Is it immoral to buy used games?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
A good example of devs taking it into their own hands is the Stardock (think Galactic Civilizations) method of distribution (they recentlly released 'a state of the industry' defining what they see as morally correct), which (simplified) is only the original owner is intitled to bug fixes, patches, and other new content seeming the code in each game can only be registered to one individual account... EVER. So you either have to sell the game without the ability to provide the follow-up, not in the packaging, improvements, or you have to sell the user account along with the game (which they prohibit). But really, devs trying to change what they provide us with is them attempting to tell us how our morality toward the material should be. The main factor is whether or not as a society we accept their 'moral terms' or refuse and 'kick them out'. That's how I see it... so which part of society or special interest group do I belong to? Well, I buy new when I can and the price fits what I'm willing to pay, and used when it appears to be a better deal. I usually only buy used though when it is something I don't think I would really care to see a sequel of... or if the devs are 'firm' enough to still provide me with sequels later... for example (typically): I buy nintendo stuff used. 'original' games (mirrors edge, portal) or games I want the franchise to continue (rock band) new. That's just the moral compass I have. No one has to agree with it, and if I'm wrong I'll be banished from society in the long run, so when that happens I'll have time to either change my mind or leave.
Look, not all people can afford $50 - $60 for a game. And if they do, they get to buy a game only say, once in three months. Would you buy a game so much time apart? That leaves 2 things - used games and piracy. Developers don't get anything either way, but at least it's legal(and you're allowed to discuss it on gamespot;)) So i'd say, between used games and piracy, used games are definately moral.64316431
Or you could wait for prices of the games you want to drop.
is selling my toaster to someone so they can make toast immoral? I gots a new toaster, and like, the other guy - well he wants to make some toast. Oaster won't see a dime of his money. are yard sales now immoral as well?
its funny. we are all wearing sneakers made in third world countries from underpaid workers, and people are worried about the morality of selling something you dont want anymore, because big brother doesn't get a cut. meanwhile we are all content to give uncle sam a cut of everything we sell, so they can buy new tools for the navy crew who threw their tools overboard, JUST so they could buy new tools from companies they have shady side deals with.
is selling my toaster to someone so they can make toast immoral? I gots a new toaster, and like, the other guy - well he wants to make some toast. Oaster won't see a dime of his money. are yard sales now immoral as well?
its funny. we are all wearing sneakers made in third world countries from underpaid workers, and people are worried about the morality of selling something you dont want anymore, because big brother doesn't get a cut. meanwhile we are all content to give uncle sam a cut of everything we sell, so they can buy new tools for the navy crew who threw their tools overboard, JUST so they could buy new tools from companies they have shady side deals with.
OneWingedAngeI
Marginalizing something doesn't justify it. "Oh, we all do all kinds of fairly immoral things, so it's fine if I don't support developers much."
Many games are not worth the standard price of $60 and shouldn't be fully supported by buying them at that price.
DeadlyZodiac
I think I agree with everything else you said in your post. I just want to say in response to this that the answer should not be buying used games, if that is immoral (not that you said that that it should be.)
[QUOTE="Archangel3371"]Definately not in fact I think it makes for a healthy game market. When people go and trade-in games at places like GS they are doing so for other gaming products. Therefore more product gets "sold" because consumers don't necessarily always have to spend cash straight up and the stores make their money from selling the used games and are able to keep product stocked and this keeps the cycle going at it's current pace.HardQuor
This is, by far, the best and only good argument in favor of a used game market. I'm surprised i didn't see it come up sooner. Or maybe i just missed it? Either way, i'm still on the fence.
It's in my main thread topic (the OP). :P
thats all I buy is used games normally around 4-5 dollars ( ps2 and x-box) the last new release I bought was metal gear solid back in 98. I see nothing wrong with it, besides the game industry has never been bigger:idea:hayden1976
Its profits are down (except for devs/pubs like Ubisoft and Nintendo.) Sony is reporting losses, even Square Enix's profits are down, and apparently, their response to it is to now focus on mainstream and more casual titles.
Since the printing life-span of games is based on how many new copies are being sold per month, buying used means that games go out of print sooner. That means that they become harder to find for the consumer and the dev earns less money. It's not unknown for devs to be dissolved when they don't make enough money.
Devs are putting out DLC in order to stave off the resale market, which has negative consequences when the way they do it is by offering bosses, whole levels, or even options (like difficulty setting) in order to stop people from selling the game. Increasingly, we're getting stuff that should have come with the game being sold after the game to make up for lost sales and to stop people from selling their game.
And if the used game market becomes enough of a problem, that encourages devs to go for exclusive digital distribution. Good luck if your console fails. You don't have a backup. And enjoy that invasive copy protection on your downloaded PC games.
Aside from consideration of consequences, there's the consideration of the act of selling your games itself. I think we all recognise that profiting off another's work is immoral, which, I would say, is the reason why we dislike that students should buy essays and submit them to the teacher for marks. Similarly, a person may buy a game and then sell them to a gamer for money. The objection to both of these acts is that the person is profiting off another's work, with none of that credit going to the person who actually did the work.
We think that people who come up with an idea or item ought to get the credit for it, and ought to be acknowledged (usually in the form of money) when it is used. That's why selling and buying used games can be seen as immoral.
i think its immoral to have game priced £60 and they say used games are bad aleast i get it at a price i agree with.Poshkidney
Look, not all people can afford $50 - $60 for a game. And if they do, they get to buy a game only say, once in three months. Would you buy a game so much time apart? That leaves 2 things - used games and piracy. Developers don't get anything either way, but at least it's legal(and you're allowed to discuss it on gamespot;)) So i'd say, between used games and piracy, used games are definately moral.64316431
While I do agree that games are way overpriced in Britain, I don't see that as a relevant moral factor for purchasing used games. If items are priced too high for someone's budget, they're expected to refrain from buying it, or to save up for it. The price itself doesn't justify piracy, nor does it justify buying used games.
And just because piracy is illegal while buying used games isn't doesn't mean that the latter is moral. Hitting someone on the face is illegal while insulting their dead mother to their face is not. However, that doesn't make the latter moral.
its funny. we are all wearing sneakers made in third world countries from underpaid workers, and people are worried about the morality of selling something you dont want anymore, because big brother doesn't get a cut. meanwhile we are all content to give uncle sam a cut of everything we sell, so they can buy new tools for the navy crew who threw their tools overboard, JUST so they could buy new tools from companies they have shady side deals with.
