Why is there debate about used games?

[Saxnot]

All this doesn't change the fact that the end result for the developer is exactly the same. I pirate, i get to play the game, developer recieves nothing. You buy second-hand, you get to play the game, developer recieves nothing.

Just to reiterate, i have nothing against buying used games.

My point is that what the developer or publisher recieves is not your concern. You are not responsible for the continued existence of EA games. Once you have ownership of something you can do what you want with it.

What is so logical about a company claiming they should be compensated for the sale of things they don't own anymore?

 

[Baralak]

I have no problem with buying used games at all, but from the developers perspective used game sales have the exact same effect as pirating. You can argue it increases awareness of developers, advertisement and all that, but the same applies to pirating. Logically speaking, if you're against pirating you should also be against used game sales (assuming of course your reason for being against pirating is that it denies the developer profits from the game itself). You could also argue that with second-hand games there needs to be an initial purchase, but this doesn't really hold water either since the fact remains that a given individual is playing the game without giving any money whatsoever to the developer. From the developers perspective, its the same as pirating.

It's a bit of a paradox really, if you're against pirating because it denies developers profit then it's hypocritical to be supportive of used game sales. Hypothetically speaking, if i'm pirating all my games and my friend is buying all his games second-hand, both of us are reaping the benefits of being able to play the game cheaply and neither of us are supporting the developer.

Except you're wrong. For a used game to exist, it HAD to be bought new. The developer did get paid for that copy of the game. If I sell my now-used game, I'm not stealing from the developers, because it was bought new. With piracy, that doesn't happen. What happens with piracy is that someone goes into the developers network, steals the game, then puts it up for everyone to get for free. There's a big difference there. The developers are being greedy, entitled morons.

Yes, a grand difference of a whole 1 game sale.

I have no problem with buying used games at all, but from the developers perspective used game sales have the exact same effect as pirating. You can argue it increases awareness of developers, advertisement and all that, but the same applies to pirating. Logically speaking, if you're against pirating you should also be against used game sales (assuming of course your reason for being against pirating is that it denies the developer profits from the game itself). You could also argue that with second-hand games there needs to be an initial purchase, but this doesn't really hold water either since the fact remains that a given individual is playing the game without giving any money whatsoever to the developer. From the developers perspective, its the same as pirating.

It's a bit of a paradox really, if you're against pirating because it denies developers profit then it's hypocritical to be supportive of used game sales. Hypothetically speaking, if i'm pirating all my games and my friend is buying all his games second-hand, both of us are reaping the benefits of being able to play the game cheaply and neither of us are supporting the developer.

The argument that publishers should benefit from every sale of a game is based on a mistaken assumption: that a publisher not getting payed for a product they have no ownership of is comparable to a publisher not getting payed for someone distributing their product without compensating them. One is the buying and selling of products, the other is thievery.

second hand:
The publisher has already been payed, they have transferred the right to one(1) of their games to the buyer. The buyer now owns it and can do what he wants with it.

Piracy:
They haven't transferred the right to the making or copying of that game. If you do copy it, you are doing something illegal.

This is piracy. The fact that you are transfering ownership of a product more times than you have ownership of a product.

All this doesn't change the fact that the end result for the developer is exactly the same. I pirate, i get to play the game, developer recieves nothing. You buy second-hand, you get to play the game, developer recieves nothing.

Just to reiterate, i have nothing against buying used games.

But that's the difference between buying used and piracy, someone already paid my dues to the developer for me. THAT is why the used game is cheaper, because part of it was already paid for you. EVERY SINGLE used game on the market was bought new. The developers got their money.

 

[spartan231490]

Simply put: People don't have much of a choice.

It is the publishers right to make that game require whatever code/extra cash that they want. Is it fair? No. Does it screw over the used game buyer? yes. Welcome to life. Life isn't fair, and life is an exercise in getting screwed.

What I have a problem with is people who ***** and whine when publishers take measures to combat used sales, which absolutely cut into their new sales.

This is 100% incorrect. Please do some research on the subject and stop spreading misinformation.

Yes, piracy is worse, if only because of the numbers.

Again, 100% incorrect. Where have you gotten your information from? Are you just believing what the huge corporations are telling you?

