Used Games v. Piracy

[oplinger]

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.

That one's going to need a source.

Also DLC is significantly cheaper than the game itself. Significantly. (up to 1/10)

Not to mention your other point about DLC is moot. A pirate wouldn't buy DLC at all. He'd pirate it.

 

[Epona]

-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.

Used games are nothing like a buffet. You should think that through more because I can assure you that my used copy of Final Fantasy X isn't costing Square Enix anything.

It doesn't cost the company any extra to provide online support to the new customer than it would the old customer. There is still only one person using the game at a time. It's like a child eating a burger their parents bought, you don't hear McDonalds claiming that only the original purchaser can eat the burger do you?

The slippery slope has now been reached, they are now beginning to cut single player content if you buy used and even though they start with a small, optional part of the game the next step is to cut out mandatory parts of the game for used copies. Wanna fight the final boss? Pay $10.

 

[Worgen]

Im surprised that they just dont push pc games more since there is no used games trade or very little of one for pc games

 

[Lucane]

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.

Just because you're trading something in doesn't mean you're buying new copies.Actually someone could have never purchased a new copy ever and played any non-downloadable only game either by burrowing it,receiving it as a gift or buying a used copy which equals a life time of playing games and not one red cent going to the developers.

 

[trollnystan]

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.

Buying used games puts money back into the economy. Pirating doesn't.

Are you also against buying used films? Books? Music? The games industry are the only people (as far as I know) who are trying to destroy the second-hand market of their wares.

I'm far FAR from being a financial expert - I'm not even a novice - but to me:

second-hand games != pirating.

That's my opinion. I see where you're coming from, but I simply do not agree.

Now I'm going to take a nap. =)

 

[Vibhor]

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.

Shadow of the colossus.
BAM! Your mind = Blown

 

[twistedheat15]

Used games are nothing like a buffet. You should think that through more because I can assure you that my used copy of Final Fantasy X isn't costing Square Enix anything.

It doesn't cost the company any extra to provide online support to the new customer than it would the old customer. There is still only one person using the game at a time. It's like a child eating a burger their parents bought, you don't hear McDonalds claiming that only the original purchaser can eat the burger do you?

The slippery slope has now been reached, they are now beginning to cut single player content if you buy used and even though they start with a small, optional part of the game the next step is to cut out mandatory parts of the game for used copies. Wanna fight the final boss? Pay $10.

No the buffet remark was toward the multiplayer aspect in games, that's why I said single player games shouldn't have anything cut outta them even though they're used because they're sold has a complete package to the consumer to do w/e they want with. However when a game has online play it's costing the company money to keep the servers up and maints and used games don't contribute to that. Online passes are fine with me, but taking content outta single play is just asinine.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

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.

That one's going to need a source.

Also DLC is significantly cheaper than the game itself. Significantly. (up to 1/10)

Not to mention your other point about DLC is moot. A pirate wouldn't buy DLC at all. He'd pirate it.

I believe you can find the numbers here [http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110324005389/en/GameStop-Reports-Sales-Earnings-Fiscal-2010]

Also, that was my point about piracyy. They can just take the DLC. A used sale person? They'll still possibly buy it. Heck, I bought New Vegas used, and then got all the DLC for it.

And at the end of the day, what can you really do as a gamer to stop used sales? Not much I think.

 

[Tibike77]

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

Mainly because it's far easier to buy DLCs (or in some cases, at all possible) when you have an used copy of the game rather than a pirated copy.

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.

That says a lot more about the bad pricing practices for games rather than the benefits of used game resale. You only need to look at Steam special offer statistics to see what I mean.
Used game sales don't tap into a magical fairytale land of money-a-plenty, they tap into the "subprime" funding of gamers, something that can be done without used game reselling.

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

You'd have to ask the USA courts, which are still debating exactly that.
Also, it should be quite obvious that the law outside of the USA does not work like inside the USA, with quite a few places where resale of a purchased copyrighted work entitles the copyright holder to a share of the proceeds of the resale, which does not happen in the USA when games are resold.


The solution is however quite obvious, and we're slowly but surely getting there.
We will end up in a place where game companies will no longer "sell" any games at all, but will instead sell subscriptions to their games (and all possible addons), with key parts of the game's logic computed server-side, never actually delivered to the end user, and an "always on" Internet connection will be mandatory to play, because the game will be a mostly dumb terminal.
Basically, all games will work pretty much like a MMO, even single player games.
Then, there will be no more legal disputes at all - you won't be ABLE to "buy used" at all in the first place.

 

[oplinger]

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.

Buying used games puts money back into the economy. Pirating doesn't.

Are you also against buying used films? Books? Music? The games industry are the only people (as far as I know) who are trying to destroy the second-hand market of their wares.

I'm far FAR from being a financial expert - I'm not even a novice - but to me:

second-hand games != pirating.

That's my opinion. I see where you're coming from, but I simply do not agree.

Now I'm going to take a nap. =)

>> read my post's section of revenue streams. That's why. ...It's really the only reason why. Games just have no other way to make money...so they need the cut from used game sales.

 

[Staskala]

Just because you're trading something in doesn't mean you're buying new copies.Actually someone could have never purchased a new copy ever and played any non-downloadable only game either by burrowing it,receiving it as a gift or buying a used copy which equals a life time of playing games and not one red cent going to the developers.

Yes, but again, the existence of the used games market directly affects the people who buy new.
"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."

A customer always buys the whole package, someone who trades games in, takes the money and then doesn't buy a new game for half a year probably wouldn't have bought any game at all if he didn't know that he could trade it in later.
The existence of the used games market is insurance that even if you're not financially stable or if you buy a bad game, there's always a way to get back part of your invested money.

