Is it immoral to buy used games?

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.xDeadP00lx

"Get a grip man."

"Well, perhaps arrogant is a better word than egotisical in that case."

"Continue to buy your brand new games at 60 a pop, and "feel moral" and high and mighty"

"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."

"Not everyone has tons of money to just buy brand spanking new games each month."

"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."

"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."

"People have put their thoughts out there, and unless you're just trolling for debate, nothing will change your mind."

You've entered this conversation that has until now been respectful and about ideas and brought it down to a personal adversarial level. I've never said you were immoral, or any person for that matter, though you've responded very aggressively and defensively as if I have ("Call me immoral, allude to piracy, or whatever else has been thrown out, I don't care"; "That doesn't make me an ass, or any less moral"; "As for being a forum, and freedom of speech, I have a right to "be in this thread" as you put it")

Instead, I have merely posed the question whether an action is immoral, and voiced concerns that I had acted wrongly. You decided to take this personally, accuse me of being a troll, mock me, use unkind words to describe me, and generally focused your posts entirely on me, when what we should be discussing are ideas, concepts, reasons. But you prefer to talk about me.

You've made rampant false assumptions about me and have ignored the things I said in your responses. This leads me to believe that you are very angry and so you missed these things (not intentional.) That's why I wanted to know why you LIKE to be in the thread (I never questioned your right to be here.) If you really do feel that I was bashing people in this thread, I wish you would just point it out so that I can either explain your misinterpretation or apologise to the person.

Now I tried to make it clear that I was undecided on the issue, which was specifically the reason why I wanted to have a debate about it, and I can't have a debate about something if everyone agrees with me (that's ignoring the fact that I had no stance to begin with, which is why I presented both sides in the OP.) I attempted to make a response to each unique reply, but if you feel I haven't given due consideration to an argument or my response did not do it justice, please point it out so we can discuss it and I can learn and maybe correct my mistakes.

Apologies to the two posters above me for completely ignoring them in this reply. I will look at your replies later and do my best to respond.

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

Okay, let me get this straight: YOU ARE GIVING UP BUYING USED GAMES BECAUSE OF YOUR CONSCIENCE!!!!

(Faints in shock)

(wakes up after 5 minutes)

Dude, you are so out of it.

Now if it was about piracy, i'd understand all this moral-schmoral thingy.

BUT USED GAMES!!

I'ts not like your stealing!

And please don't tell me if (insert favourite game here) is in a gamestop used secyion, you're not gonna buy it because OF YOUR CONSCIENCE!

Jesus, what is this world coming to!!

money and availibility are factors.

the games shops where i live are useless and never sell anything i want, unless it's a relatively new release on a new system. so i often have to buy online. i'll try to get a new copy for the cheapest price and i'll get a second hand copy if its either very cheap or i have no other choice. if there isn't much of a price difference, i'd rather have a new copy. i assume if the game is new it was paid for and so some money goes to the developer?

if i don't have that much to spend, i buy used copies. it's not like you can ever find a new copy of fantavision, vagrant story or rez. i'd love to be able to buy a sealed £30 vagrant story from the local game shop, but it's not a reality. £75 on ebay please. £100 for rez on amazon please. you get my point.

i don't buy games just when they come out. i wait for the price to go down, but recently i buy older games that i missed out on first time around.

i can see your point though. it's cheap that when a game comes out, then a used copy is traded in a week later and people buy the used copy for a £5 price difference.

i'm not too concerned about bigger issues of morality...for me the important thing is the option where the developers recieve a return compared to recieving no return. i don't consider it wrong to buy recently released used games at a slightly cheaper price, but then again i don't consider many things inherently 'wrong', or 'right' for that matter. personally i won't automatically try to buy used copies and i will take into consideration price, availibility, value etc.

Are all you can eat restaurants a sin if gluttony is a sin?

"Still, I always feel a little guilty when I buy games used. Since the dev isn't getting the money, it doesn't seem significantly different from illegally downloading games (that the dev isn't getting paid for their work is generally the argument brought up against illegal downloading.)"

I agree with this, not feeling bad, that's terrible, you're buying the game for fun right? not for the moral responsibility. But that is the general argument =].

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".

Angry_Beaver

i'm with this and am also against the arguments of TC

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?ClicketyClick

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.

OneWingedAngeI

I'm kind of new to this site but I feel I must throw in at least 2 cents into this issue.

First, on the question of "Is it immoral to buy used games?" Like it's been said in posts above mine morality is subjective. One person's "moral" is another persons "immoral". You can argue about reasoning and justifications, but morality is a bit more personal.

Second, there is that matter of fairness. Is it fair for game shops to sell used games without compensating the developers? Let's flip that question around. When 'Bobby Gamer' buys a game, that money is divided up and is given to everyone involved getting the game into Bobby's hand, ie, the developer, the publisher, marketing, shipping, retailer... Say Bobby finishes the game and decides to sell it. Who gives Bobby the money for the used game? Does the developer give their cut back? Does the publisher? Who is giving back the portion of the money from the initial sale? It seems like the retailers are paying back some, not all, of the money from the initial sale. Is that fair?

The 'anti-used games' idea seems to suggest that the creators of the game should get a cut from the first sale and every successive used sale from here to eternity. Easy money, right? But is it right for the creators to not payback money when someone decides that they no longer want their game. Is that Idea to far fetched? Is it fair?

Wow clicketyclick, take internet message boards seriously much? :P

Oh, I'm pretty sure I made an argument for buying used games not-immoral when I said that the people who made the game were paid already.

If you buy Dead or Alive 4 at Walmart, you aren't giving Tecmo money, you are giving Walmart money, Since Walmart gave Tecmo (and by proxy Team Ninja) money when they bought the stupid game in order to stock it. So in essence, you cannot deprive a developer of money by buying used games because if they shipped a million games, unless some were not sold (in which case they would still be at the developer/publishers warehouse) then they were paid for a million games.

Honestly dude, I think you just need to chill out or something, your gonna give yourself an ulcer. Life is a lot more problematic then the structure of the videogame industry.

Honestly dude, I think you just need to chill out or something, your gonna give yourself an ulcer. Life is a lot more problematic then the structure of the videogame industry.Gamefan1986

i think game devs are becoming crazy money suckers... there is "used" market for everything but we only see game devs complain about it. i dont think we'll ever see a car company will complain about used cars, so i find game devs' complaints ridiculous.

if you want people to buy your games and dont sell them, make them better for people... or make it cheaper so more people will buy your games and more people wont sell their games...

Well, it's really up to you. Buying games is comparable to voting in that you can choose to buy a new game and support the developer. But 1 purchase won't make a massive difference. Likewise with voting, one vote won't make a massive difference either. Nevertheless, you are still supporting them and giving at least something to the developer. Buying a used game however may be looked upon as the easier/lazier path. You aren't supporting the developer, but a single new copy purchased won't do a whole lot of good to the developer. Nevertheless, you still are not supporting the developer. Likewise with voting, a single vote will not do a whole lot of good to the developer. However, you still are not voting for the candidate.

Voting was the most comparable thing I could find in relation to the buying of used/new games :P