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

[Kinguendo]

And thats why EA can suck a bag of dicks.

Second hand items have been bought and sold for thousands of years, screw these greedy assholes.

 

[shadow skill]

Major exception is that unlike bicycles and other things you don't by games anymore. You pay for the license to them most of the time. Almost every PC game has this policy and has had it for years. If a console game has the same policy on it then resale of that license is illegal as it is not the physical disc but an agreement between you and the company you have paid for with another agreement between the company and the retailer that they may broker this deal and possibly profit form it within certain guidelines.

This kind of logic has been rejected on more than one occasion already by courts in the US. A recent example is Verner V. Autodesk:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

Thing is buying a used game isn't exactly replicating another game is it? The fact is that it's a single copy being transferred over to another person, its not as if the person selling can still play the game is it? So how is this piracy? Or am I missing the point that technological piracy does not simply mean file sharing to which selling a used game isn't, they aren't sharing they're trading instead. Besides aren't most used games something like years old and that if people want to buy a new game they usually buy a brand new copy?

 

[shadow skill]

oh fucking christ

Addressed that, insufficient capital left over after having to forward $60,000,000 for each new game to open thousands of retail chains that, theoretically, only carry that publisher's IP.

learn to read

Fast forward a few decades and most of the money they make actually comes from rentals!

I like how you gloss over the massive legal battle that resulted in that... a ruling video game publishers also benefit from.

I didn't gloss over that. My point is that contrary to the idea that rentals harmed the movie industry it actually has ended up helping them. In part because they figured out how to enter the rental market. In short the publishers in the Videogame industry haven't learned from the past. How is sixty million a big deal when you take in about one billion in sales as is the case of MW2? Secondly not every game actually costs sixty million to make so throwing that number around doesn't actually mean anything.

Ps. You know that services like Gamefly have trade in programs. Gamefly doesn't use retail stores. Neither does Amazon. You still haven't explained why the publishers cannot simply enter into agreements with existing chains to get at any money from used games passing through the retailer(s.) They already do agreements with various sellers with respect to exclusive content after all.

pss. I don't really see why multiple publishers cannot enter into contracts with a single retail chain or why they cannot do the whole thing as a group. Feel free to explain why it is impossible for multiple publishers to have contracts pertaining to used game sales with the same retailers.

 

[DracoSuave]

The problem here is -extremely- simple.

Game publishers make disposable games and then cry foul when disposable games are disposed of.

Don't want me to sell my game? Make me a game I want to keep.

That solves your problem right there.

 

[Nick Holmgren]

Major exception is that unlike bicycles and other things you don't by games anymore. You pay for the license to them most of the time. Almost every PC game has this policy and has had it for years. If a console game has the same policy on it then resale of that license is illegal as it is not the physical disc but an agreement between you and the company you have paid for with another agreement between the company and the retailer that they may broker this deal and possibly profit form it within certain guidelines.

This kind of logic has been rejected on more than one occasion already by courts in the US. A recent example is Verner V. Autodesk:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

That only works if you have not agreed to the licence agreement. Once you boot up the game and hit "okay" you can't site that case. He was selling the disc, which then would be sued to agree to a licence. Until the software is licensed you are free to resell it.

 

[Nick Holmgren]

The problem here is -extremely- simple.

Game publishers make disposable games and then cry foul when disposable games are disposed of.

Don't want me to sell my game? Make me a game I want to keep.

That solves your problem right there.

Then don't agree to the licensing agreements on any games, ever.

 

[shadow skill]

Major exception is that unlike bicycles and other things you don't by games anymore. You pay for the license to them most of the time. Almost every PC game has this policy and has had it for years. If a console game has the same policy on it then resale of that license is illegal as it is not the physical disc but an agreement between you and the company you have paid for with another agreement between the company and the retailer that they may broker this deal and possibly profit form it within certain guidelines.

This kind of logic has been rejected on more than one occasion already by courts in the US. A recent example is Verner V. Autodesk:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

That only works if you have not agreed to the licence agreement. Once you boot up the game and hit "okay" you can't site that case. He was selling the disc, which then would be sued to agree to a licence. Until the software is licensed you are free to resell it.

No. It actually does not matter if he had agreed to the EULA. That section of the EULA is invalid entirely.

 

[Nazz3]

Piracy of the console games.

Hopefully the publishers get that games cost way too much... especially on Europe

 

[DracoSuave]

Major exception is that unlike bicycles and other things you don't by games anymore. You pay for the license to them most of the time. Almost every PC game has this policy and has had it for years. If a console game has the same policy on it then resale of that license is illegal as it is not the physical disc but an agreement between you and the company you have paid for with another agreement between the company and the retailer that they may broker this deal and possibly profit form it within certain guidelines.

This kind of logic has been rejected on more than one occasion already by courts in the US. A recent example is Verner V. Autodesk:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernor_v._Autodesk,_Inc.

That only works if you have not agreed to the licence agreement. Once you boot up the game and hit "okay" you can't site that case. He was selling the disc, which then would be sued to agree to a licence. Until the software is licensed you are free to resell it.

In Canada, this form of license is considered illegal to enforce.

The reasoning is very simple: When you buy the game at the store, you are not agreeing to an opportunity to choose a license, you are making a contract for the purchase of the game. The packaging does not include the terms of license, so there's no way for you to agree to the contract before you exchange consideration.

In other words, for the license to be a legally binding document or contract, you actually have to agree with the license before money exchanges hands. Games do not provide you that opportunity in any shape or form, so therefore the license cannot be a part of the contract of purchase. And, as refusing the license denies you access to the product you now legally own, it is considered agreeing to it under duress, and therefore does not carry legal weight.