 

[veloper]

Im surprised that they just dont push pc games more since there is no used games trade or very little of one for pc games

That's because publishers expect to rid consoles of used sales, same as they already did on the PC. They're not jumping ship now only to have to come back later.

PC gaming is currently getting a bit more love btw. Companies like Epic and Ubi have stopped talking about abandoning the PC.

 

[veloper]

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.

Shadow of the colossus.
BAM! Your mind = Blown

It's a pretty game, but that doesn't make it fine art.
Games shouldn't aspire to become art anyway. Entertainment is more than good enough.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

I still say that trying to make money off of a used game is like trying to sell it twice.

That being said, game devs are barely pulling a profit these days, if they do, so I can't blame them.

Still, they should be awarding players who buy new, not punishing players who buy used. Maybe give players who buy new a small chunk of extra stuff such as the 1st day DLCs? I don't know

On that note: 1st day DLC is good if players who buy new get it free, and its EXTRA content, not content already in the game.

 

[Irridium]

Publishers don't seem to realize that the people buying used don't have the means to buy new. Otherwise they'd fucking buy new.

So instead of, say, reducing prices so people can buy new(by, like $10 since apparently $55 is considered a bargain to used buyers compared to $60, somehow), then the people who couldn't buy new can now buy new.

Makes more sense then punishing them for not being able to buy new.

And what about rentals? Why aren't they attacking those?

 

[Tibike77]

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."

That only disguises and muddles the issue by "recycling" some of the cash into different timeframes (past, present and future).

The math is simple with regards to money amounts changing hands for games (be it new or used) when ignoring taxes (it gets even worse with taxes) and on a long enough timescale:
Total cash paid by gamers = New purchases + Used purchases - Used refunds
Total cash pocketed by resellers of used games = Used purchases - Used refunds
Total cash received by publishers = Total cash paid by gamers - Total cash pocketed by resellers
which coincidentally simplifies into
Total cash received by publishers = New purchases and nothing else

The math disagrees with you.

In fact, after you figure in taxes, considering that resellers of used games would not be in business doing any of that if they would not make a profit from it in the long run, this actually makes publishers earn EVEN LESS MONEY compared to a system where used games sales would not be possible at all.

...


Let me repeat what I said a tad bit earlier.

The solution is however quite obvious, and we're slowly but surely getting there.
We will end up in a place where game companies will no longer "sell" any games at all, but will instead sell subscriptions to their games (and all possible addons), with key parts of the game's logic computed server-side, never actually delivered to the end user, and an "always on" Internet connection will be mandatory to play, because the game will be a mostly dumb terminal.
Basically, all games will work pretty much like a MMO, even single player games.
Then, there will be no more legal disputes at all - you won't be ABLE to "buy used" at all in the first place.

 

[Epona]

Used games are nothing like a buffet. You should think that through more because I can assure you that my used copy of Final Fantasy X isn't costing Square Enix anything.

It doesn't cost the company any extra to provide online support to the new customer than it would the old customer. There is still only one person using the game at a time. It's like a child eating a burger their parents bought, you don't hear McDonalds claiming that only the original purchaser can eat the burger do you?

The slippery slope has now been reached, they are now beginning to cut single player content if you buy used and even though they start with a small, optional part of the game the next step is to cut out mandatory parts of the game for used copies. Wanna fight the final boss? Pay $10.

No the buffet remark was toward the multiplayer aspect in games, that's why I said single player games shouldn't have anything cut outta them even though they're used because they're sold has a complete package to the consumer to do w/e they want with. However when a game has online play it's costing the company money to keep the servers up and maints and used games don't contribute to that. Online passes are fine with me, but taking content outta single play is just asinine.

How is it costing them more money? It's still only one person per copy of the game and the server maintenance was paid when the game was bought new. Charging more than once for mulitplayer on a single copy of a game is just a money grab.

Online passes were a stepping stone to completely disabling a game if not bought new and we see it creeping into the single player side. Soon consoles won't have a used market either. Maybe you should rethink supporting online passes since it really is just a money grab anyway.

 

[Ilyak1986]

See, the reason that piracy exists is that game companies treat their would-be customers as thieves, and put all sorts of restrictions on features.

And that's the point that pirates say "you want to restrict features? Challenge accepted." and hack the game, and then give it away for free, without any pesky DRM, or having to pay for day-1 DLC.

To which I say: I hope pirates continue pirating so that the rest of us may have access to better quality games than the publisher releases, for a lesser or no cost at all.

When publishers learn to trust their customers to be honest customers despite a few bad eggs existing that simply want to pirate something because they can, then they'll probably lessen the effects of piracy.

 

[Worgen]

Publishers don't seem to realize that the people buying used don't have the means to buy new. Otherwise they'd fucking buy new.

So instead of, say, reducing prices so people can buy new(by, like $10 since apparently $55 is considered a bargain to used buyers compared to $60, somehow), then the people who couldn't buy new can now buy new.

Makes more sense then punishing them for not being able to buy new.

And what about rentals? Why aren't they attacking those?

really games need to be cheaper across the board, 60 is too much and makes the used games much more tempting, 40 should be the cost of a new game but if you really want to kill used games sales then make a new game 20 bucks, not many people will trade that in to at best just get 10 back

 

[Braedan]

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.

When a product is purchased from retail, it becomes property. It is the right of an individual to sell their own property, even to another company, where it then become's that company's property, free to be sold again.

When a product is stolen, it becomes stolen goods, and becomes illegal to sell or own.

If video game companies don't like the capitalist model, they shouldn't sell products in a capitalist market.