Used Games are simply another form of Piracy (THQ joins EA to stop the used games market)

[Zacharine]

And once again, you completely misunderstand your own argument. Sure, breaking the disc in half or cutting holes in it will destroy data, but that does not happen as a result of normal operation in functional systems.

Damage occurs if it just sits on your table for 5 years. Damage occurs even if you store it in a vacuum and without light and leave it there for a few years.

Damage occurs every time you put it in the DVD-reader/console.

Face it, DVDs and CDs get damaged in normal use, and experience loss of data even when not use, or never intentionally damaged.

That is the main reason they are so unsuitable for long-term data-storage for companies. Even if you backup the data to them, then just leave them to optimal environmental conditions, data is still lost over a decade or two.

Everyone who's used a single CD or DVD over a period of few years knows that even in normal use, the surface gets damaged. It doesn't matter how little, or how infrequently. It happens. Therefore, over time, data is lost or corrupted. Therefore, your argument is invalidated, again.

Also, I notice you moving the goalposts, yet again - at first it was that no data is lost over meaningful time periods. Then it was that no data is lost as long as they are handled properly.

I've shown even that wrong.

I wonder, where shall you take this No True Scotsman next?

EDIT: come to think of it, where did I mention anything of breaking them in half or cutting holes to them or taking them to the sandpaper or whatnot?

Are you by any chance engaging in a Strawman as well?

 

[micky]

this is stupid, i think every one should have the right to sell what is yours

 

[LunarCircle]

Oh, Jesus fucking Christ am I sick of this argument. I don't know why it's started appearing all of a sudden. I can guess the reasons behind it - developers and publishers want to squeeze more cash out of us - but I'm astonished that people are actually buying it. Let's make some things clear:

1) Used games are not the same as piracy. They are very obviously not the same. If I pirate a game, an unlimited number of people can have it for free. If I sell a used game, one person has it and I don't have it any more. If a third party wants to get that copy, they have to take it away from the person I sold it to. Don't try to tell me it's the same as piracy. It's just bullshit.

2) Used games are just like anything else being sold second hand. It's functionally identical. Yet no-one sees the need to complain or say I'm doing anything immoral if I buy anything else second-hand. It's an accepted part of life. There are charity shops in every village in this country where I can buy a second-hand dress for 50p, and yet somehow the global clothing industry has yet to collapse. The only reason we'd even consider this a problem for video games is because piracy has made us all so madly oversensitive.

3) Here we come to the crux of the matter. Used game sales are "taking money away from the industry". You know what? No, they aren't. Because it isn't their money to start with. It's my fucking money. I'm not taking any money away, I'm just not giving them money. The games industry does not own my money. They don't have any automatic right to it and it's not immoral to not give them some. If I decided to just keep my money in the bank, no-one is going to criticise me for taking money away from the games industry. But if I buy a second-hand game, I'm suddenly harming the industry? The Hell with that.

4) So if second-hand games didn't exist, the games industry would make more money. But we've already established that game developers don't have exclusive right to all the money on the planet. And that money has got to be coming from somewhere. Which means that right now, someone else is benefiting from people selling used games. You know who? Game shops. And you know who else? Me. Used games benefit the consumer. People get to make some money from a game they don't want any more, and someone else gets a cheap game. And isn't the whole point? We don't give games companies money because we love Bobby Kotick so much and want him to be able to buy a BMW. We give them money because they make games and we like games. We support games companies because it benefits us as consumers. And now people are proposing giving up this massive benefit to us in order to support game companies so they can benefit us? What kind of ass-backwards logic is that?

In case you're wondering why I'm getting so pissed off about this, it's only partly because I'm angry that people who have swallowed a transparently idiotic argument are looking down on me as immoral for doing nothing wrong. It's mainly because if enough people buy this, then the big games companies will have another way to squeeze us for yet more cash and place yet more unreasonable restrictions on our use of games. And better yet, they'll be able to do this while telling us that it's all for the greater good. So the next time some spokesman from EA tells you you shouldn't be buying used games, consider that he might be slightly biased.

