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

[Yarkaz]

Eh... No. The difference between piracy and used game sales is, I believe, that when one pirates a game, they are creating a literal copy, stealing the work of the publishers and duplicating it time and time again for distribution. When one sells a used game, it leaves their possession and goes to another. When I buy a used game, I can be assured that the game no longer belongs to its previous owner; they can no longer play it, I can. If I pirate a game (not saying I do, mind you) it is now playable by both myself, the original owner, and whoever else downloaded it.

Honestly, I think all this used game controversy is another attempt by big-name publishers to rake in more money. Upon realizing that they can digitally distribute games to customers without actually allowing the customer to own the game, they began to think that games on disks worked the same way. Of course this is false, as when I buy a hard copy of a game, I am giving my money up to own a solid, physical disk containing the data needed to play said game.
If publishers want to eliminate the used game market, what they ought to do is stop selling hard copies of games and rely only on digital distribution, where we actually don't own our games.
Lets all hope they don't.

 

[crypt-creature]

First things first. It hardly is about the very old games that have no support/are not avalible in retail anymore. Also it gets easier to get your hands on the old games these days thanks to digital distribution. You have GOG first things and even other services like Steam offer you acess to older games.
I dont know how it is in your countries, but in Poland our main retailer often sells the gold edition/classic edition packs of old games for very small price, they are the guys behind GOG.

Again. The whole recent issue is mostly about the games being re-selled/traded within first month after release, when it is still fresh. It is about people who will buy them those 5-10$ cheaper way before the game even goes on discounts and is certainly far from life-support service style.
The point where i can see why companies see it as worst as piracy is that the customer does spend money but a company never gets them. They got used to pirates being pirates and wanting the products for free, but in case of trade-ins/re-sells its sometimes really such small difference in price between retail and used that it does feel a bit unfair for the companies.

You're assuming I use Steam, or want to use Steam.
I don't. I enjoy having a hard copy.
Plus those 'old games' of mine aren't any older than 5 years, though they are for older systems (PS2 and the like) that many companies don't support online options for any more. Yet you can still find them brand spankin' new in a retail store or online from the company.

I can't help but think the reason a lot of those games are traded/sold to a second-hand shop so early is because the game is either bad or doesn't have enough replay value for the consumer.
In other words, many times it seems like the companies are gimping their selves by selling sub-par products and ideas to people. A lot of what seems to sell a game are either the demo(s) or hype in game magazines, neither of which are reliable to judge a game by these days and more often then not... people don't want to take the chance finding out.
When I worked in a game store, the titles that were traded in more often were either the ones people complained about most (general dislike and feeling ripped-off) or they were trading the previous sequel to a game in order to afford the new release in that series.
I don't think the used game market is as simple as people want to think it is, and the companies seem to be taking out their frustration on the used-game market instead of considering 'Maybe we're just making bad games here, guys'.
Heck, even releasing sequels so close together could be hurting their sales.

EDIT: At times, it does seem a bit unfair. Though... I can't help but think many of those 'unfairities' (not a word, but meh. Brain doesn't want to figure one out) have a reason.

 

[Kouen]

2nd hand games is legal and there's nothing EA can do about it, There just crying and trying to make people feel like pirates xD

 

[Beastialman]

So they've equated second hand games to piracy?

I might as well start to pirate instead then.

Or, since the punishment for piracy is greater than the punishment for theft I could just steal the games.


This shit is getting out of hand...

Heh, I couldn't agree more.

P.S Welcome to the Escapist, well at least welcome to the posting part.

 

[Keava]

You're assuming I use Steam, or want to use Steam.
I don't. I enjoy having a hard copy.
Plus those 'old games' of mine aren't any older than 5 years, though they are for older systems (PS2 and the like) that many companies don't support online options for any more. Yet you can still find them brand spankin' new in a retail store or online from the company.

