Used Games v. Piracy

[numbersix1979]

So I was reading the Escapist's article on the new ridiculous tactics the Rage dev team is using to make sure that people buy their game new, namely locking off certain sections of the single player campaign to people who buy the game used. Now, I realize that it's supposedly a small portion of the game, that most people won't see anyway. My rebuttal to that is that A) Of course the Rage team has to say that, so everyone won't pitch a fit and boycott the game, and B) If this practice is allowed to go on, where could it end up? Larger and larger sections might end up being cut from future games.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that Rage has to make back its money. But why do game companies have to always equate game pirates with used game buyers? When will they see that the first step towards a more approachable clientele, from a marketing standpoint, is to stop treating their paying customers like criminals? The game companies need to realize that people who buy games used are generally on a budget, and making it harder and harder for them to enjoy the games they buy used will make them less likely to buy the game at all, not more likely to buy the game new. It really exposes the developers as not really giving a damn about the artistic statements of their game, just obsessive over how much money they can wring out of the consumers.

The short story is this: Why are used game buyers equal to pirates in the eyes of game companies, when it's an awful policy that doesn't work for anyone involved?

 

[veloper]

It really exposes the developers as not really giving a damn about the artistic statements of their game, just obsessive over how much money they can wring out of the consumers.

This is news for you?
It's always been about profit and people who buy used are not their customers.

 

[numbersix1979]

It really exposes the developers as not really giving a damn about the artistic statements of their game, just obsessive over how much money they can wring out of the consumers.

This is news for you?
It's always been about profit and people who buy used are not their customers.

Yeah yeah, I know. But if you're making a creative property, then it seems logical to assume that when you operate out of a sense of actual creativity and purpose, you make a better product then when you're only goal is to make X amount of dollars before Y date to fund project Z with X Prime amount of profit in between. It's the same with film. Isn't some project that has a story to tell, actual artistic drive (Moon, A History of Violence, etc.) almost always intrinsically better than a film that is put out purely for the purpose of making money? (Transformers, Green Lantern, need I say more?) Even if the technical specs aren't up to snuff, it still reflects better in your mind's eye because the creative property is treating you like an actual human being with a soul instead of a money dispenser.

Also, I reserve the right to complain about the mad grab for profit in this awful world economy, even if it is woefully awful. Just because something is obvious and recurring doesn't mean complaining is pointless. Anything can be changed.

 

[twistedheat15]

It really exposes the developers as not really giving a damn about the artistic statements of their game, just obsessive over how much money they can wring out of the consumers.

Artistic statements only go so far, when your dropping tens of millions to develop big name titles you want a return for your hard work, not just a bunch of ppl wanting it for free because they think it's artsy. The game might be art to you, but it's just a job and product to another.

 

[DaJoW]

But why do game companies have to always equate game pirates with used game buyers? When will they see that the first step towards a more approachable clientele, from a marketing standpoint, is to stop treating their paying customers like criminals?

People who buy games used aren't paying customers (since none of the money from a used sale goes to the dev), so it works out all right.

 

[numbersix1979]

Artistic statements only go so far, when your dropping tens of millions to develop big name titles you want a return for your hard work, not just a bunch of ppl wanting it for free because they think it's artsy. The game might be art to you, but it's just a job and product to another.

I know what you mean about wanting a return for hard work done. That makes sense. But like I said before, you make a better product with an artistic goal in mind. It would seem logical that making a better product would enable you to move more units of product, instead of using marketing tactics to squeeze people. Granted, that works. But you can only do that for so long before consumers at large catch on.

Besides, the people wanting to play it for free? I'm not talking about pirates, I think piracy is detrimental to every industry it preys upon. The people who buy it used are paying customers of the game companies, however indirectly. If it was advantageous of the developers of a game to call the people who buy their game used a part of the primary buyers market, like if they were trying to compile a shareholders' report on the number of people who found the game satisfactory or something, then you better believe they would do it and not think twice about it. But now, it's not something that goes according to their plan. It would be more advantageous to call the used games market thieves and cut it loose. That's all well and good, but frankly, I don't have that much of a hard-on for capitalism. The Anti-Trust Laws and Better Business Bureaus of the world were created to stop stuff like this from happening, and now we're being taken advantage of and being told that we had better be grateful that game companies do anything for us at all. No thank you, says I. I expect more of a return for MY money.

