishers are concerned, it has the exact same effect as piracy. Possibly even worse, because pirates never planned on paying for it. So not only are they not getting any money, the profit from the copy that they themselves produced is going entirely to someone uninvolved to save them money.

Edit: And no, I don't think that tyrannical copyright protections are okay, and I merely meant to describe how the publishers see it themselves.

its ok. I just saw some idiots defending the game companies and it pissed me off.

Think about that for a little while. Oh okay, sure. Let's just sabotage all of the companies (filled with hard working people that these days have less than great job security) that make the games that we want to play!

 

[Firoth]

Exactly, the company already got their money for THAT ONE GAME. When it becomes a used game, it's not like there are now two of that same exact physical game, there's still just the one. And if a game's sales are really hurting so bad because everyone is buying it used, maybe it should be a hint to the company that the game wasn't good enough for people to A) Keep it, because if someone really liked the game, then they wouldn't give it back and B) Spend full price for it.

 

[WanderingFool]

Im all for the developers getting money through used game codes. Now, ask me if I actually like it, and Ill tell you no. But there is a bunch of things I dont like, and yet still have to do. Im going to have somewhere around $50k in student loans to pay off when Im done with college, I dont like that, but I still have to fucking pay.

But I view the New vs Used game arguement as a waste of time, as I dont buy many games currently, to began with, and when I do, I buy new. But if its a game thats been out for a coupel years, or simply long enough that I wont find a new copy, than Ill buy used. So for FO: NV, when it comes out, ill buy a new copy, but if I wanted to buy something like MGS4, I probably wont find a new copy, so ill just buy a used copy.

 

[crimsonshrouds]

Not that I mean to directly defend the publishers viewpoint, but you seem to have the missed the point.

Someone else bought that game first. You are interested playing the game. You are also willing to pay for the game, even though you want to save a little cash.

You buy the game at discount, and get your enjoyment out of it. Thus, you have received your value out of the product, and those who worked to make it receive nothing.

Now, the value of 1 game has served 2 people and the profit from that second consumer is lost.
If that same copy is sold used again, another potential profit is lost.

It sounds a little extreme, but as far as the publishers are concerned, it has the exact same effect as piracy. Possibly even worse, because pirates never planned on paying for it. So not only are they not getting any money, the profit from the copy that they themselves produced is going entirely to someone uninvolved to save them money.

Apparently you missed my "POINT"

This goes for the used cars as well

Your arguement is just pulling at air to get anywhere.

The used copy was new once meaning they gained a compensation from it. Its the same with books, dvds, and ect.

By the sound of your arguement every copy sold by the companies is just rented by the consumer not owned.

 

[Altorin]

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.

dun dun duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I might have just blown some peoples minds.

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.

Now i have no problem with companies wanting to make a profit 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.

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"

Then you have the arguement over online gameplay. Do i even need to answer this one? *looks over at idiots flipping me off* -sigh- The money for the online gameplay comes from the first purchase of the used copy. Seriously i shouldn't have to explain this... 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.

/end rant

Sorry just got pissed

used games are SOLD

that's the problem.

People are willing to Spend Actual Money to get the game, but none of the money goes to the people that make the game. Pirates aren't willing to spend any actual money to buy anything so really shouldn't be a concern. Most pirates if they couldn't pirate games just wouldn't bother. They pirate thousands of dollars of games a year, way more then they could possibly buy, so their "lost value" is ridiculously inflated. Every used game sale of games that are still being sold new (and hence have close to new prices) are actual losses for the game publishers that are quantifiable - 1 used game sale = 1 lost sale.

 

[Sebenko]

Now, the value of 1 game has served 2 people and the profit from that second consumer is lost.
If that same copy is sold used again, another potential profit is lost.

You lost me here.

If I want a game, I'm not just going to buy it for any price. I'm not going to buy the latest bloom-brown-mump-mapped korean torturing simulator for £35, I'm just not that interested.

So that second hand copy isn't going to lose the developers any money if they keep trying to get more than their product is worth.