OneWingedAngeI
Well that's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't answer the question in the thread, and is hella off-topic. If buying used games is immoral, then purchasing them as many are doing is affecting our personal moral well-being right now. This is something we ourselves can fix (unlike more general and stubborn problems like those found in third world countries.)
Just because there are many large injustices in the world doesn't mean we can neglect smaller moral issues. I can't just push granny down on the sidewalk and steal her purse and say, "hey, why are you upset? There are bigger fish to fry!" though I'm sure you'd agree that world hunger is a bigger problem than a few scrapes and a purse getting stolen.
[QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]is selling my toaster to someone so they can make toast immoral? I gots a new toaster, and like, the other guy - well he wants to make some toast. Oaster won't see a dime of his money. are yard sales now immoral as well?
its funny. we are all wearing sneakers made in third world countries from underpaid workers, and people are worried about the morality of selling something you dont want anymore, because big brother doesn't get a cut. meanwhile we are all content to give uncle sam a cut of everything we sell, so they can buy new tools for the navy crew who threw their tools overboard, JUST so they could buy new tools from companies they have shady side deals with.
ReddestSkies
Marginalizing something doesn't justify it. "Oh, we all do all kinds of fairly immoral things, so it's fine if I don't support developers much."
you are missing the point. those things clearly ARE immoral, yet people are focusing their energy on something that is barely worth talking about, let alone immoral.
I shun pirated games though as I find that Immoral, no matter how hypocritic it may be.
[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"][QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]is selling my toaster to someone so they can make toast immoral? I gots a new toaster, and like, the other guy - well he wants to make some toast. Oaster won't see a dime of his money. are yard sales now immoral as well?
its funny. we are all wearing sneakers made in third world countries from underpaid workers, and people are worried about the morality of selling something you dont want anymore, because big brother doesn't get a cut. meanwhile we are all content to give uncle sam a cut of everything we sell, so they can buy new tools for the navy crew who threw their tools overboard, JUST so they could buy new tools from companies they have shady side deals with.
OneWingedAngeI
Marginalizing something doesn't justify it. "Oh, we all do all kinds of fairly immoral things, so it's fine if I don't support developers much."
you are missing the point. those things clearly ARE immoral, yet people are focusing their energy on something that is barely worth talking about, let alone immoral.
Something tells me that I'd absolutely love to read what you think about piracy.
I don't mind buying used games, they've changed owner from the developers/publicers to a private person and thus that person is entitled to sell his own property to someone else.
I shun pirated games though as I find that Immoral, no matter how hypocritic it may be.
Treflis
Going back to what I said in my original post, that they have a "right" or "freedom" to resell it because it's their property does not speak to the morality of it. For example, you write an essay. It belongs to you as your property. However, is selling it to another student moral? What about selling your organs? They are also your property, after all.
You acknowledge that your attitude towards used games compared to your attitude towards pirated games might be hypocritical. Shouldn't you be concerned that you may very well be a hypocrite, as you acknowledge?
What do you think? Is it wrong to buy used games? Keep in mind that its legality or any relevant Rights & Freedoms are irrelevant to its morality; not all immoral things are illegal, and not all legal things are moral.
Feel guilty? Are you serious? I understand they spend their time and money to bring us great games, but crap, they're expensive. If you're on a budget, in college, or a recent grad, buying anything is expensive.
Wow, they lost out on 60 bucks. Not like they're not rich anyhow. I do admire their work and what not, but it's not like I'm pirating it. Just like the other guy said about the car...Honda's not getting money for it (unless it's a licensed dealer), so why feel guilty?
If it's cheaper, buy it! I mean we ARE in a recession....
You don't see automakers whining and complaining about car dealerships, publishers have to realize that there's a segment of the population that just is not going to pay $60 for a brand new game.gamedealdaily
Amen, unless they live with their parents and have no bills to pay. A lot of us Joe The Plumbers have bills and have to support ourselves! =D 60 bucks....grrr =/ What's even more "next gen" for new consoles? 100 dollar games? Forget it, I'll stay in the "past" if that happens.
[QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"][QUOTE="ReddestSkies"][QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]is selling my toaster to someone so they can make toast immoral? I gots a new toaster, and like, the other guy - well he wants to make some toast. Oaster won't see a dime of his money. are yard sales now immoral as well?
its funny. we are all wearing sneakers made in third world countries from underpaid workers, and people are worried about the morality of selling something you dont want anymore, because big brother doesn't get a cut. meanwhile we are all content to give uncle sam a cut of everything we sell, so they can buy new tools for the navy crew who threw their tools overboard, JUST so they could buy new tools from companies they have shady side deals with.
ReddestSkies
Marginalizing something doesn't justify it. "Oh, we all do all kinds of fairly immoral things, so it's fine if I don't support developers much."
you are missing the point. those things clearly ARE immoral, yet people are focusing their energy on something that is barely worth talking about, let alone immoral.
Something tells me that I'd absolutely love to read what you think about piracy.
so because i think something that is perfectly legal and moral is okay, you imply that i would think piracy is okay? get a grip.
[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]Something tells me that I'd absolutely love to read what you think about piracy.
OneWingedAngeI
so because i think something that is perfectly legal and moral is okay, you imply that i would think piracy is okay? get a grip.
No, this answer is exactly what I expected, actually. I find it really, really interesting to see that you could actually be offended by me implying that you think that piracy is okay.
You see, in neither case does your money go to the developers, but neither case is hugely immoral either. The interesting thing, though, is that you have a gaming community right now that thinks that pirates are beings made of pure evil who are trying to destroy gaming, and then turns around and mostly buys used game.