 

[veloper]

It really exposes the developers as not really giving a damn about the artistic statements of their game, just obsessive over how much money they can wring out of the consumers.

This is news for you?
It's always been about profit and people who buy used are not their customers.

Yeah yeah, I know. But if you're making a creative property, then it seems logical to assume that when you operate out of a sense of actual creativity and purpose, you make a better product then when you're only goal is to make X amount of dollars before Y date to fund project Z with X Prime amount of profit in between. It's the same with film. Isn't some project that has a story to tell, actual artistic drive (Moon, A History of Violence, etc.) almost always intrinsically better than a film that is put out purely for the purpose of making money? (Transformers, Green Lantern, need I say more?) Even if the technical specs aren't up to snuff, it still reflects better in your mind's eye because the creative property is treating you like an actual human being with a soul instead of a money dispenser.

Also, I reserve the right to complain about the mad grab for profit in this awful world economy, even if it is woefully awful. Just because something is obvious and recurring doesn't mean complaining is pointless. Anything can be changed.

I cannot think of any game with true artistic merit, but I do see alot of craft in games and that is valuable also, if not moreso.

Think of it this way then, when the game you play makes the publishers enough profit, the game developers get to keep their shitty jobs.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

But why do game companies have to always equate game pirates with used game buyers? When will they see that the first step towards a more approachable clientele, from a marketing standpoint, is to stop treating their paying customers like criminals?

People who buy games used aren't paying customers (since none of the money from a used sale goes to the dev), so it works out all right.

Not necessarily. People who buy games can also buy DLC and stuff like which still means they are paying customers. Besides most games seem like the DLC is taken out of the original content anyway(AC2)

 

[oplinger]

The short story is this: Why are used game buyers equal to pirates in the eyes of game companies, when it's an awful policy that doesn't work for anyone involved?

Alright...I'm gonna assume you're a pretty smart guy. You seem to have at least a smidgen of research ability (You read something.)

Now, here's the deal. It takes a lot of money to make a game. Say you spend 25 million dollars on a game, then sell it for 50 dollars retail. Saying whoever invested the money gets 100% of all sales, they still have to sell 500,000 copies of the game (a lot.) Now take into account the dev maybe sees 20% (being generous probably) which means the publisher (the guys who toss the cash around) make 80% of all revenue from the title, at 25 mil, they see 20 mil. So they need to sell an extra 100,000 copies. Some games need to sell 1 million copies just to break even.

Now that we've broken down that bit (it's important) let's talk about revenue streams. Movies have Theaters, DVD releases, syndication and merchandising. Most of their money comes from the theater, which is a singular place in which a person must go in order to see the film. Second place is DVD sales, which they usually put out when the theatrical release is dying down. (in order to maximize revenue of the product) and then syndication if a TV station wants the rights to air the movie to the public. They get loads of cash for all of them.

Music has concerts, which is similar to theaters, and radio, which is similar to TV syndication.

Games have.......your computer/console. Maybe merchandising if they have the spare cash. They have absolutely NO MORE revenue streams. In order to make up the cash, they have to sell more product. Else we flip our shit like this. If you buy the game used, they see no money, the publisher does not, the developer does not. If you pirate the game, they see no money, the publisher does not, the developer does not.

Now that you understand that, let me get one specific point out of the way, it has to do with economics and business. If your business makes no money, and still has expenses. You don't really get to be a company for much longer. And we cease to have games.

It's not about treating paying customers as criminals, it's about trying to not go under. This is why we have loads of DLC, project 10 dollar, and other initiatives to try and make money off of used sales (Used sales are the largest chunk out of revenue). No one gives a flying fuck about it though, so what they're doing is trying to entice you (heavily coax.) to buy the game new, so they can keep making games you like.

...That's about a basic blanket statement to cover the issue and it's context....any other questions?

 

[Tibike77]

why do game companies have to always equate game pirates with used game buyers?

Because from the standpoints of the game developers, publishers and distributors (so, basically, anybody NOT dealing in used games), there is basically no difference whatsoever between an used game buyer and a person who pirates the game.
Whether that means for you that used games should be considered bad or piracy considered not so bad, that's a different and uglier story.

But let's say you personally think used games and piracy are radically different.
Please, DO TELL, how exactly is an used game buyer any different from a pirated copy anyway ?
The fact that he pays some cash ? Well, buying a bootleg version is pretty much the same too (from a user perspective, awareness of bootleg status not being all that relevant), and I doubt you'd be endorsing that.
So what makes used games so special that they deserve an exemption ?


LATE EDIT:

Just in case it was not clear enough already, I am not talking about the LEGALITY of doing it, but about the FINANCIAL side of things from a game publisher/developer's perspective, all throughout the post, not just the first paragraph.

 

[Staskala]

But why do game companies have to always equate game pirates with used game buyers? When will they see that the first step towards a more approachable clientele, from a marketing standpoint, is to stop treating their paying customers like criminals?

People who buy games used aren't paying customers (since none of the money from a used sale goes to the dev), so it works out all right.

I'll just copy-paste what I said earlier.
Someone who buys used isn't a direct customer, yes. But he can still buy DLC, merchandise and other related things.
And if he really liked a game, he is far more likely to buy the sequel or other games from that developer new.
He becomes a new customer next time, a customer the publisher wouldn't have acquired without used games.

Also, you kinda forgot about the guy who traded the game in. What will he do with the money/points he got from trading?
Buy a new game obviously, a game he couldn't afford without trading in his old games.
What people do these days is buy a game, play it, trade it in and get a new one, so in the end it all evens out.
There is no fucking disadvantage for publishers here. It's completely different from piracy where the developer doesn't see a single cent.

I firmly believe that used games don't hurt the industry, but that publishers massively benefit from it.
This "used games fiasco" is just a way to make extra cash, not compensate losses they made due to people buying used.

 

[Epona]

But why do game companies have to always equate game pirates with used game buyers? When will they see that the first step towards a more approachable clientele, from a marketing standpoint, is to stop treating their paying customers like criminals?

People who buy games used aren't paying customers (since none of the money from a used sale goes to the dev), so it works out all right.

So, kids aren't really McDonalds customers because their parents are paying McDonalds instead of the kids themselves? Guess McDonalds shouldn't worry about making Happy Meals taste good since kids aren't really their customers.

How about movies? All those kids who went to see Toy Story weren't really Pixar customers because they didn't directly pay Pixar. When their parents bought the DVD, the kids still weren't customers right? So Pixar should have Woody give kids a big middle finger for not directly buying their own copy.

Your logic is flawed. One does not need to pay the original producer themselves. The game was already bought new. Giving the used customer a bad product can only end badly.

 

[Stall]

The short story is this: Why are used game buyers equal to pirates in the eyes of game companies, when it's an awful policy that doesn't work for anyone involved?

Because legal or not, both of used game buyers and pirates hurt them in the exact same way. With both used games and piracy, the company is being cut out of a sale, which is in turn, profit. In their eyes, they might as well be synonymous since the inevitable impact both have on the developer is equal (despite one being legally and not). Some game studios have even gone on record and said the used game market is actually MORE harmful to them than piracy Source!.

Either way you cut it, both result in someone playing the game with the developer making a grand total of zero dollars. One just happens to be legal, which doesn't make it any better in the eyes of a developer.

 

[Tibike77]

Someone who buys used isn't a direct customer, yes. But he can still buy DLC, merchandise and other related things.[...snip...]

Any of your other arguments can also be used to defend the position that game piracy is good (or at least, not as bad).
None of your points make any significant distinctions between buying used and pirating.
By that logic, you should allow pirated game copies to buy DLCs and merch, since, hey, why not ?

 

[trollnystan]

I'm against this push that the game industry is making towards eliminating second-hand games. What's next? Second-hand books? Films? Furniture?[footnote]Yes, I know that in the case of books and furniture there is the whole wear-and-tear thing, whereas games, being digital, don't have that. (beyond scratches to the disc and missing manuals.) But music CDs and film DVDs are also digital; are they exempt somehow? 'Cos I haven't heard any hubbub from the music and film industry about second-hand sales.[/footnote] There's a second-hand market for practically everything, but for some reason games have to be the exception?