I can't help but think the reason a lot of those games are traded/sold to a second-hand shop so early is because the game is either bad or doesn't have enough replay value for the consumer.
In other words, many times it seems like the companies are gimping their selves by selling sub-par products and ideas to people. A lot of what seems to sell a game are either the demo(s) or hype in game magazines, neither of which are reliable to judge a game by these days and more often then not... people don't want to take the chance finding out.
When I worked in a game store, the titles that were traded in more often were either the ones people complained about most (general dislike and feeling ripped-off) or they were trading the previous sequel to a game in order to afford the new release in that series.
I don't think the used game market is as simple as people want to think it is, and the companies seem to be taking out their frustration on the used-game market instead of considering 'Maybe we're just making bad games here, guys'.
Heck, even releasing sequels so close together could be hurting their sales.

EDIT: At times, it does seem a bit unfair. Though... I can't help but think many of those 'unfairities' (not a word, but meh. Brain doesn't want to figure one out) have a reason.

Its buisness. Consumers can esily show companies that the games are bad/unfinished, but re-selling/pirating games is not really the way to do it. From publisher/developer point of view there is no real difference in income whenever you buy used or download from internet., and that is the reason i dont see how it is more fair to buy a used one rather than download it from teh webs.

The difference i see publishers are voicing lately is in the fact that people are ready to pay as much a retail price -5$ + 3-4 days of wait to get the product the publishers dont make money off. It is, like it or not, companies duty to make sure they do make money off their products and it is more complicated than just end users liking or not liking said game.

Five year old game for previous gen console system is not the issue that is reason for all that noise. Its new games. Seems like lots of nowadays gamers have an odd sense they deserve to play all the released games and only pay for the ones they do enjoy. Thats not really how world works, sorry to disappoint.

 

[Brandon237]

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.

I'm with the OP on this one, I don't see the difference? In one setup, you get one person who pays the company for the original game, then enables loads of other people can play it without paying the developers any more for it. In the other, you get one person who pays the company, then enables others to play it by paying a 3rd party, giving none of the money to the devs.

Once you buy a product, it is yours. This is capitalism people. Deal with it EA. If I buy a product, and follow the EULA, you no longer have any control over it. It is mine. And if I intend to resell it, it has nothing to do with you *stares at EA*

You make profit off it once. If you intend to stop me from re-selling it, then give it long lasting appeal. I would never sell a very fun game or one with good replay value.

Isn't most of the profit made within the first week of release in the USA anyway?

 

[Zacharine]

Optical media doesn't degrade fast enough for the value of the data stored therein to be impacted in any real form.

Define "in any real form".

Without that, we can't continue.

Because, you know, the average lifetime of a CD is less than the average lifetime of a non-digital photograph.

The lifetime of a DVD is most likely less than the average lifetime of a TV.

Certainly much less than a radio set.

I use a wicker chair that was manufactured and bought in 1982.

I cannot install my copy of Baldur's Gate 1 from the original CDs because of data degradation. And they're not scratched either, pristine condition on the surface.

To claim that optical media doesn't degrade in any meaningful fashion is to disregard almost every long-lifetime product we have. And the lifetime of games (as fun-to-play software) is a lot more than just a handful of years.

EDIT: there is in fact a lot of hand-wringing and copy-machining at my workplace being done, because archives, electrical drawing and architectural drawings need to be backed up and we cannot trust the DVDs to hold data integrity long enough for us to fulfill the specific requests and laws made regarding our documents.

Hence, we need everything in paper form. Because papers isn't guaranteed to begin loss off data a few decades down the line.

 

[Zacharine]

Optical media doesn't degrade fast enough for the value of the data stored therein to be impacted in any real form.

Define "in any real form".

Able to impact play before system itself no longer functions.

See any PC game manufactured before 2000.

We have PCs. The games referenced above are stopping to function from the original CDs.

Also, I have an old Playstation back from 1995.

Several of my games, good ones at that, are no longer playing due to data degradation.

You sir, are wrong, or at the very least have a very skewed idea of what the life-time of a gaming system actually is.

 

[Xero Scythe]

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.

right. Wouldn't this actually benifit the game producers, since they are being paid twice for the same game?

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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! Movie producers that put out DVDs don't care that people resell their DVDs, so why are Game publisher's making such a big issue over this?