The facts on what effects these things actually have are surprisingly easy to find on the Internet. You might want to look into it.

It's not debatable. It's simple fact.

You buy a game used, that's a game that's NOT being sold new. That's a lost sale. How is this shit so complicated for some people?

Because admitting that would mean that they would start to feel guilty for buying used games, or when they pirate. When in reality, you should be able to admit it and then turn around and say: Well, books have been sold used for as long as there have been books, that didn't kill the publishing companies, so used sales are alright. People are always trying to self-justify their own actions. I'd say at least 40% of human behavior can be explained by that.

 

[everythingbeeps]

I see. Your assumption that people who buy used games would otherwise buy them new and full price makes it a "simply fact". Aged old ignorant though process. It's also nowhere near that simple.

My "assumption" is that SOME of the people who buy used games would otherwise buy new (and would likely buy fewer games, and be more selective about what they buy, sure). And that's not so much an assumption as it is complete fact. Or are you suggesting that 100% of used-game buyers would just give up games entirely rather than buy new? That the publishers would gain NOTHING by the dissolution of the used game market?

I'm not saying there aren't other factors in play. But this one's pretty undeniable.

And that other guy argued that the used game market is actually GOOD for publishers, and I didn't dismiss it at the time but I will now. He used the example of Mass Effect 2, saying that he'll buy ME3 new because he bought ME2 used. Fine and dandy. But there will still be a fuck ton of people who buy ME3 used because they can. So we're back to square one. The simple fact is that without a used market, more NEW copies of most games will be sold. Maybe not a ton more, especially for shitty games, but it's hard to think of a scenario where fewer new games would be sold.

 

[LITE992]

My argument has always been that the game was bought new at some point, and that now the game has been sold from one owner to a new one.

Ok, two people have played one legitimate copy of the game, BUT two people are not playing at the same time, as one person has sold the copy to someone else.

The developers/publishers miss the last point massively. A pirated game is one that has been bought legitmately once but has been copied and can be played by many other people simultaneously. A used game cannot. When you sell your game, you can't play that copy anymore. Only the new owner can, until they sell it to someone else.

With a used game: One person bought it. One person is playing it.
With a pirated game: One person bought it. An unlimited number of people are playing it.

 

[targren]

You buy a game used, that's a game that's NOT being sold new. That's a lost sale. How is this shit so complicated for some people?

By your logic, if I said "Hm. GTA IV was a crap game, so I think I'm going to take a pass on GTA V," that's the same as piracy, because it's a lost sale.

Clearly, your metric is horribly flawed.

 

[Baralak]

My argument has always been that the game was bought new at some point, and that now the game has been sold from one owner to a new one.

Ok, two people have played one legitimate copy of the game, BUT two people are not playing at the same time, as one person has sold the copy to someone else.

The developers/publishers miss the last point massively. A pirated game is one that has been bought legitmately once but has been copied and can be played by many other people simultaneously. A used game cannot. When you sell your game, you can't play that copy anymore. Only the new owner can, until they sell it to someone else.

With a used game: One person bought it. One person is playing it.
With a pirated game: One person bought it. An unlimited number of people are playing it.

That's also a very good point.

 

[everythingbeeps]

You buy a game used, that's a game that's NOT being sold new. That's a lost sale. How is this shit so complicated for some people?

By your logic, if I said "Hm. GTA IV was a crap game, so I think I'm going to take a pass on GTA V," that's the same as piracy, because it's a lost sale.

Clearly, your metric is horribly flawed.

Only if you grossly misunderstand what logic actually is. Which you do. Like, really badly.

 

[Shpongled]

All this doesn't change the fact that the end result for the developer is exactly the same. I pirate, i get to play the game, developer recieves nothing. You buy second-hand, you get to play the game, developer recieves nothing.

Just to reiterate, i have nothing against buying used games.

My point is that what the developer or publisher recieves is not your concern. You are not responsible for the continued existence of EA games. Once you have ownership of something you can do what you want with it.

What is so logical about a company claiming they should be compensated for the sale of things they don't own anymore?