I'm kinda thorn here. I'm not sure if it's just pure and raw hypocrisy, or simply a "I hate you for being a bit greedier than me" thing. Probably a bit of both. Oh, and there's also possibly a bit of a "I don't think that developers deserve my money, but YOU should pay for games" deal, too.
one is law breaking and deprives the developer of any fair compensation what so ever. the other one is completely legitimate, legal, and encouraged in a free market. nice try thoughOneWingedAngeI
Law and free market (haha) are completely irrelevant here. The only possible "compensation" that developers get from the used game market is that Billy might use the $10 that Gamestop gave him for the 20 games he traded in on a new game. It's pretty hard to consider that "fair". You're gonna have to try a bit harder yourself to justify your lack of consistency.
are you kidding me? you completely just disregarded the original game sale, lol. that is ALL the dev was ever entitled to.OneWingedAngeI
So it's perfectly fine if 4 people get to experience the complete gaming experience, provided that one of them bought the game? How about 15? How about 100? Where do you draw the line?
infinity. its perfectly fine. as long as one person bought it and no one duplicates it. do you think it's immoral when people donate computers to schools? i mean after all, dell could have sold them new ones!!!OneWingedAngeI
It's not the same, obviously. You're going to use a computer pretty much daily, whereas a game has a limited use by design. A game is supposed to be an experience, whereas a computer is a convenience. Two very different things that should probably be treated very differently in markets.
OK, no offense, but the whole idea behind this thread is dumb.
What you are saying is that if your best friend buys a 5 year old lawnmower off you for $50 that you will both burn in hell because John Deere didn't make any money.
What you are saying is if you leave an old couch by your street to be taken to the trash and someone comes asks you if they can have it and you say "ok" that you are both gonna burn because Lay-Zee-Boy didn't get anything out of it.
Do you have any idea how dumb that sounds? First of all, the used car example does apply because what you are saying is that you are nti-used anything.
Secondly, you do know that if you see something on a shelf, the people have already gotten paid right? Gamestop has to order the games in order to stock them, and Gamestop or Walmart or wherever does not give the manufacturer, publisher, etc. Monopoly money. They in fact, give them actual currency.
End Thread, I win, Flawless Victory, whatever you wanna call it.
P.S. - No offense to anyone, and I don't mean to insult anyone.
[QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]infinity. its perfectly fine. as long as one person bought it and no one duplicates it. do you think it's immoral when people donate computers to schools? i mean after all, dell could have sold them new ones!!!ReddestSkies
It's not the same, obviously. You're going to use a computer pretty much daily, whereas a game has a limited use by design. A game is supposed to be an experience, whereas a computer is a convenience. Two very different things that should probably be treated very differently in markets.
now you are just grasping at straws. they are not different in any way. the type of product does not limit its' ability to be resold. anyone is and should be free to sell anything they own to anyone they want, provided it isnt some controlled substance. there is nothing immoral about selling something you no longer need to someone who does not mind used product.
what about if i have 10 friends over to watch a new dvd? did i just rob the movie studios of 9 other sales? of course not! the experience is had for all of them, but there is no way you can know if they ever would have bought the movie had they not seen my copy for free. oh no, worse still, i could LEND them the movie! dear god, we all know that lending is immoral too.
/sarcasm. these things are all fine and an integrated part of our market.
now you are just grasping at straws. they are not different in any way. the type of product does not limit its' ability to be resold. anyone is and should be free to sell anything they own to anyone they want, provided it isnt some controlled substance. there is nothing immoral about selling something you no longer need to someone who does not mind used product.
what about if i have 10 friends over to watch a new dvd? did i just rob the movie studios of 9 other sales? of course not! the experience is had for all of them, but there is no way you can know if they ever would have bought the movie had they not seen my copy for free. oh no, worse still, i could LEND them the movie! dear god, we all know that lending is immoral too.
/sarcasm. these things are all fine and an integrated part of our market.
OneWingedAngeI
Lending entertainment is pretty much the equivalent of small-scale piracy. "There is no way you can know if they ever would have bought the movie." Damn, I think I read that before (hint: it applies to piracy too).
Also, how about this: you buy the movie, and then make your friends pay tickets that amount to, say, half of the price of the movie to watch it. Did you just rob the movie studios of 9 other sales? Pretty much.
You see, a lot of pirates just wouldn't buy the games that they steal anyways. They're broke or have only a very limited interest in the games but get them because they're free. That portion of the pirating world is not actually lost sales, and everyone acknowledges that (while still hating them). What you do, however, is that you actually pay for games, you just don't give that money to the developers. You feel that Billy and Gamestop deserve your money more than the people who actually made the game, because they can make you save $5. That's my main problem (other than your lack of consistency): every used game that you buy pretty much is a lost sale for the developers.
i've been totally consistent. the people who made the game got the money when they sold it to whoever sold it to me. there is nothing further to investigate. at that point, the developers have gotten all of the revenue they deserve for the item. piracy includes no original sale. there is also no tangible item to which the "experience" is tied to. the item has been duplicated for each new possessor. in the case of used games, the experience remains forever tied to that one physical object, which can only be in use in one given place at one given time. this is how it is extremely different.
also consider that the used game supply is finite. there is supply and demand there, and price competes with new games. if supply is low and price is high, yet new games exist, they will turn to the new game if they still want it. with piracy, the supply is infinite and there is never a reason for a new game sale.
What do you think? Is it wrong to buy used games?clicketyclick
Yep, we're all going straight to hell.
[QUOTE="64316431"]Look, not all people can afford $50 - $60 for a game. And if they do, they get to buy a game only say, once in three months. Would you buy a game so much time apart? That leaves 2 things - used games and piracy. Developers don't get anything either way, but at least it's legal(and you're allowed to discuss it on gamespot;)) So i'd say, between used games and piracy, used games are definately moral.ReddestSkies
Or you could wait for prices of the games you want to drop.
Consider this - GeoW 2. You've been waiting for it for 3 - 4 months. It's finally out. You wait a week or two so that some idiot who sucks at it sells it off at you local gamespot store, claiming it to be useless. It's finally here. In front of you. You can get it for less than the Marked Price. ARE YOU NOT GONNA BUY IT JUST BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER WILL NOT GET HIS DUES???!!!
I, personally, give a damn about the developer's dues. I just wanna play the game. And if i'm getting for a lower price, i'm not gonna stand there considering if it's moral or not. I'm gonna grab it and and run off (after paying for it obviously) before someone else does.
[QUOTE="OneWingedAngeI"]now you are just grasping at straws. they are not different in any way. the type of product does not limit its' ability to be resold. anyone is and should be free to sell anything they own to anyone they want, provided it isnt some controlled substance. there is nothing immoral about selling something you no longer need to someone who does not mind used product.
what about if i have 10 friends over to watch a new dvd? did i just rob the movie studios of 9 other sales? of course not! the experience is had for all of them, but there is no way you can know if they ever would have bought the movie had they not seen my copy for free. oh no, worse still, i could LEND them the movie! dear god, we all know that lending is immoral too.
/sarcasm. these things are all fine and an integrated part of our market.
ReddestSkies
Lending entertainment is pretty much the equivalent of small-scale piracy. "There is no way you can know if they ever would have bought the movie." Damn, I think I read that before (hint: it applies to piracy too).
Also, how about this: you buy the movie, and then make your friends pay tickets that amount to, say, half of the price of the movie to watch it. Did you just rob the movie studios of 9 other sales? Pretty much.
You see, a lot of pirates just wouldn't buy the games that they steal anyways. They're broke or have only a very limited interest in the games but get them because they're free. That portion of the pirating world is not actually lost sales, and everyone acknowledges that (while still hating them). What you do, however, is that you actually pay for games, you just don't give that money to the developers. You feel that Billy and Gamestop deserve your money more than the people who actually made the game, because they can make you save $5. That's my main problem (other than your lack of consistency): every used game that you buy pretty much is a lost sale for the developers.
Of course i'm gonna like people who save $5 much more than people who take more than neede for a plastic disc.
OK, no offense, but the whole idea behind this thread is dumb.
What you are saying is that if your best friend buys a 5 year old lawnmower off you for $50 that you will both burn in hell because John Deere didn't make any money.
What you are saying is if you leave an old couch by your street to be taken to the trash and someone comes asks you if they can have it and you say "ok" that you are both gonna burn because Lay-Zee-Boy didn't get anything out of it.
Do you have any idea how dumb that sounds? First of all, the used car example does apply because what you are saying is that you are nti-used anything.
Secondly, you do know that if you see something on a shelf, the people have already gotten paid right? Gamestop has to order the games in order to stock them, and Gamestop or Walmart or wherever does not give the manufacturer, publisher, etc. Monopoly money. They in fact, give them actual currency.
End Thread, I win, Flawless Victory, whatever you wanna call it.
P.S. - No offense to anyone, and I don't mean to insult anyone.
Gamefan1986
LAWL
:lol::lol::lol:
[QUOTE="clicketyclick"]What do you think? Is it wrong to buy used games?vgmrsepitome
Yep, we're all going straight to hell.
Do we go to "used" hell? I prefer a "new" hell spot. Or perhaps, I can trade in my hell spots, for a cooler spot in hell? Is that morally wrong? Sorry, just playing Devil's Advocate =P
No, IMO. I've gotten a bunch of old MS-DOS games off of eBay, as that is the only way you can get most of them.DOS4dinner
You must realise that this reason doesn't apply to games not on defunct operating systems. I assume then that you admit that in any other circumstance, it is immoral.
are you kidding me? you completely just disregarded the original game sale, lol. that is ALL the dev was ever entitled to{ReddestSkies:So it's perfectly fine if 4 people get to experience the complete gaming experience, provided that one of them bought the game? How about 15? How about 100? Where do you draw the line?}
infinity. its perfectly fine. as long as one person bought it and no one duplicates it.OneWingedAngeI
How is the duplication a morally significant act? If all the dev is entitled to is the original sale, then there can be no objections to either piracy or the used game market. So why are you convinced that piracy is immoral, granted you only believe the developer is entitled to the original game sale?
OK, no offense, but the whole idea behind this thread is dumb.
...
End Thread, I win, Flawless Victory, whatever you wanna call it.
Gamefan1986
Sorry, but these objections were brought up pages ago and the thread didn't end there, so it's rather perplexing that you think you've made the killer post that ends the thread. You can't win an argument simply by ignoring what the other side has said in response to an argument you make.
Not to mention, you didn't provide a single reason why buying/selling used games is itself moral. Please try to stick to the subject.
Consider this - GeoW 2. You've been waiting for it for 3 - 4 months. It's finally out. You wait a week or two so that some idiot who sucks at it sells it off at you local gamespot store, claiming it to be useless. It's finally here. In front of you. You can get it for less than the Marked Price. ARE YOU NOT GONNA BUY IT JUST BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER WILL NOT GET HIS DUES???!!!
I, personally, give a damn about the developer's dues. I just wanna play the game. And if i'm getting for a lower price, i'm not gonna stand there considering if it's moral or not. I'm gonna grab it and and run off (after paying for it obviously) before someone else does.
64316431
In response to your first paragraph: What we do and what we should do are two different subjects. This thread's about the latter, not the former. Just because I do something doesn't make it moral.
In response to your second paragraph: Since your concern is, as you say, only for yourself and you don't care whether what you do is immoral, you have then removed yourself from this discussion. Well, thanks for showing up anyway.
i've been totally consistent. the people who made the game got the money when they sold it to whoever sold it to me. there is nothing further to investigate. at that point, the developers have gotten all of the revenue they deserve for the item. piracy includes no original sale. there is also no tangible item to which the "experience" is tied to. the item has been duplicated for each new possessor. in the case of used games, the experience remains forever tied to that one physical object, which can only be in use in one given place at one given time. this is how it is extremely different.
also consider that the used game supply is finite. there is supply and demand there, and price competes with new games. if supply is low and price is high, yet new games exist, they will turn to the new game if they still want it. with piracy, the supply is infinite and there is never a reason for a new game sale.
OneWingedAngeI
But it's not actually different. How many times to you beat your single player games in a 5-year span on average? I'd be surprised if it was more than once (and I'd be really, really surprised if it was more than twice). You see, most single player games are experiences that you are meant to be exposed to a very limited number of time during a certain timeframe, with very few exceptions. The pirate doesn't have all that much freedom over the guy who buys used games and then resells them. Neither is really going to play the game more than once. You get pretty much the same experience as a pirate, except that you don't play it at the same time as Billy (but only a week later, oh noes). The whole "physical object" deal is completely irrelevant here, because if given an infinite time with a game, you'll only play it a few times anyways. That's how the format works, that's how games are designed, and that's why duplication and just passing one copy around the whole Earth population are two very, very similar thing: they provide pretty much the same experience, except that the used game experience is slightly delayed.