Second-hand games are a good way for people who can't afford to pay full-price for every single game they buy. Either that or patiently wait for the right sale to come along.

/2 cents

 

[twistedheat15]

-snip-

Buying used isn't paying the "game" company, just who ever you bought the game from. It's almost like having a giant buffet and after ppl are done eating they sell their seat to someone else in line. Sure that person just bought a seat to get in, but the restaurant isn't getting anything for all the food that you're eating. If a company is cutting back on the online content in the forms of passes and such used gamers have to buy, I don't really mind that because they pay a large amount keeping servers running and maints, no one wants a leech to jump in sucking resources they didn't pay for. But cutting content in a single player story is out of the question, because that was sold as a full product for the consumer to so w/e they wanted with. However in the end the game companies are still corp who look at profit for their investments so they can keep funding new ventures. Can't compare the video game "art" to any other types because of how large the amount of resources are needed to make them.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

why do game companies have to always equate game pirates with used game buyers?

Because from the standpoints of the game developers, publishers and distributors (so, basically, anybody NOT dealing in used games), there is basically no difference whatsoever between an used game buyer and a person who pirates the game.
Whether that means for you that used games should be considered bad or piracy considered not so bad, that's a different and uglier story.

But let's say you personally think used games and piracy are radically different.
Please, DO TELL, how exactly is an used game buyer any different from a pirated copy anyway ?
The fact that he pays some cash ? Well, buying a bootleg version is pretty much the same too (from a user perspective, awareness of bootleg status not being all that relevant), and I doubt you'd be endorsing that.

Here's a fun fact: People who buy games, even used, buy DLC more then people who pirated the game.

Secondly, Gamestop bought over a billion dollars worth of used games last year. $750 Million of that by consumers went towards purchasing new games. That's right. So that money went towards publishers pockets directly.

So what makes used games so special that they deserve an exemption

On the contrary. What makes games so special that they deserve an exemption from the First Sale Doctrine?

I think the industry has latched onto this issue because they're tired of fighting pirates, and would rather go up against something they could beat (They hope)

 

[Tibike77]

I'm against this push that the game industry is making towards eliminating second-hand games.

Are you also equally against that push of the game industry towards eliminating software piracy ? Why ? It's practically the same thing. Feel free to explain the radical difference you believe exists between buying used and pirating.

 

[Staskala]

Any of your other arguments can also be used to defend the position that game piracy is good (or at least, not as bad).
None of your points make any significant distinctions between buying used and pirating.
By that logic, you should allow pirated game copies to buy DLCs and merch, since, hey, why not ?

How nice of you to disregard the entire post and focus on a single point.
The key difference, again, is this:
"Also, you kinda forgot about the guy who traded the game in. What will he do with the money/points he got from trading?
Buy a new game obviously, a game he couldn't afford without trading in his old games.
What people do these days is buy a game, play it, trade it in and get a new one, so in the end it all evens out.
There is no fucking disadvantage for publishers here. It's completely different from piracy where the developer doesn't see a single cent."

Now, please explain how this is in any way similar to piracy.
The fact that a game can be traded in is part of its value to the customer. If he couldn't trade them in, he wouldn't buy as many games.
Abolishing the used games market takes away a key "feature" of a game, which in turn would decrease its value (again, to the customer) and reduce demand. Plain and simple.

 

[Lucane]

If they didn't they'd only make money from the first sell this way they* don't make more money from the 1st sell but now they get a small cut if you want the full trip(their saying it's not interrupting the main story just a few side sections Unlike D.L.C. expansion mini story arcs)[I.E. New Vegas: Dead Money or Borderlands: Madd Moxxi's Underdome]

It now depends on retail stores for the pricing of Used copies they could mark it over* 50 dollars when the "Unlock Key" is 10 dollars making it cost more than a new copy (making it silly to buy it used) or... They sell it for less than that and making the used copy still cheaper (which is the only way they would likely sell a used copy to a informed customer) Which would reduce their resell profit which could be considered their real target for doing this.