On top of that, console games do not have licenses as part of the game experience, but may be contained on a seperate document that you may or may not read. As such they cannot be legally binding as there is no guarantee that you've had an opportunity to agree or disagree with them.

For such a thing to be legally binding, you actually have to have the license presented to you before you pay for the product.

Therefore, resale of the product you now own is perfectly legal, and as the license is not a legal part of the product, any rights it would purport to take away cannot be taken away from you, or the person you resell to.

 

[Gindil]

I also want to understand this... Steam is losing? Do you realize how many people use Steam? Digital Distribution is here, and quite frankly it's here to stay. With steam you own the game, little DRM (I still won't buy GTA IV because of it's DRM but that's my view) and you can buy older games for pennies on the dollar. Iunno, like Portal, for Free! [http://store.steampowered.com/freeportal/] Top that off with the fact that people are still loving Half Life 2 and Team Fortress 2, themselves 5+ yr old games, and you have incentive for DD not to go anywhere. I log onto any computer, I can download and play these games. That's perfect for me.

Doesn't change the fact that I go questing for other games, such as Icewind Dale Trilogy or Diablo. Whoever has a copy when I want it, that's where I'm getting it from. Quite frankly, just as Mercedes Lackey learned in the books industry, so long as it's out there, people will continue to buy. Fighting with technology instead of using it for your own purposes, is the losing battle. As a writer myself, I am aware that not every person is going to buy my book. Some will get it in a library, read it once and comment. Some will borrow it from others. Doesn't mean I've lost a sale. I view it as the fact that at least, someone else has read my book and looks forward to the next one.

This misguided belief that used sales kills industries, when it's been around for gods know how long, is the largest strawman I can see. Not everything is a lost sale. It's just that the publishers of entertainment have to get off their lazy keisters to find new revenue streams.

 

[HitsWithStyxx]

How does it hurt the developers?
No illegal copies are being made in second-hand sales, so technically no money is being lost.
Sure, I can understand that if there was no way to buy a second-hand game then they would make more money, but the industry has survived until now, hasn't it?

 

[DracoSuave]

The problem here is -extremely- simple.

Game publishers make disposable games and then cry foul when disposable games are disposed of.

Don't want me to sell my game? Make me a game I want to keep.

That solves your problem right there.

Then don't agree to the licensing agreements on any games, ever.

I already own the product by that stage. Adding terms onto what is already a legally binding contract after the fact is not legal, and I do not need to give it any weight whatsoever. As not agreeing denies me access to product I legally own, it is also not legal.

And as a law abiding citizen, I have absolutely zero requirement to obey or heed illegal 'licenses' or 'post-contracts'.

Let me be absolutely clear: On no piece of console game software I own does it say that I am not purchasing a product on the package. Without it stating that I am purchasing a license, I am under the impression that I am purchasing a product. The store I buy it from is also under that impression, and does nothing to dissuade me. We are both, as per the contract, exchanging a product. Therefore, by the law, I am purchasing a product.

Again, the onus is on them to make a product I won't resell if they do not want me to resell it. It is not on me to respect their wishes regarding product I legally own. If they do not want their retailers selling products, and rather selling licenses, the onus is on them to ensure their packaging communicates it clearly and non-ambivalently. They do not.

 

[Downfall89]

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.

Nailed it on the head, Hub. And in my opinion, everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. Dead wrong.

Agreed. Who actually thinks selling used games is worse than piracy anyway? At least when you are selling used games the have actually been BOUGHT. Piracy is just getting teh game without anyone getting the profit.

 

[FaceFaceFace]

Its not about damage done in lost sales, its about the practicality of it. If everyone in the world decides to pirate a game, then everyone in the world gets the game for free and no money is made. If everyone in the world decides to buy a used game, they can't. Soemone has to buy it new first, and so money is made. They're fundamentally different, and that's why only one is illegal.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

[
You're missing the point.

Used games are causing the same kind of damage as piracy is.

Also comparing clothes to video-game piracy is like apples and oranges - hell even comparing film and music piracy to video game piracy is like apples and oranges...

Firstly, film and music piracy is exactly the same as game piracy. Both have the same effect in the same way.

And Used games don't hurt the industry as much as EA like to say. If i ever trade in a game, its so i can get the latest release that i've been after. If i didn't trade, then I wouldn't get the game at all. And by the time I'm done with it, the game isn't selling that many new copies anyway as everyone has moved on to the next big thing.
Would they rather people stopped buying their latest releases and jut waited for the game to come down in price instead? Fuck no. Its greed in its purest form to stop used game sales.
And if they support a game with decent dlc then buying a used game which i wouldn't pay full price for is gaining them money from that.
In the case of their latest idea to charge people for EA sports online, thats completely stupid. I very much doubt people would pay to play EA Sports games online.
To stop used game sales completely is also a violation of your rights as a consumer. Once you buy something you have every right to re sell it. It is yours. You own it, no-one else. You decide what to do with it.
If they want to try and persuade people not to do it then fine, but it doesn't stop it from being simple greed.

 

[DracoSuave]

More importantly, when you sell a used game, no argument can be made that you make a profit from it, unless you sell it at a price higher than your cost to acquire it.

Even if they were entitled to my profits, they'd find those profits do not exist.

 

[RoutineEnvelope]

I've never counted owning a disk as piracy. If I can get a CD cheaper second hand then I will, but there are already enough perks to buying most new games. For instance I know that there are plenty of Xbox games that come with gold trials, and others come with themes, gamerpictures or map packs.

Let's be honest, a lot of people wouldn't be able to afford games if they weren't pre owned.

Also, why is it that piracy of games sparks more debate than Music or Dvds?

When I was young, I swapped my PS1 Spyro game for Rayman. Was that piracy?