Also, there IS an original copy when it comes to piracy. Sometimes it's stolen, but whatever, a lot of the time it's a legit one.
Used game supplies are not finite, for all intents and purposes. The market never runs out of used games, and if you look hard enough, you can always find ways to dodge having to give developers money.
Consider this - GeoW 2. You've been waiting for it for 3 - 4 months. It's finally out. You wait a week or two so that some idiot who sucks at it sells it off at you local gamespot store, claiming it to be useless. It's finally here. In front of you. You can get it for less than the Marked Price. ARE YOU NOT GONNA BUY IT JUST BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER WILL NOT GET HIS DUES???!!!
I, personally, give a damn about the developer's dues. I just wanna play the game. And if i'm getting for a lower price, i'm not gonna stand there considering if it's moral or not. I'm gonna grab it and and run off (after paying for it obviously) before someone else does.
64316431
If I really wanted it, I'd buy it new. If I didn't care enough to buy it new, I'd wait.
It's pretty sad that you're literally saying something like "I don't care about the developers, I just care about experiencing their work for the lowest possible price". That's pretty much exactly the pirate mindset. You're pretty much just a gaming leech who doesn't care about industry growth, developer support, making sure that the games you like get proper sequels, supporting originality and creativity, etc. All you care about is playing your hyped games as soon as possible without spending much.
I want to make it clear that I have bought games used before and do wish to do so in the future. I know it's legal and I want to have more money in my pocket. But I'm hesitant because I get suspicious whenever I coo soothingly to my conscience, "there there, it's perfectly moral," where my financial interests are concerned (such as buying/selling used games or not giving to charity.) I have a natural self-interest. That's why I want to buy games used. But I am suspicious that I'm just telling myself comforting lies to rationalise my selfish egoism.
So far in this thread, very few people have actually tackled the question I posed and provided morally compelling reasons why buying/selling recently released used games is okay. Many have appealed to the is-ought fallacy, the bandwagon fallacy, and the personal incredulity fallacy ("well that sounds ridiculous to me, therefore, it's wrong.") As much as I am naturally inclined to side with you and say it's okay, how am I supposed to do that on such faulty grounds?
That after five pages of debate, no-one can provide a valid reason powerful enough to allay my suspicions though I'd do so eagerly is convincing me that there truly is no way to justify buying/selling used games. From now on, I intend to search stores for the lowest new game price and, if that is too expensive, wait for a price drop. If I'm unsure that I'll enjoy a game and am unwilling to invest the money without knowing, I'll rent it first. The only time I can ever justify buying used is if the game is simply impossible to find in any form available new.
[QUOTE="DeadlyZodiac"]Many games are not worth the standard price of $60 and shouldn't be fully supported by buying them at that price.
clicketyclick
I think I agree with everything else you said in your post. I just want to say in response to this that the answer should not be buying used games, if that is immoral (not that you said that that it should be.)
Yeah I was mostly referring to a price drop for a game that might be decent but not really worth a full $60. I almost never buy used games, but I have sold a few of my games in the past when I was younger and I needed money(though I regret it). I also sold my Wii but I don't really feel too bad about that since it was mostly hardware and that's not quite the same as software.
The problem with used software is that as long as the physical medium is cared for well enough that it still works, there is no degradation in the quality of the program. This is quite a bit different than say a car or piece of furniture where there may be a significant advantage in buying it new rather than used.
I want to make it clear that I have bought games used before and do wish to do so in the future. I know it's legal and I want to have more money in my pocket. But I'm hesitant because I get suspicious whenever I coo soothingly to my conscience, "there there, it's perfectly moral," where my financial interests are concerned (such as buying/selling used games or not giving to charity.) I have a natural self-interest. That's why I want to buy games used. But I am suspicious that I'm just telling myself comforting lies to rationalise my selfish egoism.
So far in this thread, very few people have actually tackled the question I posed and provided morally compelling reasons why buying/selling recently released used games is okay. Many have appealed to the is-ought fallacy, the bandwagon fallacy, and the personal incredulity fallacy ("well that sounds ridiculous to me, therefore, it's wrong.") As much as I am naturally inclined to side with you and say it's okay, how am I supposed to do that on such faulty grounds?
That after five pages of debate, no-one can provide a valid reason powerful enough to allay my suspicions though I'd do so eagerly is convincing me that there truly is no way to justify buying/selling used games. From now on, I intend to search stores for the lowest new game price and, if that is too expensive, wait for a price drop. If I'm unsure that I'll enjoy a game and am unwilling to invest the money without knowing, I'll rent it first. The only time I can ever justify buying used is if the game is simply impossible to find in any form available new.
clicketyclick
Telling yourslf comforting lies to rationalize your egosim? Are you serious???? It's not like you're telling yourself to not donate a kidney to a loved one, jesus christ. They're video games.
No one's going to persuade your deepest convictions. Especially if you're throwing out psych terms, you know it's hard to persuade someone who's opinions and convictions are steadfast. Continue to buy your brand new games at 60 a pop, and "feel moral" and high and mighty, and we'll keep buying used games and not giving a crap. Not everyone has tons of money to just buy brand spanking new games each month.
Those developers could really give 2 craps about you either. I'm sure most manufacturers of any product don't go to bed (in a 50,000 mattress) thinking about you, and how moral and just you are. Or go out boating with 20 year old honies in bikinis deep down thinking "God bless those guys who buy our games brand new....". You can be the vanguard of buying new things so you can sleep at night.
So if you want to make something so deep and prophetic, so be it dude. I never knew some people thought so much of themselves to really stress out about it, or find themselves in a moral dilemma. I'm just saying. People have put their thoughts out there, and unless you're just trolling for debate, nothing will change your mind.
That's my .02. =)
[QUOTE="clicketyclick"]I want to make it clear that I have bought games used before and do wish to do so in the future. I know it's legal and I want to have more money in my pocket. But I'm hesitant because I get suspicious whenever I coo soothingly to my conscience, "there there, it's perfectly moral," where my financial interests are concerned (such as buying/selling used games or not giving to charity.) I have a natural self-interest. That's why I want to buy games used. But I am suspicious that I'm just telling myself comforting lies to rationalise my selfish egoism.