Remember kids, home taping is killing music!

Very interesting points that I agree with, especially #3. I really wish that people would realize that they, as consumers, have the power to change a companies tactics. If gamers don't like how a company is conducting business, then they have right to not purchase their products. Voting with your wallet is a very effective way to send companies a message that their particular product/business strategy is not accepted.

And regarding second-hand sales, I'd like the people here to look up the "first sale doctrine." Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale

First sale basically states that once a copyright holder sells a copy, as long as no additional copies are made, the copyright holder has ended his/her/its right to control the sale/exchange of that particular copy.

Basically: second-hand sales are not illegal and the original owner/copyright holder has given up the right to control the sale of a legally purchased copy, as long as the original copy is sold and isn't duplicated.

Regarding software and licenses, here's what my quick research turned up: in 2008, a US Federal judge found that a purchaser of software still has first sale rights "regardless of any licensing agreement" since the purchase resembles a sale and not a licensing agreement.

So, EA can moan all they want, but considering actual on-the-books laws, once they sell a copy of a game, regardless of licensing agreement, they've given up the right to control the further sales/exchanges of that copy. It isn't the same as piracy. Sure, they don't make money off it, but unlike piracy, EA gives up the right to control resale once they've sold a game. The purchaser of the game can resell it as long as they don't copy it.

Now, charging the $10 for online access is perfectly within EA's rights since EA controls the access to their servers and they have the right to charge whatever they want for people to have that access.

 

[Keava]

Unfortunately, re-selling and pirating has become the way to 'stick it' to game companies and show them that their products suck or aren't worth what they're asking for them.
Another problem is, companies don't seem to want to listen to their consumers unless they are speaking with their money.
Both sides are failing at communication, and it doesn't seem that they are trying very hard to correct the problem.

But the end users are the ones that will be paying for the game and are the ones who are going to like it or hate it, so making money is dependent on those people. If they don't like your game, all the magazines and ads they paid to get people to buy said game are worthless. A company also has to be reasonable, or else they will fail at their own market. Many companies aren't being reasonable, they think that they can make all the rules and the consumers will have to stick to those rules.
It's more complicated than a companies duty to make money off their titles.

But five year old games matter with these new games, because more new games are adding strictly DLC as a bonus or incentive to buy the game. In 5 years if a company goes under or stops supporting a previous game, the DLC is worthless for the people that still play or who buy a copy of that game.
I can't go out and physically rent a copy of a new game, because there is no store in the area within a reasonable distance to do that. I am not going to download a game online, or send out to rent a game through some mysterious company that I can't go and deal with directly (somehow).
I do have the right to try/play every game I want and buy what I like, I don't have to pay for a game and pray that the demo wasn't the best part or that the magazine fluffed up the content of the game.
The world is changing to make it so that you have to buy the game now, or basically just not play it. That might be how the world works at the moment, but it's not working very well.

And that way brought us where? As both piracy rates and re-sell/trade-in buisness grows i dont see loads of better games comming out. On the contrary, publishers care more and more about money made rather than quality of product just to fill the gaps (or plain greed, or other economical variables that end-user is usually not concerned abour or aware of).
Its a circle of insanity that does no good.


Companies have right to see second hand game buisness as bad, because they get a crap out of it. Its the bottom line for all the fuss.

Same time, plenty of people appear to be so concerned with the fact that they wont get 'full' game (as in without all the DLC) from the used game they bought. Want something to come with all the features? Buy retail. You cant afford it? Tough life, you dont need to it surive or you canb live with a product lacking some features.
You only have right to complain if you buy a retail product from a licensed retailer. Anything else is your own risk and your own fault.

 

[robobengt]

I don't have the energy to read everything and I've already made a small contribution to this thread, but what I read earlier here still bothers me. (If someone already's mentioned this then please ignore this)

People seem to have problems separating the distribution media the games is tied to and the actual copyrighted material stored on this media. When you buy a game on DVD you actually own that copy of the DVD. You can do whatever you want with that copy. Yes, whatever you want. If, however, you take the digital content out of the DVD you are not allowed to do whatever you want with that content.

