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

[mattttherman3]

This will destroy rentals as we know it! Luckily I have friends who buy games blindly so I guess I'll just try it at their house

You r teh pirate!!!!!1oneeleven!

I really have to thank the other poster who brought up the fact that simply not buying the game has the same effect as piracy or used game sales. I really would love to know why publishers should not be able to compel people to buy their products.

Places like blockbuster video buy the games and rent them out, the only way to regulate that is by not selling games to those retailers or of course putting that one time use code in. But then what happens if on say Xboxlive, your account gets hacked and you cannot retrieve it? You would have to buy another game wouldn't you.

 

[shadow skill]

This will destroy rentals as we know it! Luckily I have friends who buy games blindly so I guess I'll just try it at their house

You r teh pirate!!!!!1oneeleven!

I really have to thank the other poster who brought up the fact that simply not buying the game has the same effect as piracy or used game sales. I really would love to know why publishers should not be able to compel people to buy their products.

Places like blockbuster video buy the games and rent them out, the only way to regulate that is by not selling games to those retailers or of course putting that one time use code in. But then what happens if on say Xboxlive, your account gets hacked and you cannot retrieve it? You would have to buy another game wouldn't you.

Something like that in all likelihood. But remember we are supposed to cry tears of blood for these publishers while taking it up the ass. All this mess is going to do is cause people to buy fewer games. I would expect publisher revenue to go up somewhat but the overall market for these items will shrink. Most people who have jobs probably cannot afford more than two brand new games a month, lord knows I can't.

 

[blankedboy]

Now amazon.com is as much a threat as Piratebay.com?

What has the world come to.

Piratebay.org.

 

[Eponet]

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.

Again. I disagree.
Second hand clothes, toasters, cars dont have same value as a second hand game. Used clothes may be in some way damaged, have bleached colors, wont last for as long etc. There is a valid reason why those things are that much cheaper than brand new. All those things just arent as good as they would be if bought new from shop. You pay less for a flaw in performance/usability.

This isint the case with games tho. You still get the same game, with same features, same gameplay time. Nothing changes, the game wont become shorter or less playable because its used and the only person that benfits from such sale is the guy you bought it form. No the devs, not the publisher, noone in the actual game industry.

Now why is it worst than piracy? Because you spend money on the game but the game industry doesnt get this money. You just give it to some random guy .

In some cases they're never going to see additional money anyway; and quality does go down. I can illustrate both with the same example.

I bought Soul Calibur 2 last year. I'd have bought it new if I could, but gee, it's been out of print for a few years now. Even then, the copy I got was scratched, and caused massive slowdown at a few points.

There are some flaws with old games, it's just how well you look after them. Just like with clothes. If they've been looked after, they'll be near perfect, if not, then they'll have problems.

Even if you disagree with that, comparing them to rings (Or some other incredibly durable jewlery) fits quite well, and proves the point just as well as clothing or toasters.

 

[ENKC]

It seems pretty straight forward to me. As long as people are spending money on buying games legitimately, they're supporting the gaming industry. Sure, the money is going to the businesses that sell games and not the developers, but its those same stores that sell new games to the public in the first place. The more money they earn, the less pressure there is on them to raise prices and the more people can buy/play those new games instead of pirating. It's simply an economy of scale.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Most of the consolers I know who sell their games do it to help finance the purchase of new games. Cut secondhand sales out and people like them will buy less games.

 

[Eponet]

Perhaps if they'd make games that are actually WORTH that much money, people wouldn't want to resale them.

Pretty much this.

I will never sell my Black Isle games. Never!

 

[Dirty-Zombie]

Make games cheaper, then I'll consider not buying used games...

And you don't hear this debate in regards to sales of other secondhand merchandise. Their're not going to make me feel like some immoral dick just because I'm buying (legally) second hand games.

 

[CasioCoal]

Theft
Piracy
Second Hand Markty

Theft: When you take something without the intention of giving it back. You generally use property rights (rights to use, dispose of) that do not belong to you. With a car, that includes taking the car and using it for yourself.


