Used Games v. Piracy

[Atmos Duality]

Well, someone called in the Necromancer. I'm bored, so why not shoot for a bit.

Digital downloads for music and games have different rules, but if I have a f'cking box in my hand with a disk in it, it's tangible.

If you took that argument to court, you would lose.
The data on that disc (or hard drive, or thumb drive, or even vinyl record if you're feeling sassy) is protected by copyright law.

The physical medium is barely considered; pertaining almost entirely to warranty and contract-compliance enforcement. You bought the license for that music, you are expected at LEAST be able to listen to it once, by law.

That's because by economic definition, data-centric goods (books, music, movies, etc) are Non-Rival, Excludable goods. They need special rules in order to retain *any* market value.
It just so happens that breaking those rules is pathetically easy.

 

[KILGAZOR]

Selling used games = legalized piracy. The creators of the game receive no money for either.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

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 ?

Heh?
Before you spout stuff like this, learn some law, the first purchaser of a product ALWAYS has the right to resell. Similar to how you can resell a physical item, you are legally permitted to resell you license to any intellectual property or give it away if you wish.
Let me put this in context, are you saying that we shouldn't be allowed to give video games as gifts?
Because what you're arguing against is anybody obtaining the product without personally and directly paying for it.
If you're not allowed to transfer the license, it is legally impossible for us to give them at gifts.

I wasn't talking about the LEGALITY of it, I was talking about the FINANCES//utility involved, from a publisher//developer's standpoint.
Look at how Steam does it, for instance - it's as if games are food or game time codes or something like that : you can transfer ownership as much as you like IF YOU DON'T USE IT, but there can only be one actual user.

The only reason you can't enforce that with physical games (or books, or any other physical substrate) is that there's no way to reliably track it.
But with games that "talk to the mothership" when in use, that IS enforceable.
And in the future, we'll see more and more games that ONLY work that way, and more and more games that will LACK a physical support (or if it will still exist, it will be for convenience - less to download - or for extra goodies ; you'll still need to "enter" the game into the system - again, look at the Steam example).
And there will no longer be any way to play those games without "registration", and so no way to ever sell them used.

Are they? It's not like people who buy used don't use DLC, and it isn't like the company didn't get paid.

Though, frankly I'm wondering if the fact that you can't transfer steam games stands up to the first sale doctrine. It probably deserves a test in court.

Selling used games = legalized piracy. The creators of the game receive no money for either.

Well, since piracy in reference to games/movies/music using a game that you don't have a license to, that's a complete contradiction in terms.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

The fact that I occasionally trade in games and buy used makes me the bane of the video game industry. Who knew.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Selling used games = legalized piracy. The creators of the game receive no money for either.

I'm sorry, but you can't call something a "legalized" illegality. It's a contradiction in terms.

Else taxes are "Legalized theft", and they are no different then being robbed. Oh wait, that's stupid

Ok, you people.

When you buy a used game from your local retailer, it's not like they send part of that money to the game publisher.


When you buy a NEW copy, it's not like they send part of your money to the company EITHER.

Secondary markets exist for almost all products in the world, not one other secondary market has to kowtow to the primary market. Games should be no different.

What he said.

 

[Tibike77]

frankly I'm wondering if the fact that you can't transfer steam games stands up to the first sale doctrine. It probably deserves a test in court

I'd love to see anybody TRY it.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

frankly I'm wondering if the fact that you can't transfer steam games stands up to the first sale doctrine. It probably deserves a test in court

I'd love to see anybody TRY it.

So would I.

The fact that the licence for IP can't be transferred strikes me as very odd as far as nobody suing them on it yet.

 

[Tibike77]

frankly I'm wondering if the fact that you can't transfer steam games stands up to the first sale doctrine. It probably deserves a test in court

I'd love to see anybody TRY it.

So would I. The fact that the licence for IP can't be transferred strikes me as very odd as far as nobody suing them on it yet.