So, if I want to sell my copies, it's noones business but mine. Fucking publishers...

 

[ninjapenguin981]

If I'm tired of something I own, something I either can't get enjoyment out of, or something if it's something I want to replace with something better, should I simply have to throw that thing away? Why can't I make a profit and sell it to someone else who needs it? Am I a bad person for helping someone acquire something they want for an even cheaper price than at the store? No, I'm not. I'm a good person for giving someone that opportunity.

So you're basically advocating piracy.

The whole reason why file-sharing, and sharing your PC games with others is "wrong" is because you skip out the authors, in this case the developers.

-How is that different to used games?

Just by claiming that nobody said it was wrong until now, doesn't make it right

People who buy used games tend to just be browsing at a second hand shop, so if there wasn't a second hand shop then they wouldn't buy it anyway. Either that or they're buying rare/non-distributed games off the internet. I really don't think it's hurting companies any where near as much as piracy.

 

[Zacharine]

blah blah

So it takes a couple decades for data to degrade? And the average console generation lasts about 7 years? And a new format is introduced every 10 years? And the average console may maintain functionality for 10 years?

It took a while, but its good to see you agree with, and are supporting my initial argument. That video games are consumable products that do not degrade in any meaningful fashion as a result of use.

Notice how I talk of optimal conditions and not being in use.

For some low-quality CDs in frequent use, significant degradation begins to happen after 2 years.

Read upon my earlier comment regarding the functionality of a console, as well as your definition of "Able to impact play before system itself no longer functions."

One console generation in retail markets may last roughly 7 years. The system functions significantly longer than that. Just like we have functional tube radioes, despite them being anything but a marketable product.

You've moved the goalposts yet again, this is getting fun indeed. Your statement has changed from "Real products degrade. Information stored on disc media does not. "

into

"That video games are consumable products that do not degrade in any meaningful fashion as a result of use."

and even that is false, under your definition of a meaningful time period being "before system itself no longer functions."

It is false even for the 7-year console generation timeperiod you gave

http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.05/loc/

"Only 47 percent of the recordable DVDs tested indicated an estimated life expectancy beyond 15 years. Some had a predicted life expectancy as short as 1.9 years. "

My my, this is beginning to turn into a game of 'spot the fallacy'. I'm beginning to think that you just randomly smash your keyboard and these sentences almost miraculously come out. Because outside of religious discussion, I've never seen this many repeats of the same fallacy, or such a fabulous use of the Strawman and the No True Scotsman in a single sentence (that being the :"Sure, breaking the disc in half or cutting holes in it will destroy data, but that does not happen as a result of normal operation in functional systems.")

 

[Horben]

The thought is that a consumer purchasing a second-hand game might otherwise have been a consumer buying a game first hand. An interesting thought, but I have not read any literature from EA where they equated official secondhand markets to piracy; instead, it's a revenue stream they don't have a hand in.

Also, the man is quoted as saying "... used games are a bigger problem than piracy..." This says that they are two separate problems, and therefore used games are not piracy.

 

[LordZ]

This line of thought is prompted by EAs decision to add serial keys to their sports games to stop the reselling of games.

So it does beg the question about used games.

They cut out the developers and ultimately hurt the studios. The only benefit is increased exposure of their games.

-Sound like anything else?

EDIT: alot of people are mentioning that when you buy a copy of a game - its all yours, but think about PC games. You buy a PC game and it's not really yours. Try to resell a copy of your PC game, and see what you get called.

edit edit: I only just noticed this story... http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100606-Used-Game-Sales-are-a-Bigger-Problem-Than-Piracy

Next you'll be arguing that anyone who doesn't buy the game is a pirate. After all, you may not even own a console but you're a damned dirty pirate for not buying the game since we published it and it entitles us to all your monies. Go die in a fire.