Piracy: Simply copyright infringement. It is a rather new law (not theft) that is created to protect people who own intellectual property. When you copy something you pretty much generate a new version of the item without taking the item in question - with a car, you go and make a new car exactly copying the old car (Reverse engineering). The old car is still there, just you didn't design the new car, you copied the old and thus infringed on the intellectual property.

Second Hand Market: You use your given right to dispose of your property by giving your property rights over the object to somebody else. With the car, you sell it for money. It is your right to do this, and is in no way an infringement of copyright.


Now imagine car manufacturers somehow made it impossible for you to sell you car. For the car to still be worth buying it would have to be far cheaper, because the resale value instantly drops to 0.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Now imagine car manufacturers somehow made it impossible for you to sell you car. For the car to still be worth buying it would have to be far cheaper, because the resale value instantly drops to 0.

Unless they made it impossible to strip the car for parts it would still have value... although that would be a lot of fucking around and being able to play the spare parts market, which would be bent out of shaped if that was the only way you could make any cash out of a car.


However, the core point holds true for a lot of people. Most of the consolers I know sell games to help pay for more games, as I said above. Take away their ability to subsidise their new game purchases via selling older games and they're not going to magically pull money out of their arses to continue buying the same number of games a year, they're going to buy less games. They'll not only buy less games but probably ask other friends to mod their consoles and have a pirate-y old time... then the publishers won't be getting any money from them, 1st, 2nd or 99th sale down the chain.

 

[A Free Man]

I have noticed a lot lately of the fact that people seem to believe that develepers of games do not get any more or less money due to things like piracy etc. I am no expert and I'm not pretending to be but it would just seem logical that although they do not receive money directly for each game sold that if they are part of the develepment team that made a game that was really successful they will then be offered better jobs in the future or a raise in their salary. It is the same for any salary job really, if anyone in any field does a really good job they are more likely to be rewarded with pay rises. For example someone who files documents might not get paid per document that they file, but if it is apparent that they are filing a lot more than their co-workers it is much more likely that they will be promoted or given a rise on their salary.

Sorry for the horrible analogy but I'm really tired and couldn't be bothered to think of a better one. I hope you guys understand this and if anyone has first-hand knowledge of what determines a develepers pay packet please let me know cause I would be very interested.

 

[Daipire]

Now amazon.com is as much a threat as Piratebay.com?

What has the world come to.

Next thing you know, they'll find links between used games and cancer...

 

[Tony2077]

Now amazon.com is as much a threat as Piratebay.com?

What has the world come to.

Next thing you know, they'll find links between used games and cancer...

well they found a link between pesticides and adhd so who knows

 

[RicoADF]

someone already paid for said game.

they shouldn't care.

The same logic can be applied for piracy. It hurts arguably hurts the industry more, because it's actual consumers, not bored kids with a torrent client, who are getting the games.

So are you stealing a car when you purchase it 2nd hand? I don't care how the greedy publishes try to spin it, purchasing 2nd hand goods is fully legit and their out of their minds if they think they can stop or slow it down. I hope someone sues a company that trys to enforce it because this is stupid.

 

[vrbtny]

Now amazon.com is as much a threat as Piratebay.com?

What has the world come to.

Next thing you know, they'll find links between used games and cancer...

well they found a link between pesticides and adhd so who knows

I think that's less of a surprise. I mean pesticides have chemicals and stuff in, which can be inhaled.

Also, used games and health risks, lol.

 

[neoontime]

Damn greedy, greedy, publishers

 

[Dr. Danger]

You may own your copy of the game but you don't own the rights to it.

I agree with the OP in that second hand video games are another form of piracy. It certainly isn't illegal and I am in no way advocating the ban of games stores taking in used games but there is no denying that the two are similiar.

Perhaps, it would make more sense to just give your copy away rather than using it to make a profit.

And shame on all of you who agreed with the "clothing is like video games" nonsense. Clothing is a necessity, video games are entertainment.