 

[Beastialman]

One thing I haven't seen talked about why this is stupid is it would pretty much give game manufacturers a monopoly, they control the price that stores buy it which means if they have no competition (from used games) they could keep the prices jacked up making the stores keep the prices high.

Thankfully we have Steam and Valve which might produce some price competition between PC games.

 

[lwm3398]

So they've equated second hand games to piracy?

I might as well start to pirate instead then.

Or, since the punishment for piracy is greater than the punishment for theft I could just steal the games.


This shit is getting out of hand...

Welcome to the escapist, unless you're not new and were only lurking for a while.

On topic, I disagree. They got one sale out of one game. Multiple people have that one game at different times does not mean used games are pirated games. For games to be pirated, in my opinion, multiple people have to get the exact game from only one sold copy at one time. With used-games, different people only get the one game at a different time, meaning nobody got a new game for free (As it is with piracy).

 

[Ghost1800]

I don't see the problem with used copies. You bought the physical copy of the game along with the license to use it. If you give the physical copy of the item to the other person the license will transfer over to that person. The original owner of the copy now does not own that copy and will have to purchase another one to get back the benefits of owning it. As long as there are no additional copies produced I don't see how this is at all related to piracy.

 

[TheTurtleMan]

I don't doubt that reselling games is hurting companies more than piracy, but for me the problem is the morality of pirating a game. When you pirate a game even if you make some excuse or justification, you know you're stealing it. On the other hand buying a resold game is just buying the same game used for a discounted price which you still have to pay for with hard earned money.

 

[Pinguin]

Please, for the love of god, if you are going to defend used sales, do not use an argument that defends piracy.

Why not, since the argument is valid in both cases? Both used games sales and piracy are good forms of publicity for games.

 

[-Samurai-]

I have been thinking about this for the past few weeks. I found a used media store in town that charges reasonable prices for games. I picked up a number of PS3 titles(MGS4, Way of the Samurai 3, Fallout 3) for $8 each. I have yet to see a title there for more than $20.

By buying at that store, I'm getting a product(for a damn good price) without giving a cent to the developer. Does that hurt them? No. Is it a lost sale? No. Why?

I don't buy games at full price. Ever. $60 is ridiculous and I would never pay that kind of money for something that will only entertain me for a few weeks. So, that means they didn't lose a sale from me. I never would have bought it full price anyway.

If anything, they could actually make money from me here. I'm considering buying some of the DLC for Fallout 3. So, by not buying the game full price, I have the money to give them for add ons.

Which is better? Getting no sale of full priced game, and subsequently, no sale for add on content. Or, having someone buy a used game at a fair price, then spending money on the add on content, which goes directly to them?

Either way, screw them. I'll do like I did for Bad Company 2. Get it used, go to my local video store(s) and check the cases for codes. How you like that plan, EA?!

 

[Misterian]

You think used game sales are merely like piracy?

That's like going to a yard sale to buy a sofa that catches your attention and calling it piracy.

 

[the D0rk One]

EA sucks ass.
It's a classic case of "we need to upgrade our milk cow". The coke bucket running low maybe?
Anyway, here's my reasoning:

Used game sales cannot be compared to piracy mainly because EA gets their money for every fucking game sold ONCE. They're butt-hurt about second hand game sales because they're greedy fucks who'd like to cash in on ANY TRANSACTION their games might be subject to.

If lil' Jhonny buys EA's uber-aweosme mega-hit from Virgin, EA gets the money, but if lil John realizes the game is shit and he sells it at half price to lil Timmy the next day, EA is pissed because it doesn't get squat from this transaction.

But since EA gets it's share from the initial sale of the game, and the second hand buyer has a copy of EA's game which has been paid for and EA got it's share, well...

What's so wrong about it?

Furthermore, who sells a good game?
Games subjected to this transactions are either old/rare games very difficult to acquire otherwise, or new releases that prove to be less than the players expected, and ofc they try to recover their lost money.

This gets me thinking about their (EA's) real reason to be upset: is it that their games are "prone" to be re-sold? Is this their way of saying "hey, so what if our games don't have a lasting value, we expect you to buy every one of them and also to hold on to them, even if only to protect your shelves from another layer of dust"?