So, what's next ?
Suing Blizzard because they banned the buyer of a WoW account ?
And after that, suing the owners of an elite club for not allowing you entry after you purchased a membership from a (now former) member ?

 

[AdumbroDeus]

frankly I'm wondering if the fact that you can't transfer steam games stands up to the first sale doctrine. It probably deserves a test in court

I'd love to see anybody TRY it.

So would I. The fact that the licence for IP can't be transferred strikes me as very odd as far as nobody suing them on it yet.

So, what's next ?
Suing Blizzard because they banned the buyer of a WoW account ?
And after that, suing the owners of an elite club for not allowing you entry after you purchased a membership from a (now former) member ?

Slippery slope fallacy my friend, after all, if we allow interracial marriage, soon marriage to chairs will be legal!

 

[LilithSlave]

In a way, I can admit it's at least similar, but then again, I'm pro-piracy. Not anti-buying, pro-"piracy".

Neither one directly gives the publishers and developers money, and yet both allow a consumer the product without doing that. The main difference is that buying used keeps scarcity.

I personally am a person who does both, if that's okay to admit here. Or rather, all three, really. And under this logic, I support all three. I do think that people should buy media, but I also think that strictly following copyrights is silly. I pirate games, mostly with the help of emulation, because I desire to consume more media than anyone who isn't a millionaire can't afford. As with most of the internet. Most of us want to and do consume more media than we can afford to pay off in our lifetime, so we pirate. It's not that we don't want to buy, we just realize that for our habits in the modern age, buying everything we consume would mean putting our grandchildren in debt. I also buy used for the same reasoning. Some things you just can't pirate easily. And for that, there's buying used. Like with pirating, I would rather get a bunch of games now, used, and pay full price later if I like them, than pay full price for a game I don't even like and not have the money to afford more.

Unlike what many people think, people want to buy media regardless. Just like they want to vote. They are however, living in an age where they don't have to buy something before they like it. And that's a good thing.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Ok, you people.

When you buy a used game from your local retailer, it's not like they send part of that money to the game publisher.


When you buy a NEW copy, it's not like they send part of your money to the company EITHER.

Secondary markets exist for almost all products in the world, not one other secondary market has to kowtow to the primary market. Games should be no different.

What he said.

And once the entire game industry starts functioning exactly like all of those other industries, maybe that's what will happen. For now, however, they are different and that's something a lot of people fail to recognize.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Ok, you people.

When you buy a used game from your local retailer, it's not like they send part of that money to the game publisher.


When you buy a NEW copy, it's not like they send part of your money to the company EITHER.

Secondary markets exist for almost all products in the world, not one other secondary market has to kowtow to the primary market. Games should be no different.

What he said.

And once the entire game industry starts functioning exactly like all of those other industries, maybe that's what will happen. For now, however, they are different and that's something a lot of people fail to recognize.

To be fair, you'd be hard pressed to argue that all industries that have to deal with the first sale doctrine are the same. Saying "But they're different" doesn't really hold water, does it?

 

[StriderShinryu]

Ok, you people.

When you buy a used game from your local retailer, it's not like they send part of that money to the game publisher.


When you buy a NEW copy, it's not like they send part of your money to the company EITHER.

Secondary markets exist for almost all products in the world, not one other secondary market has to kowtow to the primary market. Games should be no different.

What he said.

And once the entire game industry starts functioning exactly like all of those other industries, maybe that's what will happen. For now, however, they are different and that's something a lot of people fail to recognize.

To be fair, you'd be hard pressed to argue that all industries that have to deal with the first sale doctrine are the same. Saying "But they're different" doesn't really hold water, does it?

Given that the entire core of where profits come from in the game industry is different than the fairly similar multiple streams of revenues shared in large part by most/all other entertainment media I would say, yes, it does hold water.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Ok, you people.

When you buy a used game from your local retailer, it's not like they send part of that money to the game publisher.