So far in this thread, very few people have actually tackled the question I posed and provided morally compelling reasons why buying/selling recently released used games is okay. Many have appealed to the is-ought fallacy, the bandwagon fallacy, and the personal incredulity fallacy ("well that sounds ridiculous to me, therefore, it's wrong.") As much as I am naturally inclined to side with you and say it's okay, how am I supposed to do that on such faulty grounds?
That after five pages of debate, no-one can provide a valid reason powerful enough to allay my suspicions though I'd do so eagerly is convincing me that there truly is no way to justify buying/selling used games. From now on, I intend to search stores for the lowest new game price and, if that is too expensive, wait for a price drop. If I'm unsure that I'll enjoy a game and am unwilling to invest the money without knowing, I'll rent it first. The only time I can ever justify buying used is if the game is simply impossible to find in any form available new.
xDeadP00lx
Telling yourslf comforting lies to rationalize your egosim? Are you serious???? It's not like you're telling yourself to not donate a kidney to a loved one, jesus christ. They're video games.
No one's going to persuade your deepest convictions. Especially if you're throwing out psych terms, you know it's hard to persuade someone who's opinions and convictions are steadfast. Continue to buy your brand new games at 60 a pop, and "feel moral" and high and mighty, and we'll keep buying used games and not giving a crap. Not everyone has tons of money to just buy brand spanking new games each month.
Those developers could really give 2 craps about you either. I'm sure most manufacturers of any product don't go to bed (in a 50,000 mattress) thinking about you, and how moral and just you are. Or go out boating with 20 year old honies in bikinis deep down thinking "God bless those guys who buy our games brand new....". You can be the vanguard of buying new things so you can sleep at night.
So if you want to make something so deep and prophetic, so be it dude. I never knew some people thought so much of themselves to really stress out about it, or find themselves in a moral dilemma. I'm just saying. People have put their thoughts out there, and unless you're just trolling for debate, nothing will change your mind.
That's my .02. =)
Now you can add the ad hominem to the list of fallacies people have been using that I mentioned.
I made it very clear in my post that I don't want to believe it's immoral, because I want to save money and because I have bought used games. Why would I want to have less money and condemn my own actions? I want to agree, but logical fallacies are not morally relevant reasons and I can't excuse myself by telling myself these fallacies. It's no comfort.
It's highly ironic though that you call me egotistical ("high and mighty", "I never knew some people thought so much of themselves") for trying to put my personal interests aside to determine whether I was in the wrong.
[QUOTE="xDeadP00lx"][QUOTE="clicketyclick"]I want to make it clear that I have bought games used before and do wish to do so in the future. I know it's legal and I want to have more money in my pocket. But I'm hesitant because I get suspicious whenever I coo soothingly to my conscience, "there there, it's perfectly moral," where my financial interests are concerned (such as buying/selling used games or not giving to charity.) I have a natural self-interest. That's why I want to buy games used. But I am suspicious that I'm just telling myself comforting lies to rationalise my selfish egoism.
So far in this thread, very few people have actually tackled the question I posed and provided morally compelling reasons why buying/selling recently released used games is okay. Many have appealed to the is-ought fallacy, the bandwagon fallacy, and the personal incredulity fallacy ("well that sounds ridiculous to me, therefore, it's wrong.") As much as I am naturally inclined to side with you and say it's okay, how am I supposed to do that on such faulty grounds?
That after five pages of debate, no-one can provide a valid reason powerful enough to allay my suspicions though I'd do so eagerly is convincing me that there truly is no way to justify buying/selling used games. From now on, I intend to search stores for the lowest new game price and, if that is too expensive, wait for a price drop. If I'm unsure that I'll enjoy a game and am unwilling to invest the money without knowing, I'll rent it first. The only time I can ever justify buying used is if the game is simply impossible to find in any form available new.
clicketyclick
Telling yourslf comforting lies to rationalize your egosim? Are you serious???? It's not like you're telling yourself to not donate a kidney to a loved one, jesus christ. They're video games.
No one's going to persuade your deepest convictions. Especially if you're throwing out psych terms, you know it's hard to persuade someone who's opinions and convictions are steadfast. Continue to buy your brand new games at 60 a pop, and "feel moral" and high and mighty, and we'll keep buying used games and not giving a crap. Not everyone has tons of money to just buy brand spanking new games each month.
Those developers could really give 2 craps about you either. I'm sure most manufacturers of any product don't go to bed (in a 50,000 mattress) thinking about you, and how moral and just you are. Or go out boating with 20 year old honies in bikinis deep down thinking "God bless those guys who buy our games brand new....". You can be the vanguard of buying new things so you can sleep at night.
So if you want to make something so deep and prophetic, so be it dude. I never knew some people thought so much of themselves to really stress out about it, or find themselves in a moral dilemma. I'm just saying. People have put their thoughts out there, and unless you're just trolling for debate, nothing will change your mind.
That's my .02. =)
Now you can add the ad hominem to the list of fallacies people have been using that I mentioned.
I made it very clear in my post that I don't want to believe it's immoral, because I want to save money and because I have bought used games. Why would I want to have less money and condemn my own actions? I want to agree, but logical fallacies are not morally relevant reasons and I can't excuse myself by telling myself these fallacies. It's no comfort.
It's highly ironic though that you call me egotistical ("high and mighty", "I never knew some people thought so much of themselves") for trying to put my personal interests aside to determine whether I was in the wrong.
I don't need to be schooled in psychology, I majored in it, so I don't need links to the terms, thanks =P
It may seem ironic, that you're trying NOT to be egotistical, but it sure sounds like it. You're having this big mental struggle of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, moral vs. immoral. Not to mention you dogged on a few people about piracy and tried to make a whole other argument (trolling). I dunno, I just don't get it. As I said though, to each their own.
I for one don't have the money for new games. Even if I did, I still enjoy buying things cheaper than the original price. Call me immoral, allude to piracy, or whatever else has been thrown out, I don't care. I call it being frugal and saving money where you can. As someone else pointed out, it's RETAIL. The developer has been paid in full. So while you're standing in front of the shelf wondering for an hour if it's moral or not, I'll take the 30 used game and not think twice.
That doesn't make me an ass, or any less moral. People have different value systems I guess. Now would I short-change charity or other such organizations? No. The multi-billion dollar gaming industry, over a 30 dollar used game? Booooo hooooooo. I'll sleep just fine.
I don't need to be schooled in psychology, I majored in it, so I don't need links to the terms, thanks =P
It may seem ironic, that you're trying NOT to be egotistical, but it sure sounds like it. You're having this big mental struggle of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, moral vs. immoral. Not to mention you dogged on a few people about piracy and tried to make a whole other argument (trolling). I dunno, I just don't get it. As I said though, to each their own.
I for one don't have the money for new games. Even if I did, I still enjoy buying things cheaper than the original price. Call me immoral, allude to piracy, or whatever else has been thrown out, I don't care. I call it being frugal and saving money where you can. As someone else pointed out, it's RETAIL. The developer has been paid in full. So while you're standing in front of the shelf wondering for an hour if it's moral or not, I'll take the 30 used game and not think twice.
That doesn't make me an ass, or any less moral. People have different value systems I guess. Now would I short-change charity or other such organizations? No. The multi-billion dollar gaming industry, over a 30 dollar used game? Booooo hooooooo. I'll sleep just fine.
xDeadP00lx
I'm not linking the terms for you. I in fact started linking the terms before you posted in response to it.
Being concerned with the morality of actions is not egoism.
I responded to (not dogged) some people, challenging them with the comparison to piracy, which, as of yet, has not been answered. Some of these people have added me to their tracked list, so I don't think they were personally offended that I took the time to respond to the thoughts they took the time to type.
Accusing me of trolling is a completely unfounded and frivolous accusation, based on GameSpot's ToS. A moderator clarified for me what "intended solely to annoy and/or offend other users" meant, and that is not showing the intention to debate the matter earnestly. I think I have amply showed that.
Saving money is not a morality issue. Also, you cannot justify an action when you perceive it as being committed against a wealthy group as opposed to a less wealthy group. Unless you bring up something else as your justification other than how much money the industry has, your justification works just as well for not paying taxes (government is wealthy.) It's not a different value system; it's a complete disregard of the issue of morality (as you said, "I don't care".)
That's fine by me if you don't want to care. But this thread is about discussing the moral questions surrounding the issue (and not the people bringing them up.) So I am not quite sure why you would like to be in this thread, which seems to make you ever increasingly indignant at the thought that other people might consider buying/selling used games immoral. I mean, unless you're just here to attack me.
[QUOTE="xDeadP00lx"]I don't need to be schooled in psychology, I majored in it, so I don't need links to the terms, thanks =P
It may seem ironic, that you're trying NOT to be egotistical, but it sure sounds like it. You're having this big mental struggle of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, moral vs. immoral. Not to mention you dogged on a few people about piracy and tried to make a whole other argument (trolling). I dunno, I just don't get it. As I said though, to each their own.
I for one don't have the money for new games. Even if I did, I still enjoy buying things cheaper than the original price. Call me immoral, allude to piracy, or whatever else has been thrown out, I don't care. I call it being frugal and saving money where you can. As someone else pointed out, it's RETAIL. The developer has been paid in full. So while you're standing in front of the shelf wondering for an hour if it's moral or not, I'll take the 30 used game and not think twice.
That doesn't make me an ass, or any less moral. People have different value systems I guess. Now would I short-change charity or other such organizations? No. The multi-billion dollar gaming industry, over a 30 dollar used game? Booooo hooooooo. I'll sleep just fine.
clicketyclick
I'm not linking the terms for you. I in fact started linking the terms before you posted in response to it.
Being concerned with the morality of actions is not egoism.
I responded to (not dogged) some people, challenging them with the comparison to piracy, which, as of yet, has not been answered. Some of these people have added me to their tracked list, so I don't think they were personally offended that I took the time to respond to the thoughts they took the time to type.
Accusing me of trolling is a completely unfounded and frivolous accusation, based on GameSpot's ToS. A moderator clarified for me what "intended solely to annoy and/or offend other users" meant, and that is not showing the intention to debate the matter earnestly. I think I have amply showed that.
Saving money is not a morality issue. Also, you cannot justify an action when you perceive it as being committed against a wealthy group as opposed to a less wealthy group. Unless you bring up something else as your justification other than how much money the industry has, your justification works just as well for not paying taxes (government is wealthy.) It's not a different value system; it's a complete disregard of the issue of morality (as you said, "I don't care".)
That's fine by me if you don't want to care. But this thread is about discussing the moral questions surrounding the issue (and not the people bringing them up.) So I am not quite sure why you would like to be in this thread, which seems to make you ever increasingly indignant at the thought that other people might consider buying/selling used games immoral. I mean, unless you're just here to attack me.
Unfounded and frivolous accusation? LOL. Have I accused you of rape? Robbery? Terroristic threats? Get a grip man. I haven't used anything inflammatory. If anything, I'm just challenging your way of thinking. I'm glad people added you to their track list, good for them.
Being concerned with moralism is not egoism. However thinking you're helping the developer and you feel better for it versus the people who are "immoral" because we buy used games, etc, is. I don't think you feel that way at heart, but the more you explain yourself, it sounds that way. Well, perhaps arrogant is a better word than egotisical in that case. Saving money may not be a moral issue, but it's a realistic/practical issue. Saving money. Money makes things happen, bills, school, entertainment, living. So yes, money is the basis for A LOT of my (As well as other people's) decisions. Selling crack to kids for money? Bad morals. I'm not saying all things with money are good, but in this case, who cares?Besides, you could debate "Robin Hood" as moral or immoral until you're blue in the face.
Secondly, I haven't attacked you> I think you just seem really defensive or apt to jump the gun. Apparently you don't like when someone thinks your whole premise it blown out of proportion? Maybe you shouldn't create topics if you can't handle the criticism especially as something non-concrete as this. If it makes you feel better to use big words and try to condescend me, then fine. I've debated with you nicely and fairly, and never attacked you. You'd know if I was attacking you, as I'm sure I'd be suspended by now.