The flaw in your last sentence is two fold. One you don't actually need clothing to live in most places on Earth where humans exist. Second living is in and of itself not a requirement, it is a want. Logically the value of any human's life is the same as any other object. It has no actual value beyond what we say it does. Because value metrics depend on that which is inherently subjective it is quite useless to argue that clothing is not like videogames because of an arbitrary designation of superior value for clothing on your part.

Pseudo intellectual bollocks aside, do you live in such place where clothing isn't a necessity? Do you live in a place where warmth and protection is not required? If so, I would love to move that paradise.

Sorry to overlook your highly exaggerated response but clothing does not equal video games. No matter how much you want to sugar coat it with something I would expect from Chuck Palahniuk.

Last time I checked you won't die if you don't have clothes in most climates on earth. There are still people that go around naked. You complain that what I said is "pseudo-intellectual" while telling other people to be ashamed for agreeing with a perfectly sound analogy because of a distinction that exists only in your head. It's not a paradise I live in, it is the real world that exists outside of your head. According to your logic the human race came into existence with clothes covering their body. Guess what, that didn't happen.

Furthermore has it never occurred to you that entertainment in all of its forms serves to relieve stress which is directly related to human health? So even in the world that exists in your head your own argument is worthless. Before I forget clothing and videogames are commodities as well so the problem with your last sentence is actually four fold (Counting stress relief as three.) rather than a mere two.

It's tiresome to see this same silly argument come up in all of its permutations whenever the subject of piracy comes up. Someone always comes along with some variation of the "Necessity vs. Luxury" argument and proceeds to try and take some sort of strange high ground.

Last I checked, you certainly don't need video games to survive. There are more countries that live without electronic entertainment and yet they still manage to find some sort of clothing. There is far more versatility in clothing than video games, which is why I have designated it higher on the realm of necessity in my opinion. I understand what you're going on about, (perhaps necessity was too strong of a word to use at the time) after much thought but your reasoning for it is becoming flawed. You should have kept it where you were going until adding this one....

Stress relief? Really? That is bloody absurd. Then you beg me to ask, has it ever occured to you that there is means of entertainment outside of video games? Stress relief is hardly an excuse for pirating games when there are other ways to do it that doesn't involve stealing someone's hard work. It doesn't justify the means when you could go play some sports, go for a walk, read a book, or have some friendly social interaction. All of which are fairly inexpensive ways to cope with stress that aren't illegal. And I won't even begin to explain that it's a well known fact that sitting in front of the tele or computer for hours on end is actually a means of providing stress.

For the record, since I feel I need to reiterate, I don't have a problem with piracy. I just feel that it's becoming equally tiresome to hear "pirates" try to justify what they're doing. Why is it so hard to just agree that it's meant to be illegal and be done with it all instead of trying to cover it up with excuses?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Why is it so hard to just agree that it's meant to be illegal and be done with it all instead of trying to cover it up with excuses?

Maybe if you used some Yoda-like phrasing?

 

[Dr. Danger]

Why is it so hard to just agree that it's meant to be illegal and be done with it all instead of trying to cover it up with excuses?

Maybe if you used some Yoda-like phrasing?

My grammar is that bad, huh?

Forgive me, I haven't slept and possess an odd speech pattern as it is.

 

[Dys]

Words

You've spectacularly missed the cornerstone of my logic (probably because I've not made any point of making it obvious). When you buy a game, you do not own the game, you own the right to play it. It is not yours to own, publicly display or distribute, you know those warnings at the beginning of DVDs about all the conditions of use? Those still apply to videogames. Note that I'm not saying this is right (as I despise this, I'd much rather own than rent), but it is very much how publishers view the trade.

Basicially, it makes no difference to the developers whether you're seeding a copy to people, or physically dividing the cost of a single game between people and physically passing it around (which is of course not necessarily the case, as people can easily make their own backups or leave the game installed). The only difference in their eyes is the scale ...and of course, because I'm constantly repeating myself in this thread, I'll point out that there's absolutely no grounds to assume that every, or even most, downloads are illegal. Legitimate users may want to download a copy without DRM, the devious basterds that they are. Now, remembering my above point, when you resell a game, you're actually reselling property that doesn't belong to you. Think of piracy not of physical theft of a product (because that's a stupid and irrelevant comparison) and of theft of a concept or idea. If you buy the rights to manufacture or use a patented product, you cannot then sell or otherwise distribute the goods of that patent contract (or any information you received because of it)...that's illegal and immoral.