I'm not disagreeing with you on that point. This is what i'm saying:

The usual criticism made against people who pirate is that they're reaping the benefits of playing the game without actually paying the creators of the game any money, thus compromising the future of the developer. After all, if no one pays the deveveloper for the product they made then the developers won't have the money to go producing more games. The same principle applies to buying second hand games.

All i'm saying that it's hypocritical to criticise a pirate on the basis that you're denying the developer money if you yourself buy second hand, as either way the developer is not recieving profits.

If you want to criticise pirates for breaking the law, or for denying Gamestop money, then fair enough, that would be legitimate, but if you're criticising them on the basis that the developer recieves nothing, then you're also morally obliged to be critical to ward those who buy second hand games, as the end result is identical.

Just to reiterate a 3rd time, i'm not criticising the used game market or those who buy them, you're well within your rights, just don't go moaning at pirates when your favourite developer sinks because they have no more money, you were just as much the cause of it as pirates.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Escapists, please help me understand something: why are people arguing that used games are bad? like any other product, you pay money for them, then they are yours, and you can do what you want with them.

Because propaganda is a very powerful tool, you might have noticed that every dev and their granny came out with a public statement that used games are "putting them out of business", "worse then piracy", "killing the industry", "raped baby jesus", ... so on and so forth.

Well it doesn't take long before the mindless monkey masses start to repeat after them.

 

[Saxnot]

Simply put: People don't have much of a choice.

It is the publishers right to make that game require whatever code/extra cash that they want. Is it fair? No. Does it screw over the used game buyer? yes. Welcome to life. Life isn't fair, and life is an exercise in getting screwed.

I feel that's a bit of a negative way of looking at things, but all right. That doesn't mean we shouldn't call companies out when they're trying to screw us, and try to stop them from doing so, does it?

Because admitting that would mean that they would start to feel guilty for buying used games, or when they pirate. When in reality, you should be able to admit it and then turn around and say: Well, books have been sold used for as long as there have been books, that didn't kill the publishing companies, so used sales are alright. People are always trying to self-justify their own actions. I'd say at least 40% of human behavior can be explained by that.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that point. This is what i'm saying:

The usual criticism made against people who pirate is that they're reaping the benefits of playing the game without actually paying the creators of the game any money, thus compromising the future of the developer. After all, if no one pays the deveveloper for the product they made then the developers won't have the money to go producing more games. The same principle applies to buying second hand games.

All i'm saying that it's hypocritical to criticise a pirate on the basis that you're denying the developer money if you yourself buy second hand, as either way the developer is not recieving profits.

If you want to criticise pirates for breaking the law, or for denying Gamestop money, then fair enough, that would be legitimate, but if you're criticising them on the basis that the developer recieves nothing, then you're also morally obliged to be critical to ward those who buy second hand games, as the end result is identical.

Just to reiterate a 3rd time, i'm not criticising the used game market or those who buy them, you're well within your rights, just don't go moaning at pirates when your favourite developer sinks because they have no more money, you were just as much the cause of it as pirates.

I understand what you both are saying. If you buy a used game instead of a new game you are (possibly, let's not pretend anyone can say this is or is not so with 100% accuracy) consting the developers money.

Why do you think people take the developer's point of view then? It confuses me that nobody cares for the theoretical loss of car sales from a second-hand car, but when games are involved, people feel publishers should be protected from the economy they operate in?

Regardless of the above, would you agree with me that whole argument that publishers should be compensated for used games basically comes down to them trying to guilt-trip us into paying extra for what used to be free?

 

[targren]

You buy a game used, that's a game that's NOT being sold new. That's a lost sale. How is this shit so complicated for some people?

By your logic, if I said "Hm. GTA IV was a crap game, so I think I'm going to take a pass on GTA V," that's the same as piracy, because it's a lost sale.

Clearly, your metric is horribly flawed.

Only if you grossly misunderstand what logic actually is. Which you do. Like, really badly.

Except that I do. If piracy and buying a used game are equivalent for no other reason than developer.income = 0, then my not buying a game because I don't want it is just as equivalent, because developer.income = 0.

Clearly the fact that I don't even play the game doesn't matter, because with a used game sale, ONE person (the buyer) plays the used game, where as a pirated game, MANY people play the downloaded game. So you've already eliminated that metric from consideration.