As for being a forum, and freedom of speech, I have a right to "be in this thread" as you put it. I'm simply positing to you why you should even approach it in a moralistic sense in the first place. However, if you choose to do that, or just simply try and articulately bash people who disagree then fine, I just will remove myself from the thread. Sorry for disagreeing or questioning why you think this is all a big deal. Perhaps everyone should just agree with you and the thread would have ended 4 pages ago.
Unfounded and frivolous accusation? LOL. Have I accused you of rape? Robbery? Terroristic threats? Get a grip man. (1) I haven't used anything inflammatory. If anything, I'm just challenging your way of thinking. I'm glad people added you to their track list, good for them.
Being concerned with moralism is not egoism. However thinking you're helping the developer and you feel better for it versus the people who are "immoral" because we buy used games, etc, is. I don't think you feel that way at heart, but the more you explain yourself, it sounds that way. Well, perhaps arrogant is a better word than egotisical in that case. Saving money may not be a moral issue, but it's a realistic/practical issue. Saving money. Money makes things happen, bills, school, entertainment, living. So yes, money is the basis for A LOT of my (As well as other people's) decisions. Selling crack to kids for money? Bad morals. (2) I'm not saying all things with money are good, but in this case, who cares?Besides, you could debate "Robin Hood" as moral or immoral until you're blue in the face.
Secondly, I haven't attacked you> I think you just seem really defensive or apt to jump the gun. Apparently you don't like when someone thinks your whole premise it blown out of proportion? Maybe you shouldn't create topics if you can't handle the criticism especially as something non-concrete as this. (3) If it makes you feel better to use big words and try to condescend me, then fine. I've debated with you nicely and fairly, and never attacked you. You'd know if I was attacking you, as I'm sure I'd be suspended by now.
(4) As for being a forum, and freedom of speech, I have a right to "be in this thread" as you put it. I'm simply positing to you why you should even approach it in a moralistic sense in the first place. However, if you choose to do that, or just simply try and articulately bash people who disagree then fine, I just will remove myself from the thread. Sorry for disagreeing or questioning why you think this is all a big deal. Perhaps everyone should just agree with you and the thread would have ended 4 pages ago.
xDeadP00lx
(1) You brought up the word "troll".
(2) Obviously clicketyclick does, as do others, as you've seen in the course of this thread. In conversations, dismissing something a person cares about because you don't see why anyone would care about it isn't going to change anyone's mind. It's more likely to cause people to become hostile.
(3) What "big words" didn't you understand? How is clicketyclick being condescending to you?
(4) Freedom of speech doesn't apply because this forum is run by GameSpot, not the government. Being in a thread is a privilege.
I don't buy clicketyclick's argument or conclusion, but I respect his/her choice, and I think he/she has argued decently in this thread. There's no reason to be hostile.
But it's not actually different. How many times to you beat your single player games in a 5-year span on average? I'd be surprised if it was more than once (and I'd be really, really surprised if it was more than twice). You see, most single player games are experiences that you are meant to be exposed to a very limited number of time during a certain timeframe, with very few exceptions. The pirate doesn't have all that much freedom over the guy who buys used games and then resells them. Neither is really going to play the game more than once. You get pretty much the same experience as a pirate, except that you don't play it at the same time as Billy (but only a week later, oh noes). The whole "physical object" deal is completely irrelevant here, because if given an infinite time with a game, you'll only play it a few times anyways. That's how the format works, that's how games are designed, and that's why duplication and just passing one copy around the whole Earth population are two very, very similar thing: they provide pretty much the same experience, except that the used game experience is slightly delayed.
Also, there IS an original copy when it comes to piracy. Sometimes it's stolen, but whatever, a lot of the time it's a legit one.
Used game supplies are not finite, for all intents and purposes. The market never runs out of used games, and if you look hard enough, you can always find ways to dodge having to give developers money.
ReddestSkies
they are so finite. tell that to anyone who paid $80 for a used copy of chrono trigger. the duplication is completely relevant to the situation. it pertains to the license you are sold when you buy the game. a used game can only be in use in one place at one time. pirated copies are in use all over as many times as people wish to copy them.
if there are 10,000 used copies of a game floating around, there are only 10,000 licenses to be transfered, in use at a single time. for a pirated game, there are infinite copies to be used whenever people please. a license to a game is transferrable for this very reason. if i want to sell it, i lose the right to use it. if i let my friend copy the game, i am keeping said license and illegally duplicating one for him. its really quite simple and easy to follow.
when it comes to morality, it is a subjective issue. im fine with you thinking that this is immoral, but please do not go around with a holier than thou attitude trying to impose your moral views on me. there are two moral standards in life. our own morals, and societal morals. in ages past, it was totally cool for people to marry 13 year old girls. society said it was okay, and the laws conformed to that. now it is a crime. society imposes no such law on sales of used games, therefore society has deemed it okay. our laws allow it because you simply cannot prove that there is any harm done to anyone by allowing sales of used games.
there is NO other product that has restrictions on used sales, why should games be any different? i have offered plenty of counters to every reason you have proposed suggesting immorality, and you dont want to hear them. thats fine. but thats your own opinion and it differs from the rest of society, so please dont be surprised to hear me counter it.
My best thoughts on this issue are similar to what OneWingedAngel had to say about licenses. The developer owns the code (and hence, the actual game), but the code is licensed out to consumers when they make their purchases (of course, consumers are also paying middlemen and paying for the disc, box, and booklet with that money). As long as the developer owns the code, what we can say is that the consumer has purchased the license to execute that code on their game system.
The number of licenses granted by those who own the code is a particular number. As long as the number of licenses matches the number of copies of the game, everything is perfectly fine. What is actually disallowed in this framework is having more copies of the game than there are licenses granted by the owners. That would go against the will of the owners. Thus piracy is dealt with, at lesat.
Buying used games merely transfers licenses from one person to another. It matters not who originally paid for the license, as the owner has already received payment for that particular license. When the license is transferred, one person gains exclusive access to the code (exclusive in the sense of legal rights), but the other person loses this same access. They are free to purchase another license for the same code at a later time, should they wish to.
This could be cast in a legal light or a moral one--the latter because licenses are instances of the owners saying "you may do X".
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment