Buying used games hurts the industry as much as piracy.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Jipset"]You don't see car dealers complaining about not making money for every used car that's sold... so why should this be any different? It's an item, and if you can't sell something you bought and have, then it isn't worth anything. KiZZo1
There is a difference between a car and a game. And it is this:
A game is a piece of digital information on some storage unit. If properly handled it can last a very long time, and as long as it's operational it works as good as a new game.
A used car on the other hand will not work as good as a new car (assuming they are the same brand and model). There is a specific incentive to get a new car as opposed to an old one - it might not be enough to sway your decision, but the difference in quality exists and might be quite large.
This is true in that specific case. But what about CDs/DVDs/Blu-rays? This is the same scenario as a game. Should retailers like Blockbuster stop selling used merchandise?
Read it again. I clearly stated how a used game can bring the dev money. You mean the part where I stated how piracy can make money for the dev in exactly the same way?[QUOTE="sayyy-gaa"][QUOTE="GhoX"] Eh, what? You didn't reply to my argument at all. You just repeated what you previously stated. You also can't make pirated copies out of thin air: you'll need a legitimate copy in the first place, no? Refer to another one of my posts if you want to say that one legitimate copy can make multiple pirated copies. I think I also made an example about this earlier too. A pirate can pirate one game, then buy its sequel for reasons such as multiplayer or even moral guilt. How's that so very different from your scenario about SFIV? Finally, I never once stated that there is no difference between piracy and used copies. There is plenty. However they share one similarity - no profit goes to the publisher.GhoX
The argument that a thief is all of a sudden going to start paying for games when he can get it for free is laughable and reaching.
[QUOTE="GhoX"][QUOTE="delta3074"]do you own anything that's second hand?, car, home, TV, CD, DVD because if you actually own absolutely anything that is second hand then you really shouldn't continue moaning about used games sales.delta3074I've already described in another reply, but video games are very different from car, TV etc. Those items are property, video game isn't. You only buy the licence, but you never really own it. the license belongs to me, the license becomes MY PROPERTY so it isn't any different to second hand cars or tv's at all and if i want to sell it i will and i couldn't give a monkeys what anybody else has to say about it really, the way i see it is anybody who owns anything second hand has no grounds to complain about the second hand market,end of Hm, let's look at it this way then. To make it simpler, let's just compare video games and TVs. When a TV is manufactured, aside from all the production costs there are also material costs. The TV is marked up from the cost so that the company covers the cost of materials, cost of labour/machine hrs etc, and make a profit. Of course, they initially invested some money into researching and designing the TV and the goal is to both cover that investment and make a return. Things like TV, house, cars have a lot of intrinsic value. When you sell a used TV to someone, you pass along the intrinsic value contained in the TV. The intrinsic value is probably lower due to factors such as wear and tear, and a consumer who wanted greater quality would have went for a brand new TV. When a video game is created, the material cost is minute - disk, case, and maybe some manual. Compared to a TV the mark up would be vastly... well, let's just say different. It's reasonable though, since video games spend A LOT more on development than a TV and rely much more on selling brand new copies. This is where things differ though. For a TV maker if they want to make another TV they'd have to use a lot more material, which has an intrinsic value. For a video game publisher, all they need to do is make another copy, which will barely cost them anything. When you sell a used video game, the quality of the game is in most cases unchanged. If a consumer can get a product of same quality second-handed, why would they buy a new game? I'm aware that it's protected by the first-sale doctrine, for now. That doesn't mean it's ideal however. Law is ever changing, and it is in my opinion that video games should be treated differently due to the difference in nature. Sadly video games lack political presence, and tend to be a political target instead of being offered protection. Exploiting weaknesses in the current law isn't going to help the industry grow.
All physical goods get re-used and passed around. That's how the world has worked for thousands of years and is the foundation of our economy--even money itself came to exist for the specific purpose of being a convenient alternative to exchanging goods directly.
I drive a used car. I wear some used clothes. I read used books and watch used DVDs. If manufacturers in any of these markets complained about losses from me doing this they would be widely ridiculed, but when a publisher talks about how used games hurt them some of you side with them. What makes video games special?