 

[MetalDooley]

If the physical surface of the media is damaged enough to impact gameplay, then it simply isn't accepted as a trade-in.

Unfortunately this isn't the case.I've traded in plenty of games over the years and most shops just check to make sure the disc is in the box and never look at the surface of the disc.I know people who've traded in broken games in places like Gamestop because they know the game won't be checked

Last year my brother bought a used copy of GTA IV that turned out to have 2 huge circular scratches on the disc that rendered it unplayable.Pretty obvious that game was never checked

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

It's not another form of Piracy.

Second hand marketing has been around for ages, and nobody has complained about them before. We have all been OK with second hand stores for clothing, buying used Television sets, flea markets, the works. But now, because video game publishers say it's hurting the industry, it's suddenly wrong?

Fuck no, it's not wrong.

If I'm tired of something I own, something I either can't get enjoyment out of, or something if it's something I want to replace with something better, should I simply have to throw that thing away? Why can't I make a profit and sell it to someone else who needs it? Am I a bad person for helping someone acquire something they want for an even cheaper price than at the store? No, I'm not. I'm a good person for giving someone that opportunity.

exactly this.

i know some pirate's (gyarrrr matey) and the last game they bought was probably 3 years ago if that, they just pirate and pirate and pirate games, while people i know who buy used, including myself, if i like a said used game, because it is older or i got a good deal on it, then usually im aware of that company or game for the next one in the series or company's line up and i probably will buy it new knowing i like what they have to offer

piracy =/= used games

 

[Le_Lisra]

The problem, I believe, isn't that Johnny sells his used copy to Jimmy. The problem is that large multi-national companies are actively encouraging Johnny to sell his used to them so they can sell the game again to Jimmy.
The problem is that large companies like Game, EB Games, Gamestop and their like are promoting their customers to sell their used games back to them so that they can get even more money out of games they've already sold.

Sadly, we end-users are the ones who get shafted.

Which is odd. Why do that? Why not use amazon or ebay? The 5USD, or whatever, that amazon takes from the seller are nothing compared to how much Gamestop and etc. are ripping people off.

 

[bloob]

When it gets to the point that they are charging too much for what they are offering people will stop buying it, until then can u blame them? wouldn't you try to get as much money for your product as you could? that is capitalism

This is going too far though. This is publishers feeling they should get paid twice, thrice or even more for the same disc. They're essentially trying to collect rent on games sales. It's no different to when gangsters go round every shop in their neighbourhood, taking their cut for 'protection'. They have no entitlement to that money other than their own feelings of inflated self-worth.

What's worse is that games in the future are going to be intentionally butchered up into parts in order to fit this new model. All games will have multiplayer, regardless of whether its eve needed or not, and all games are going to have DLC. It will be impossible to buy a complete, fully contained game off the shelf.

If it is too far then sales will reflect that and companies will realise they need to rethink their stratagy, if you don't like what they offer don't buy the game.

 

[Gindil]

who buys 2nd hand when you can get it free anyway

Ebay is around and making a lot of money along with Amazon.

 

[superbatranger]

This whole "Used games are as bad as piracy" deal has gotten way out of hand. Almost every company can accept that there is always the possibility that they will lose money, or not meet the sales quota they wanted. Publishers need to get off their high horse, and come to accept that as well.

 

[miscelaneous]

Boycott EA?
EDIT: And what about games that ar eno longer being produced? Should we just toss 'em in a landfill because apparently capitalism is a crime to EA? FUCK NO!

On a side note: I'm not a person who goes CAPITALISM IS THE BEST! SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM ARE CRIMES AGAINST NATURE!

 

[Le_Lisra]

They do not care if you resell it directly to someone else. They care that large retail chains are reselling massive quantities of games for extensive profit (1000% on average)

People who submit to this scheme are idiots then. I wouldn't want someone like Gamestop making a profit from me. hilarious anecdote: There's only one Gamestop I know of in my hometown (Berlin, Germany) and it is next to a large electronics retailer. And ALWAYS about 10-20% more expensive. What kind of idiots buy there?