When you buy a NEW copy, it's not like they send part of your money to the company EITHER.

Secondary markets exist for almost all products in the world, not one other secondary market has to kowtow to the primary market. Games should be no different.

What he said.

And once the entire game industry starts functioning exactly like all of those other industries, maybe that's what will happen. For now, however, they are different and that's something a lot of people fail to recognize.

To be fair, you'd be hard pressed to argue that all industries that have to deal with the first sale doctrine are the same. Saying "But they're different" doesn't really hold water, does it?

Given that the entire core of where profits come from in the game industry is different than the fairly similar multiple streams of revenues shared in large part by most/all other entertainment media I would say, yes, it does hold water.

Even if that did, that's an economic, not ethical argument. Also, the stigma against used games has really only appeared this generation, because of the ways they now have to fight it.

An the "entire core"? Need I remind you how much merchandise these guys move? Hell, I'm wearing my Grey Warden T-Shirt right now. They sell books, T-Shirts, and even anime sereies. They've developed multiple streams

As I've said before, the problem is that some developers are making games they want to make, not games that will sell.

 

[Tibike77]

frankly I'm wondering if the fact that you can't transfer steam games stands up to the first sale doctrine. It probably deserves a test in court

I'd love to see anybody TRY it.

So would I. The fact that the licence for IP can't be transferred strikes me as very odd as far as nobody suing them on it yet.

So, what's next ?
Suing Blizzard because they banned the buyer of a WoW account ?
And after that, suing the owners of an elite club for not allowing you entry after you purchased a membership from a (now former) member ?

Slippery slope fallacy my friend, after all, if we allow interracial marriage, soon marriage to chairs will be legal!

It's only a FALLACY if the steps DO NOT at least somewhat logically follow from one another, and there are either huge gaps in between the start and the claimed finish, or the number of steps is large (each with a certain non-100% probability of happening) and total probability of the chain of argumentation is very low.
Otherwise, it's just a series of events.
This is particularly true for the USofA legal system, where each ruling sets a precedent which future cases can build upon to have a noticeably higher chance of success.
So, in this case, while it is somewhat of a slippery slope, it's completely justified, and not just yet another fallacy.

 

[orangeban]

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.

The way I see it is that used games buyers are like floating voters (political term, those who aren't sure who to vote in an election, could go either way). They are obviously willing to put down hard earned cash for your stuff, but they don't like the company enough to buy new.

The way to get these peole to buy new rather than used is to show them what an awesome company you are and what awesome games you make. The way to keep them buying used, or worse pirating or even worse, ignoring your game totally, is to flip them the middle finger and go, "Fine, fuck you guys."

Pirates are obviouslly not willing to pay for your games, therefore are much less likely to be swayed into buying new.

 

[orangeban]

As I've said before, the problem is that some developers are making games they want to make, not games that will sell.

They are ignoring the very first thing you learn in business/marking classes. Dont try and sell the product you want, sell the product your consumers want.

People also seem to forget that used game sales have been happening for the last twenty years. It hasnt killed off the video game industry yet and in fact the industry has grown. So its kind of hard to argue that they are killing it off when all evidence points in the other direction. The best solution for developers if they want to prevent used game sales is to create a game that people dont want to trade in or at least not for a few months or more.

Nor have used movie sales killed the movie industry that operates at similar costs to games and has been around a hell of a lot longer. Neither have used car sales killed of the car industry,

 

[platinawolf]

They come from the same root cause. People not willing to buy products at price X but instead buys it at price Y.

But legally? No other business is even close to being as screwed up as the game's industry. The game developers and publishers dare say what you are allowed to do with the things you do. Resale'ing is a legal right in most countries. The car designer doesnt get pay'd for any second hand car sale. Sony doesnt get pay'd if you sell your ps3. Ikea doesnt get pay'd if you decide to sell your old sofa. And the list goes on. Used games should be able to be transferred in full and for free.