Nice ad hom, but the logic error is, alas, your own.

 

[Vegosiux]

Just because YOU have a philosophy of "used or bust", that means EVERYONE has it?

I'm pretty sure that rule will also make him buy a new and not used ME3 copy, I'm surprised you missed that.

 

[Saxnot]

Escapists, please help me understand something: why are people arguing that used games are bad? like any other product, you pay money for them, then they are yours, and you can do what you want with them.

Because propaganda is a very powerful tool, you might have noticed that every dev and their granny came out with a public statement that used games are "putting them out of business", "worse then piracy", "killing the industry", "raped baby jesus", ... so on and so forth.

Well it doesn't take long before the mindless monkey masses start to repeat after them.

really? just 'people are stupid'?

one would think that when companies are clearly trying to con you into paying extra for something that used to be free, people would try and stand up to that. Just out of self-interest, if nothing else.

 

[Magnicon]

Or are you suggesting that 100% of used-game buyers would just give up games entirely rather than buy new? That the publishers would gain NOTHING by the dissolution of the used game market?

Again, it's not anywhere near that simple. One major point of this is that the used game market improves awareness of products massively, which increases future sales. This has been proven endlessly.

The fact of the matter is that its extremely likely that the studios would actually LOSE profits long term if the used game market ended. For many more reasons then the one I mentioned. This information has been readily available for a long time.

 

[targren]

really? just 'people are stupid'?

one would think that when companies are clearly trying to con you into paying extra for something that used to be free, people would try and stand up to that. Just out of self-interest, if nothing else.

Pretty much. Or rather, 'willfully stupid and self-delusional.' Propaganda can only work in a 1-sided relationship, when the ones putting it out have all of the power, and the ones believing it do so because they've convinced themselves that the other actually does care about them, so to them, they're not "shilling," they're "defending a friend." This is true whether it's a government, a corporation, or a religious institution. They're emotionally invested (which is kind of sad in itself, when that investment is in a faceless group of suits only interested in getting into their wallets) and so they convince themselves that it goes both ways.

(Edited for clarification. Damn site is getting slow. The new ZP must be up...)

 

[Something Amyss]

Because admitting that would mean that they would start to feel guilty for buying used games, or when they pirate.

Or, more likely because the logic has large holes in it. Like so:

If piracy and buying a used game are equivalent for no other reason than developer.income = 0, then my not buying a game because I don't want it is just as equivalent, because developer.income = 0.

Merci.

really? just 'people are stupid'?

I would have taken "people are followers" from that, but if you want to go with stupid, Godspeed.

one would think that when companies are clearly trying to con you into paying extra for something that used to be free, people would try and stand up to that. Just out of self-interest, if nothing else.

That's kind of the beauty of propaganda. It often persuades you to do something against your best interests.

 

[daubie]

The video game industry needs to have a biiiiiiig conference with Game Stop.
Game Stop does just as much damage to the industry as piracy does, and it could be rectified even easier. Too bad they'll never make any compromises for the better of us all.

 

[Saxnot]

You buy a game used, that's a game that's NOT being sold new. That's a lost sale. How is this shit so complicated for some people?

By your logic, if I said "Hm. GTA IV was a crap game, so I think I'm going to take a pass on GTA V," that's the same as piracy, because it's a lost sale.

Clearly, your metric is horribly flawed.

Only if you grossly misunderstand what logic actually is. Which you do. Like, really badly.

Except that I do. If piracy and buying a used game are equivalent for no other reason than developer.income = 0, then my not buying a game because I don't want it is just as equivalent, because developer.income = 0.

Clearly the fact that I don't even play the game doesn't matter, because with a used game sale, ONE person (the buyer) plays the used game, where as a pirated game, MANY people play the downloaded game. So you've already eliminated that metric from consideration.

Nice ad hom, but the logic error is, alas, your own.

presumably, the difference would be that you are paying for a used game, and as such have comitted to buying it. if you just don't want a game the possibility of you buying it is rather nebulous.

that said, it points out the ridicoulesness of saying a used or pirated game is equal to a lost sale. so long as there is no money being payed, it's all speculation whether or not somone would buy this game new/legally