As I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about with your further comments, so I'll leave it alone. I will say that I obviously don't hate capitalism, I just respect the difference between owning something and using something.

someone already paid for said game.

they shouldn't care.

The same logic can be applied for piracy. It hurts arguably hurts the industry more, because it's actual consumers, not bored kids with a torrent client, who are getting the games.

So are you stealing a car when you purchase it 2nd hand? I don't care how the greedy publishes try to spin it, purchasing 2nd hand goods is fully legit and their out of their minds if they think they can stop or slow it down. I hope someone sues a company that trys to enforce it because this is stupid.

Seriously... go and read my previous posts, the car example is beyond fucking stupid. Car manufacturers make money from servicing and supplying parts to cars. Second hand car sales are exactly what car manufacturers want, as most of their profit is made after the initial sale of the car. I'm beginning to tire of making this point. Your logic is flawed and I'm sick of arguing this point, there's a difference between physical products and conceptual ones.

There's something seriously wrong with your sense of logic, if you think defending intellectual "property" is "taking the moral high road." I'd like to take a moment and turn that on its head. You see, it's much more beneficial to all mankind to say that intellectual property doesn't exist or, another way to phrase it, is that it belongs to everyone. This puts the needs of the many above the needs of the individual. It's impossible to call it wrong since it's nothing more than a shift in perspective. Property itself is an invention of man, it doesn't exist unless we all agree it exists. It's kind of like how money only holds value as long as we all give it value.

Fantastic, it's of benefit. to the overwhelming majority for the developers and publishers to have absolutely no claim to any of the games they develop, therefore piracy is moral and the right decision.

Obviously, this train of thought is stupid, so much so that I'm fairly sure I've missed your point (that won't stop me arguing it though). What I will say, is that when you buy a game, you do so on the terms of the developers, if they don't want you to resell a game and are too stupid to implement some kind of steam like utility, lower the prices or otherwise combat it, it's their right to redefine the terms of contract when they supply a game. Whether you like it or not, they've opted that you do not have any entitlement to the content on a game disc, and it is not your right to sell it. To breach that contract is immoral, if you take issue with those terms, then don't buy the game.

Anyhow, since the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, it's easy to see how the entire copyright and patent systems are completely unethical.

For the record, intellectual property can belong to everyone simultaneously, unlike physical property. I thought I'd mention it just in case you were thinking of arguing it.

That's a point I brought up not two posts ago. I'm still not entirely sure what you're arguing here.. I will point out that physical property can belong to everyone, or at least everyone within a society (if a government owns trains, then that ownership is really an ownership of the people assuming it's a democracy).

Finally, there's an easy way to point out the flaw in your logic that used sales are immoral. According to your logic, not wanting to buy a game at all is more damaging and a far bigger crime than used sales and piracy combined. You see, with a used sale or piracy, you are at least expressing an interest in the product and would likely promote it to others. If you don't like the product, the opposite is more likely. So, not only does the business lose your sale, they potentially lose the sale to all of the people you expressed your dislike for the product to. See what I did there? I just used your very train of logic to turn everyone who doesn't buy the game into criminals. I could go further and prove than anyone who doesn't spend every dime they have buying the game over and over using your same logic but I think I've made my point.

Erm, I suppose lack of interest is more damaging to the industry than piracy and used sales combined, there are lots of game companies that have gone under because people haven't had interest in their products. I never said that it was a crime, or immoral to not want something though, and I'm not really sure how you came to deduce that. The breaking of a contract that you've entered into is every bit as immoral as circumnavigating a contract you don't intend to honour and acquiring the desired goods by other means. I'm pretty sure that you've not made any point at all here, but I guess if you feel that you've accomplished something then, umm, power to you?