All physical goods get re-used and passed around. That's how the world has worked for thousands of years and is the foundation of our economy--even money itself came to exist for the specific purpose of being a convenient alternative to exchanging goods directly.
I drive a used car. I wear some used clothes. I read used books and watch used DVDs. If manufacturers in any of these markets complained about losses from me doing this they would be widely ridiculed, but when a publisher talks about how used games hurt them some of you side with them. What makes video games special?
garrett_daniels
Thank you for succinctly stating the point. Well put!
You mean the part where I stated how piracy can make money for the dev in exactly the same way?[QUOTE="GhoX"]
[QUOTE="sayyy-gaa"] Read it again. I clearly stated how a used game can bring the dev money. crimsonman1245
The argument that a thief is all of a sudden going to start paying for games when he can get it for free is laughable and reaching.
Your argument that a player who buys a used copy of a game then decides to buy its sequel new, instead of a used copy of the sequel, contains just as much fact and reason. :PExploiting weaknesses in the current law isn't going to help the industry grow.GhoXnobodys exploiting any weaknesses in the law, what the hell are you talking about? also, whay the hell should games be treated any differently to anything else else as far as the second hand market is concerned, car manufacturers lose a sale when someone buys a second hand car, why should the games industry be given preferntial treatment over other industrys, every industry loses sales from second hand purchases, why shouldn't the games industry, what you are trying to say is flat out wrong, how is treating games differently fair to all the other industrys that have to graft to make money?
[QUOTE="GhoX"] Exploiting weaknesses in the current law isn't going to help the industry grow.delta3074nobodys exploiting any weaknesses in the law, what the hell are you talking about? also, whay the hell should games be treated any differently to anything else else as far as the second hand market is concerned, car manufacturers lose a sale when someone buys a second hand car, why should the games industry be given preferntial treatment over other industrys, every industry loses sales from second hand purchases, why shouldn't the games industry, what you are trying to say is flat out wrong, how is treating games differently fair to all the other industrys that have to graft to make money?
Did you read only the last paragraph of my original post? Please read it more carefully if you want the details, but in a nutshell a car manufacturer can duplicate a car for 5 dollars. A large part of a copy of video game is intangible value, and the game companies rely heavily on that large part in order to cover all the development and other costs. The same cannot be said for cars or TVs.
[QUOTE="crimsonman1245"][QUOTE="GhoX"] You mean the part where I stated how piracy can make money for the dev in exactly the same way?
GhoX
The argument that a thief is all of a sudden going to start paying for games when he can get it for free is laughable and reaching.
Your argument that a player who buys a used copy of a game then decides to buy its sequel new, instead of a used copy of the sequel, contains just as much fact and reason. :PTC, this is a good thread. You made a good post. I'm certain you understand my POV(and the similar POV of others in this thread) because your counterarguments are well thought out and well written which means you understand what our original arguments are. So,
a. you just wanted to rile up a hornet's nest even though you really don't believe what you're saying.
b. You really believe what you're saying and you truly think VG sales deserve some special exemption not afforded to any other sold good in the entire recorded history of the USA.
Forget the points made for and against your original topic. I'm curious. Is it a or b?
[QUOTE="forgot_it"]A used copy is one to one. A pirated copy is one to infinite.GhoXNo. Used copies are infinite to infinite, a pirated copy is one to infinite.No. One person buys a game and he can only give it to one person, it's equivalent. One person buys a game to pirate it and an unlimited amount of people can be playing the same copy at any time.
[QUOTE="GhoX"][QUOTE="forgot_it"]Your argument that a player who buys a used copy of a game then decides to buy its sequel new, instead of a used copy of the sequel, contains just as much fact and reason. :PThe argument that a thief is all of a sudden going to start paying for games when he can get it for free is laughable and reaching.
forgot_it
TC, this is a good thread. You made a good post. I'm certain you understand my POV(and the similar POV of others in this thread) because your counterarguments are well thought out and well written which means you understand what our original arguments are. So,
a. you just wanted to rile up a hornet's nest even though you really don't believe what you're saying.
b. You really believe what you're saying and you truly think VG sales deserve some special exemption not afforded to any other sold good in the entire recorded history of the USA.
Forget the points made for and against your original topic. I'm curious. Is it a or b?
It's definitely option B. I have always regarded the problem surrounding piracy exaggerated, and some Penny Arcade video gave me some final push. As such I decided on making this thread and discussing it based on my gaming and legal knowledge (sadly not US law). A lot of people seem to have gotten heated quickly. In retrospect it might have been a better option to limit the discussion to a single platform. Although that may not work, since there isn't a single platform where used game and piracy are equally problematic - it's either or.[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="GhoX"] Exploiting weaknesses in the current law isn't going to help the industry grow.GhoXnobodys exploiting any weaknesses in the law, what the hell are you talking about? also, whay the hell should games be treated any differently to anything else else as far as the second hand market is concerned, car manufacturers lose a sale when someone buys a second hand car, why should the games industry be given preferntial treatment over other industrys, every industry loses sales from second hand purchases, why shouldn't the games industry, what you are trying to say is flat out wrong, how is treating games differently fair to all the other industrys that have to graft to make money? Did you read only the last paragraph of my original thread? Please read it more carefully if you want the details, but in a nutshell a car manufacturer can duplicate a car for 5 dollars.yes i did read the whole post, and i don't agree with you at all, each car costs X amount to make, if that car is sold on the manufacturer loses a sale, each game costs X amount to make, if it is sold second hand the manufacturer loses a Sale, it's as simple as that really, i don't see why a game should be treated differently just because somebody can break the law and pirate that game, you can make illegal copies of movies and music CD's as well, also, please explain how the law is being exploited,you buy something you have the right to sell it on, end of, and that law will never change, this world would be in a mess if they got rid of the second hand market.in anything because to get rid of the second hand market for games you would have to get rid of the second hand market for everything
[QUOTE="GhoX"][QUOTE="forgot_it"]A used copy is one to one. A pirated copy is one to infinite.forgot_itNo. Used copies are infinite to infinite, a pirated copy is one to infinite.No. One person buys a game and he can only give it to one person, it's equivalent. One person buys a game to pirate it and an unlimited amount of people can be playing the same copy at any time. I've given more details regarding why used copies and piracy cannot be compared on a one on one scale, but it seems this thread has passed the point where people still read the important parts of the thread. I don't think it will continue to serve any purpose now if people only read the first post and go straight to the back of the thread. The same arguments will simply be raised and answered again and again.
[QUOTE="forgot_it"][QUOTE="GhoX"] Your argument that a player who buys a used copy of a game then decides to buy its sequel new, instead of a used copy of the sequel, contains just as much fact and reason. :PGhoX
TC, this is a good thread. You made a good post. I'm certain you understand my POV(and the similar POV of others in this thread) because your counterarguments are well thought out and well written which means you understand what our original arguments are. So,
a. you just wanted to rile up a hornet's nest even though you really don't believe what you're saying.
b. You really believe what you're saying and you truly think VG sales deserve some special exemption not afforded to any other sold good in the entire recorded history of the USA.
Forget the points made for and against your original topic. I'm curious. Is it a or b?
It's definitely option B. I have always regarded the problem surrounding piracy exaggerated, and some Penny Arcade video gave me some final push. As such I decided on making this thread and discussing it based on my gaming and legal knowledge (sadly not US law). A lot of people seem to have gotten heated quickly. In retrospect it might have been a better option to limit the discussion to a single platform. Although that may not work, since there isn't a single platform where used game and piracy are equally problematic - it's either or.and you feel only VGs should be entitled to this treatment in regards to secondhand sales? All other goods be dammed(sp I know but I want no mod)?
[QUOTE="GhoX"][QUOTE="delta3074"]nobodys exploiting any weaknesses in the law, what the hell are you talking about? also, whay the hell should games be treated any differently to anything else else as far as the second hand market is concerned, car manufacturers lose a sale when someone buys a second hand car, why should the games industry be given preferntial treatment over other industrys, every industry loses sales from second hand purchases, why shouldn't the games industry, what you are trying to say is flat out wrong, how is treating games differently fair to all the other industrys that have to graft to make money? delta3074Did you read only the last paragraph of my original thread? Please read it more carefully if you want the details, but in a nutshell a car manufacturer can duplicate a car for 5 dollars.yes i did read the whole post, and i don't agree with you at all, each car costs X amount to make, if that car is sold on the manufacturer loses a sale, each game costs X amount to make, if it is sold second hand the manufacturer loses a Sale, it's as simple as that really, i don't see why a game should be treated differently just because somebody can break the law and pirate that game, you can make illegal copies of movies and music CD's as well, also, please explain how the law is being exploited,you buy something you have the right to sell it on, end of, and that law will never change, this world would be in a mess if they got rid of the second hand market.in anything because to get rid of the second hand market for games you would have to get rid of the second hand market for everything Music and movie industries have already been moving away from physical copies. Unlike those two types of media, games cannot rely on live events. What do I mean by live events? Cinema and concerts of course. In the case of music, the movement has already headed in the direction PC gaming is heading - going digital. Since it's unlikely that games will ever return to the arcade machines (live events), if the law does not change, the industry will. At the current rate games will cease to be available as physical copies and only accessible as digital copies (no resale), and potentially requiring an internet connection all time (no piracy).
It's definitely option B. I have always regarded the problem surrounding piracy exaggerated, and some Penny Arcade video gave me some final push. As such I decided on making this thread and discussing it based on my gaming and legal knowledge (sadly not US law). A lot of people seem to have gotten heated quickly. In retrospect it might have been a better option to limit the discussion to a single platform. Although that may not work, since there isn't a single platform where used game and piracy are equally problematic - it's either or.[QUOTE="GhoX"]
[QUOTE="forgot_it"]
TC, this is a good thread. You made a good post. I'm certain you understand my POV(and the similar POV of others in this thread) because your counterarguments are well thought out and well written which means you understand what our original arguments are. So,
a. you just wanted to rile up a hornet's nest even though you really don't believe what you're saying.
b. You really believe what you're saying and you truly think VG sales deserve some special exemption not afforded to any other sold good in the entire recorded history of the USA.
Forget the points made for and against your original topic. I'm curious. Is it a or b?
sayyy-gaa
and you feel only VGs should be entitled to this treatment in regards to secondhand sales? All other goods be dammed(sp I know but I want no mod)?
I think my reply to delta3074 just before this post is somewhat applicable regarding the other industries - it's not as serious a problem for those industries compared to the VG industry. Further, I enjoy playing video games but care a lot less about movies and music. As such I care more about the VG industry than movie/music. Case in point I wouldn't have the incentive to make a thread in Off-topic about them.To answer your question, it's not whether I think they are entitled or not, but simply that I don't care about it enough to make an argument regarding their entitlement. :P
[QUOTE="sayyy-gaa"]
[QUOTE="GhoX"] It's definitely option B. I have always regarded the problem surrounding piracy exaggerated, and some Penny Arcade video gave me some final push. As such I decided on making this thread and discussing it based on my gaming and legal knowledge (sadly not US law). A lot of people seem to have gotten heated quickly. In retrospect it might have been a better option to limit the discussion to a single platform. Although that may not work, since there isn't a single platform where used game and piracy are equally problematic - it's either or.
GhoX
and you feel only VGs should be entitled to this treatment in regards to secondhand sales? All other goods be dammed(sp I know but I want no mod)?
I think my reply to delta3074 just before this post is somewhat applicable regarding the other industries - it's not as serious a problem for those industries compared to the VG industry. Further, I enjoy playing video games but care a lot less about movies and music. As such I care more about the VG industry than movie/music. Case in point I wouldn't have the incentive to make a thread in Off-topic about them.To answer your question, it's not whether I think they are entitled or not, but simply that I don't care about it enough to make an argument regarding their entitlement. :P
kudos, i admire you honesty mate.
[QUOTE="GhoX"][QUOTE="delta3074"]yes i did read the whole post, and i don't agree with you at all, each car costs X amount to make, if that car is sold on the manufacturer loses a sale, each game costs X amount to make, if it is sold second hand the manufacturer loses a Sale, it's as simple as that really, i don't see why a game should be treated differently just because somebody can break the law and pirate that game, you can make illegal copies of movies and music CD's as well, also, please explain how the law is being exploited,you buy something you have the right to sell it on, end of, and that law will never change, this world would be in a mess if they got rid of the second hand market.in anything because to get rid of the second hand market for games you would have to get rid of the second hand market for everythingdelta3074Music and movie industries have already been moving away from physical copies. Unlike those two types of media, games cannot rely on live events. What do I mean by live events? Cinema and concerts of course. In the case of music, the movement has already headed in the direction PC gaming is heading - going digital. Since it's unlikely that games will ever return to the arcade machines (live events), if the law does not change, the industry will. At the current rate games will cease to be available as physical copies and only accessible as digital copies (no resale), and potentially requiring an internet connection all time (no piracy).which is the way it should be, the law should not be changed, it's up to the publishers to choose a business model that that allows them to avoid used games sales, as you already staed, the music and movie industry have already chnged there business models to that effect so why shouldn't the games industry, it is not fair to change the law just for them and show them special treatment, it is up to them to either survive as a business or fail, that's the way business works, it is up to them to evolve around the law, the law should not revolve around them. Well, most gamers don't think that way from what I've seen. They cry a lot when someone suggest that console games should go digital, or when games require constant internet connection. I still think that the law should change in accordance with technology. I'm not saying that the law should only change for VGs, but for now that's the only one I care about. More than my lack of care and the fact that other media industries aren't suffering as much, other industries (namely music and movie of course) also have stronger political presence than gaming. As much as I dislike some of Activision Blizzard's business practices, perhaps if companies like that grow big enough they will be able to represent the interest of the industry. Well.. actually if we get Activision Blizzard to represent the interest of the gaming industry it may end up not so great, but it may be better than nothing.
[QUOTE="anshul89"]
Used games are actually worse because devs are missing out on money coming from legit buyers. On the other hand most pirates come from thrid world countries where games cost $100+.
kuu2
This is a big reach. No one says those same people that are buying used would have bought new. There is no corelation between the two.
True, there is no fact. However would you agree that the probability of someone who would be willing to pay 30 instead of 60 for a game is more likely to buy the game at 60 if the 30 version is unavailable is higher than the probability of someone who would be only willing to get the game free instead of paying for it to buy the game if piracy is unavailable?Crappy long sentence. I may draw a graph instead.
So let me get this straight...
Ebay and Craigslist should be illegal according to you...Used cars, second hand clothes, old electronics, etc etc. So we should just keep everything we own and then throw it in the garbage amirite? Your logic is so sideways its almost funny to type this out and make it sound like a serious statement.
Also, when we buy something isnt it OURS? Like arent we free to do what we want with it? So if I break it in half or sell it to gamestop whats the difference? The difference is maybe someone who cant afford that extra 5-10 bucks cant play the game now because you would like everything destroyed or donated. Get real man.
Oh, DISCLAIMER: I never buy used games.
Not if they run out of business, or rather find alternative and more lucrative business, before getting to make better products in the first place.Devs and publishers are only slitting their own throats by limiting themselves to digital distro, or constant internet connection. Not everyone has an internet connection, and some people actually like a physical copy of the game. You will never prevent used games sales and devs that are focusing their attention on this instead of making better products will soon be out of business.
SRTtoZ
So let me get this straight...
Ebay and Craigslist should be illegal according to you...Used cars, second hand clothes, old electronics, etc etc. So we should just keep everything we own and then throw it in the garbage amirite? Your logic is so sideways its almost funny to type this out and make it sound like a serious statement.
Also, when we buy something isnt it OURS? Like arent we free to do what we want with it? So if I break it in half or sell it to gamestop whats the difference? The difference is maybe someone who cant afford that extra 5-10 bucks cant play the game now because you would like everything destroyed or donated. Get real man.
Oh, DISCLAIMER: I never buy used games.SRTtoZ
No, you didn't get it straight. Instead you omitted parts of the thread which you should have read if you wanted to argue in that aspect. Very short answer: VGs are different.
The reason why hasn't been discussed.
Not if they run out of business, or rather find alternative and more lucrative business, before getting to make better products in the first place.[QUOTE="SRTtoZ"]
Devs and publishers are only slitting their own throats by limiting themselves to digital distro, or constant internet connection. Not everyone has an internet connection, and some people actually like a physical copy of the game. You will never prevent used games sales and devs that are focusing their attention on this instead of making better products will soon be out of business.
GhoX
So let me get this straight...
Ebay and Craigslist should be illegal according to you...Used cars, second hand clothes, old electronics, etc etc. So we should just keep everything we own and then throw it in the garbage amirite? Your logic is so sideways its almost funny to type this out and make it sound like a serious statement.
Also, when we buy something isnt it OURS? Like arent we free to do what we want with it? So if I break it in half or sell it to gamestop whats the difference? The difference is maybe someone who cant afford that extra 5-10 bucks cant play the game now because you would like everything destroyed or donated. Get real man.
Oh, DISCLAIMER: I never buy used games.SRTtoZ
No, you didn't get it straight. Instead you omitted parts of the thread which you should have read if you wanted to argue in that aspect. Very short answer: VGs are different.
The reason why hasn't been discussed.
But they arent different...you are trying to make them different so you can support your argument. The fact is if someone sells then buys a used car, Ford/GM/Nissan etc isnt getting a peice just like the devs/publishers arent getting a peice of the used game market. Its simple business ethics. When they got into this business they knew the deal, and you either grow with the industry or you get booted out. Its VERY simple to be honest.
[QUOTE="lawlessx"][QUOTE="Lto_thaG"] I'm paying.Seriously...Stop with the "it's the same as piracy".I'm not doing anything illegal.They're just used games.People have been doing it for ages.Suddenly there's this big fuzz about it.you may be buying it legally,but the developers aren't getting a dime. And all of us are supposed to care all of a sudden?Lto_thaG
Alot of us do care. If there is a game I love and really enjoy then I want to give them a bit of money. With used games they get NOTHING, its wrong imo and I totally understand why alot of devs the last while have said htey are agaisnt used games sales.
But they arent different...you are trying to make them different so you can support your argument. The fact is if someone sells then buys a used car, Ford/GM/Nissan etc isnt getting a peice just like the devs/publishers arent getting a peice of the used game market. Its simple business ethics. When they got into this business they knew the deal, and you either grow with the industry or you get booted out. Its VERY simple to be honest.Well, if you aren't willing to read the earlier discussions and counter them appropriately, I'm not going to bother repeating discussions which have already taken place on the same subject twice. :PSRTtoZ
Well, if you aren't willing to read the earlier discussions and counter them appropriately, I'm not going to bother repeating discussions which have already taken place on the same subject twice. :P[QUOTE="SRTtoZ"]But they arent different...you are trying to make them different so you can support your argument. The fact is if someone sells then buys a used car, Ford/GM/Nissan etc isnt getting a peice just like the devs/publishers arent getting a peice of the used game market. Its simple business ethics. When they got into this business they knew the deal, and you either grow with the industry or you get booted out. Its VERY simple to be honest.
GhoX
Ive not only read this entire thread, but ive read and debated simliar threads that pop up every month. Sorry noone in this world should be allowed to tell you what to do with YOUR PROPERTY. Have you been to michigan lately? Have you seen the motor city? GM/Ford factories and all that good stuff? When they were losing thousands upon thousands of workers I never heard people complain about the used car market. Just sayin'
Oh that's good. Compare a legal means of acquiring games to illegal and you're just giving fuel to the fire that is idiocy. Video game companies are no more entitled to the proceeds of me selling my copy of Assassin's Creed than Plymouth was when I sold my '93 Duster.
1. Digital media depreciates. No one will pay the same for COD4 new and shiny today like they would have 4 years ago. 2. Used sales at gamespot is profitable and legal, not greedy. The morality people try to attribute to enterprise is interesting. 3. The used market pushes some new sales as many have mentioned. 4. The used market actually makes me comfortable to buy new as I know I have an avenue to recoup some money on a bad game or ones don't enjoy like GEOW2 and Reach. Bought both new to play with friends and sold both within a week as the MP on 2 was awful and the blur in Reach killed me. Both 2 new sales I would not have made were it not for eBay. I would have borrowed them and decided I didn't like them. Games I enjoy i will keep and not be able to profit from later as I play it longer.spotofun
1. Yes, and game retail price depreciates, so what? However I don't find it proper when a brand new game still sells for 60, yet used copies are being sold for 30, not because the quality or novelty of the digital media depreciated, but because the people who owned those copies have already played the game.
2. It's greedy. All the money goes to the second-hand seller; none goes to the publisher. By your logic it's also not greedy for the publisher to want all that second-hand money.
3. Just like how piracy can also push new sales. I'm not saying that used market somehow does any less in terms of pushing for new sales. It's simply that the mitigating factor exists for both arguments, as such it's not an advantage for one over the other.
4. Technically speaking pirates can also use the... uh... pirating market (I gotta call it something =/) to keep them comfortable buying new games. They can always try out the pirated copy first, and if they like it they will buy it. That's a poor justification. Likewise your justification for used market is a bit individual-based, and to be fair I've stated at the very start that I'm not interested in justifications. I'm not trying to judge people who buy used games; I'm merely pointing out its damage.
True, there is no fact. However would you agree that the probability of someone who would be willing to pay 30 instead of 60 for a game is more likely to buy the game at 60 if the 30 version is unavailable is higher than the probability of someone who would be only willing to get the game free instead of paying for it to buy the game if piracy is unavailable?[QUOTE="GhoX"]
[QUOTE="kuu2"]
This is a big reach. No one says those same people that are buying used would have bought new. There is no corelation between the two.
kuu2
Crappy long sentence. I may draw a graph instead.
You should really stop comparing used game sales to piracy. You are not helping your argument you are just making it harder to even discuss it with you. Stealing and buying a used game from a private owner of a license are two different things.
You are right that people don't "own" the game but your definition of "own" is not being used correclty.
My argument is that both piracy and used games deal as much damage to the industry as one another. What do moral or legal justifications have anything to do with that fact? Because it's morally acceptable somehow buying used games doesn't hurt the game company? I'm not asking if it's alright to buy games via legal means knowing that it would hurt the maker. Because it's legal somehow buying used games doesn't hurt the game company? I'm not asking whether hurting the game company by buying used games is legal or not.The video game is sold to me on a disc. That makes it a physical good, period.
If video game publishers don't want to adhere to the standard rules of ownership that all physical goods have been subject to for thousands of years they shouldn't be making physical goods.
As discussed earlier they probably won't be making physical goods for long at the current rate. Music has already gone mostly digital or live, and even books are starting to move in that direction.The video game is sold to me on a disc. That makes it a physical good, period.
If video game publishers don't want to adhere to the standard rules of ownership that all physical goods have been subject to for thousands of years they shouldn't be making physical goods.
garrett_daniels
Just because some principles or laws have stayed a certain way for thousands of years doesn't mean it shouldn't change. Time doesn't automatically make something right. I can refer to examples, but I'm certain you already know some and I don't want to derail the thread into some political, gender, sexual-orientation, racial or rights debate.
If laws stay the way they are, digital will indeed be the future. Whether that's good or bad is another matter, but the general consensus on these forums are that at least the console gamers don't want their games going digital.
This entire thread is based on the misguided theory industry that stores likes Gamestop and EBGames are not part of the video game industry.
But, the thing is, they are. When their profits grow, it contributes to the growth of the video game industry. While other companies were facing hard times in 2008 due to the recession, Gamespot was 27th on a List of Fastest Growing Companies.A journalist from CNN Money wrote "One barometer of [the video game industry's] growth is the success of videogame chain GameStop...The Grapevine, Texas, company has been able to post double-digit revenue and earnings growth at a time when other mall mainstays are suffering."
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/14/news/companies/levenson_gamestop.fortune/index.htm
GS wouldn't let me link, unfortunately.
Alot of us do care. If there is a game I love and really enjoy then I want to give them a bit of money. With used games they get NOTHING, its wrong imo and I totally understand why alot of devs the last while have said htey are agaisnt used games sales.
kozzy1234
If there's a game you think you'll love and enjoy, you'll buy it. If you love it, you'll keep it. What if you don't love it though? Would you still feel that the developer/publisher earned every single penny you gave them?
[QUOTE="spotofun"]1. Digital media depreciates. No one will pay the same for COD4 new and shiny today like they would have 4 years ago. 2. Used sales at gamespot is profitable and legal, not greedy. The morality people try to attribute to enterprise is interesting. 3. The used market pushes some new sales as many have mentioned. 4. The used market actually makes me comfortable to buy new as I know I have an avenue to recoup some money on a bad game or ones don't enjoy like GEOW2 and Reach. Bought both new to play with friends and sold both within a week as the MP on 2 was awful and the blur in Reach killed me. Both 2 new sales I would not have made were it not for eBay. I would have borrowed them and decided I didn't like them. Games I enjoy i will keep and not be able to profit from later as I play it longer.GhoX
1. Yes, and game retail price depreciates, so what? However I don't find it proper when a brand new game still sells for 60, yet used copies are being sold for 30, not because the quality or novelty of the digital media depreciated, but because the people who owned those copies have already played the game.
2. It's greedy. All the money goes to the second-hand seller; none goes to the publisher. By your logic it's also not greedy for the publisher to want all that second-hand money.
3. Just like how piracy can also push new sales. I'm not saying that used market somehow does any less in terms of pushing for new sales. It's simply that the mitigating factor exists for both arguments, as such it's not an advantage for one over the other.
4. Technically speaking pirates can also use the... uh... pirating market (I gotta call it something =/) to keep them comfortable buying new games. They can always try out the pirated copy first, and if they like it they will buy it. That's a poor justification. Likewise your justification for used market is a bit individual-based, and to be fair I've stated at the very start that I'm not interested in justifications. I'm not trying to judge people who buy used games; I'm merely pointing out its damage.
1. I only point it out to show digital media is no different than other goods. What u think is proper won't change that. 2. Of course it's not greedy for the publisher to want the money as well. I never said it was. I have no issue with them using online passes to try and get at that market but there will be repercussions. I wonder if the employees of gamestop think employment is greedy? I don't even.... 3. There is that huge difference that makes them incomparable to begin with that you seem to wash away with your proper thinking. One is legal, the other is not. 4. What makes u think I am justifying a legal activity to u much less that u deserve it? I pointed out that there are 2 new sales that would not have occurred were it not for the used market. somehow this seems to hurt the developer in proper thinking.This entire thread is based on the misguided theory industry that stores likes Gamestop and EBGames are not part of the video game industry.
But, the thing is, they are. When their profits grow, it contributes to the growth of the video game industry. While other companies were facing hard times in 2008 due to the recession, Gamespot was 27th on a List of Fastest Growing Companies.A journalist from CNN Money wrote "One barometer of [the video game industry's] growth is the success of videogame chain GameStop...The Grapevine, Texas, company has been able to post double-digit revenue and earnings growth at a time when other mall mainstays are suffering."
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/14/news/companies/levenson_gamestop.fortune/index.htm
GS wouldn't let me link, unfortunately.
Kickinurass
He also leaves out the fact that when you PIRATE you create something out of nothing and noone sees a dime. When you trade in a game you get CREDIT towards another game (meaning putting the money BACK into the industry).
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment