This topic is locked from further discussion.
Wow.. so people who legitimately buy a product second hand aren't better than pirates? This thread is rapidly making me lose faith in people's ability to see reason.DarkLink77
To a publisher you aren't better than pirates because the outcome is exactly the same to them. Infact I'm willing to bet they think used games are worse since people were actually going to spend money.
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]
Wow.. so people who legitimately buy a product second hand aren't better than pirates? This thread is rapidly making me lose faith in people's ability to see reason.Espada12
To a publisher you aren't better than pirates because the outcome is exactly the same to them. Infact I'm willing to bet they think used games are worse since people were actually going to spend money.
until they make buying used products or renting especially games illegal- They can stick it!
Wow.. so people who legitimately buy a product second hand aren't better than pirates? This thread is rapidly making me lose faith in people's ability to see reason.DarkLink77
They aren't on the same level, but both screw publishers over pretty hard..you seem to be completely ignoring that fact. What's really sad about people buying used is that every used purchase is much closer to a "lost sale" than piracy will ever be. Used buyers could often be paying $5-10 more for a new copy and actually CONTRIBUTE to the developer's cost for making the game.
Oh please. Game devs cheat the consumers just as much as the consumers cheat the devs. DLC is one of the biggest scams of the decade.
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
[QUOTE="Dogswithguns"]
No, but the sellers are....
Velocitas8
No, explain why its pirating to sell my own property? And yes, I bought the game from THQ, they relinquished the rights of the title to me, I can do whatever the hell I please with it beside reproduce it. Now how is it piracy?
It's similar. Participating in the used games market is bad because multiple people get full access to the game with only ONE purchase contributing to the the cost of making that game.
Piracy is bad for the very same reason.. it just tends to be larger scale (one copy can go to far more people, and simultaneously.)
I don't see people who sell/buy used as much better than pirates. I'm glad publishers are lashing out at them. Granted, the cost of a new game is a bit too high on consoles, but you have Microsoft and Sony to blame for that (and yourselves for putting up with it), not publishers.
Its the exact same as any other than market. Its not the publishers property anymore, it doesn't belong to them, I don't get why that is so hard to grasp. I am not buying the game with any sort of care to making them money, I bought it because I wanted to play it and once I buy it it is mine. Its not theirs. the effect may be similar to piracy but to even dare call used game sellers no better than pirates is flat out wrong. Piracy is selling and giving away multiple copies of something that is not yours to distribute. A used game can only ever be in one persons hands at anyt time.
Many of you do not realize that you are not buying anything but a license to play the game, you do not own it. Just like a book, Sure you own the cover and the paper it was printed on, but you do not have any rights to use the words any way you want. You cannot reprint the book without permission from the publishers and they are paid for the copies used at libraries. Book publishers even discount the price of books when multiple copies are bought , just like software publishers discount multiple licenses.
Now if gamers want to buy multiple licenses for games that can be used for others to use, go for it, I am sure publishers may work out a deal.
WhiteKnight77
I didn't buy just the license, I bought the disk, I bought the book I bought the whole game. Its not a simple license to play the game, its not illegal to sell games, rent them or lend them so this is clearly, clearly false.
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]
Wow.. so people who legitimately buy a product second hand aren't better than pirates? This thread is rapidly making me lose faith in people's ability to see reason.AdmiralBison
To a publisher you aren't better than pirates because the outcome is exactly the same to them. Infact I'm willing to bet they think used games are worse since people were actually going to spend money.
until they make buying used products or renting especially games illegal- They can stick it!
I am always of the notion consumer > company, but that doesn't mean I can't see why they do and say the things they do. Personally I couldn't care less, I only play MP in a select few games and I buy those new.
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]Wow.. so people who legitimately buy a product second hand aren't better than pirates? This thread is rapidly making me lose faith in people's ability to see reason.Velocitas8
They aren't on the same level, but both screw publishers over pretty hard..you seem to be completely ignoring that fact. What's really sad about people buying used is that every used purchase is much closer to a "lost sale" than piracy will ever be. Used buyers could be paying $5-10 more for a new copy and actually CONTRIBUTE to the developer's cost for making the game. This really should not be happening.
Not really. I know people who simply won't pay "X amount of money" for a game. EVER. There's absolutely no way to prove that a sale was lost. There are certain games that I wouldn't spend more than $20 on. Period. If it never gets there, I don't buy it. People are voting with their wallets. Publishers should stop crying and start publishing better games.[QUOTE="Velocitas8"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
No, explain why its pirating to sell my own property? And yes, I bought the game from THQ, they relinquished the rights of the title to me, I can do whatever the hell I please with it beside reproduce it. Now how is it piracy?
DarkLink77
It's similar. Participating in the used games market is bad because multiple people get full access to the game with only ONE purchase contributing to the the cost of making that game.
Piracy is bad for the very same reason.. it just tends to be larger scale (one copy can go to far more people, and simultaneously.)
I don't see people who sell/buy used as much better than pirates. I'm glad publishers are lashing out at them. Granted, the cost of a new game is a bit too high on consoles, but you have Microsoft and Sony to blame for that (and yourselves for putting up with it), not publishers.
Wow.. so people who legitimately buy a product second hand aren't better than pirates? This thread is rapidly making me lose faith in people's ability to see reason.My faith was gone a long time ago. complaining about used sales is beyond petty and it underlines something important, if you need to go to this extent to stop used games sales you are simply running your business poorly.
Oh please. Game devs cheat the consumers just as much as the consumers cheat the devs. DLC is one of the biggest scams of the decade.
Master_ShakeXXX
And this much is true, the only good DLC I've seen is GTA: ballad of gay tony. Even so called "good" dlc like overlord for ME2 felt like a rip to me.
Wow.. so people who legitimately buy a product second hand aren't better than pirates? This thread is rapidly making me lose faith in people's ability to see reason.[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="Velocitas8"]
It's similar. Participating in the used games market is bad because multiple people get full access to the game with only ONE purchase contributing to the the cost of making that game.
Piracy is bad for the very same reason.. it just tends to be larger scale (one copy can go to far more people, and simultaneously.)
I don't see people who sell/buy used as much better than pirates. I'm glad publishers are lashing out at them. Granted, the cost of a new game is a bit too high on consoles, but you have Microsoft and Sony to blame for that (and yourselves for putting up with it), not publishers.
ActicEdge
My faith was gone a long time ago. complaining about used sales is beyond petty and it underlines something important, if you need to go to this extent to stop used games sales you are simply running your business poorly.
Amen to that, Actic. Amen to that.
On the one hand I can sort of understand their side of the argument, but on the other hand, I'm not on their side. And from a consumer's point of view there's nothing good about this situation. Or well, if this DLC is proper such then that does sweeten the deal some. But chances are it's something crappy, something they removed from the game, or both.
There's just so much crap going on in the industry these days. Whichever way you turn more of it gets shoved in your face. I think the industry needs to do some serious self-examination and figure out how to solve this predicament they've created for themselves, without screwing over their customers. Like, if you can't sustain your business without leeching off of used sales then you're doing it wrong.
[QUOTE="raynimrod"]
[QUOTE="Ryder123"]
Because you don't have to patch a used chair, or keep servers running up for a used painting do you?
ActicEdge
Until now I was definitely leaning on the side of the initial argument, but you, kind sir, have just made an extremely valid point to the contrary!
What point, Its part of the package they are offering, I paid for that too and when the game is sold its assumed that the feature set is transfered with that. guess what, they got my $60 buck and 2 people can't play online on the same disk, there is no difference.
I disagree. The fact that the used game is being re-used for a longer period than originally intended, at the expense of (not just the non-profit of) the publisher (in certain circumstances) means they are continually financing resources for people to keep playing the game - People who otherwise would have had to purchase the game themselves (and thus contributed to the expense).
I think that makes it a bit of an unfair detriment.
[QUOTE="Velocitas8"]Wow.. so people who legitimately buy a product second hand aren't better than pirates? This thread is rapidly making me lose faith in people's ability to see reason.It's similar. Participating in the used games market is bad because multiple people get full access to the game with only ONE purchase contributing to the the cost of making that game.
Piracy is bad for the very same reason.. it just tends to be larger scale (one copy can go to far more people, and simultaneously.)
I don't see people who sell/buy used as much better than pirates. I'm glad publishers are lashing out at them.Granted, the cost of a new game is a bit too high on consoles, but you have yourselves to blame for putting up with it), not publishers.
DarkLink77
Yeah holy ****. That's some mindboggling stuff right there. Apparently this is all our fault for buying and selling new and used games.
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
[QUOTE="raynimrod"]
Until now I was definitely leaning on the side of the initial argument, but you, kind sir, have just made an extremely valid point to the contrary!
raynimrod
What point, Its part of the package they are offering, I paid for that too and when the game is sold its assumed that the feature set is transfered with that. guess what, they got my $60 buck and 2 people can't play online on the same disk, there is no difference.
I disagree. The fact that the used game is being re-used for a longer period than originally intended, at the expense of (not just the non-profit of) the publisher (in certain circumstances) means they are continually financing resources for people to keep playing the game - People who otherwise would have had to purchase the game themselves (and thus contributed to the expense).
I think that makes it a bit of an unfair detriment.
Its being used longer than originally inteneded in some circumstances yes but the reality of the matter is that the $60 is suspose to be an infinite cover for the person who bought it. If I play a game online for 3 straight years they can't turn around and charge me for extended gameplay use. The deal is I have a infinite access to the online features for the $60 I paid, who ends up using that infinite access is irrelevant. If I decide to sell it or not really is not relevant to the fact that what I paid for was unlimited online. Is it wrong to lend out my games now too?
[QUOTE="AdmiralBison"]
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
To a publisher you aren't better than pirates because the outcome is exactly the same to them. Infact I'm willing to bet they think used games are worse since people were actually going to spend money.
Espada12
until they make buying used products or renting especially games illegal- They can stick it!
I am always of the notion consumer > company, but that doesn't mean I can't see why they do and say the things they do. Personally I couldn't care less, I only play MP in a select few games and I buy those new.
Companies have the right to protect their earnings and say what they can that is within reasona
However if they start to criminalise a market for buying second hand used goods or even renting because they don't get a cut of it is hypocrytical.
A lot of products are on the second hand market and renting products is simply a second hand market that is regulated and that companies that specialise in it can profit from them.
If I buy a second hand product (that is legitimate as best defined buy they way) I will accept that it may not have all the same quality as a new product- i.e degraded usability, missing parts or manuals, dirty or scratched, no cover all for a cheaper price then that's fine and that's what you expect to pay.
Pirating is stealing and profiteering of products and services.
The law doesn't recognise legitimate second hand goods as piracy and neither should they.
How about they make more positive incentives to further distinguish themselves between the first hand market and second hand. At least EA are putting some effort with their $10 project where you get the game new or pre-order you get extra content.
but it looks like it comes down to a matter of perspective between consumers and publishers/devs.
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
[QUOTE="Dogswithguns"]
No, but the sellers are....
Velocitas8
No, explain why its pirating to sell my own property? And yes, I bought the game from THQ, they relinquished the rights of the title to me, I can do whatever the hell I please with it beside reproduce it. Now how is it piracy?
It's similar. Participating in the used games market is bad because multiple people get full access to the game with only ONE purchase contributing to the the cost of making that game.
Piracy is bad for the very same reason.. it just tends to be larger scale (one copy can go to far more people, and simultaneously.)
I don't see people who sell/buy used as much better than pirates. I'm glad publishers are lashing out at them. Granted, the cost of a new game is a bit too high on consoles, but you have Microsoft and Sony to blame for that (and yourselves for putting up with it), not publishers.
The hell! I can't believe that some people are "thinking" this way. How can you, and anyone else for that matter, compare the two. On one side you have illegal action of copying and distributing, and getting said COPIES THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN BOUGHT which is obviously the same as stealing. On the other hand you BUY YOUR COPY, publisher gets his money and you are free to do what you want with said item because you own it. And if you decide to sell YOUR OWN GAME, THE GAME YOU BOUGHT, you are suddenly branded as the first bunch, as a friggen thief. Great logic there, sport. You buy a game for $60, sell it for 40$, you no longer have the game, have $20 less then you initially had and yet you stole something?! If you can't see a lapse of logic in this kind of reasoning, i am at loss for words. I mean i'm already at loss for words when i read what you wrote. Million illegal copies compared to 1 to 1 exchange where the item was paid for in the first place. Yup, exactly the same.
It's just sad seeing how many of you have become indoctrinated to this new capitalism to a point that you are vehemently defending it regardless of logic or reason. The irony of it is that this proceeding and the ones similar to it will affect you negatively as much as the rest of us, and will, somewhere in the future, leave you wondering "Hey, when did this happen?". It happened at exact moment you decided to spout stupid things on some game forum without any forethought or logic or reason. Next time you decide to sell something of your own, think about how you are actually directly stealing from the manufacturer! Don't lend your toolkit to your neighbour, rather advise him to buy a new one to support the manufacturer. I know that 2G Iphone ain't the buzz anymore but hey, you can't just pass it on to your lil brother because he is a potential buyer of a new one and that kind of action is like a theft from Apple..
That's the world we will soon live in thanks to people like you.
Buying a used game is not cheating a developer out of money but at the same time developers can sell games however they want. When you buy a new game you are buying a transferable license. Companies are free to sell games on XBLA/PSN/Steam only if they don't like used game sales.
But I do think Gamestop is bad for the industry and should be avoided when possible. They purposely keep a low supply 1-3 month old games to encourage used sales. I've had employees on numerous occasions try to talk me out of paying 5 or 10 dollars more for a new copy.
As harsh as ^^^ is, its 100% truth, never argue for the publisher ands devs sake, they will do anything to justify their ignorance and stupidty. Its not at all unfair the way used games exist, next you're all going to say lending games out is evil and sharing with other individuals is crime. Ridiculous.
thats why THQ is one of the worst game companies :lol:
I disagree. The fact that the used game is being re-used for a longer period than originally intended, at the expense of (not just the non-profit of) the publisher (in certain circumstances) means they are continually financing resources for people to keep playing the game - People who otherwise would have had to purchase the game themselves (and thus contributed to the expense).
I think that makes it a bit of an unfair detriment.
raynimrod
What was the original intention here then? To create an unsustainable online service, and when realizing this, restricting online access to one person for all eternity? Somehow I think the fault here doesn't lie with people not giving them enough money.
And like ActicEdge touched on, what's the difference between me playing a game for 12 months, and me playing the game for 6 months and then selling it to someone who plays it for another 6 months? Because for some reason the publisher should be paid twice for option number two.
[QUOTE="Velocitas8"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"]Wow.. so people who legitimately buy a product second hand aren't better than pirates? This thread is rapidly making me lose faith in people's ability to see reason.DarkLink77
They aren't on the same level, but both screw publishers over pretty hard..you seem to be completely ignoring that fact. What's really sad about people buying used is that every used purchase is much closer to a "lost sale" than piracy will ever be. Used buyers could be paying $5-10 more for a new copy and actually CONTRIBUTE to the developer's cost for making the game. This really should not be happening.
Not really. I know people who simply won't pay "X amount of money" for a game. EVER. There's absolutely no way to prove that a sale was lost. There are certain games that I wouldn't spend more than $20 on. Period. If it never gets there, I don't buy it. People are voting with their wallets. Publishers should stop crying and start publishing better games.I know that, there are those who will not pay and are so use to pirating that the idea of actually buying something is unfeasable and probably come up with some excuse but it is still stealing. There is no moral high ground to it especially if it is not a need.
They have a right to proect their earnings, however they have to accept that stealing and piracy was around long before video games and not try to criminalise or bunch the legitimate second hand market/rentals with piracy.
This is probably not the best way to put it and I don't want to sound like I endorse piracy or stealing, but I think that these elements can act as a buffer zone for publishers and devs into thinking how can they make a product or services with out encouraging people looking into piracy instead.
-by not resting on your laurels try to expand the genres, markets and stimulate growth instead of only focusing on the bottom line-(this is tough because some focus only on the silver line and some of those who legitimately try new things get unnoticed)
-don't try to jack up prices too much or over charge for services, when a cheaper alternative is available
-less contempt for consumers, distinguish those who actually appreciate a good products and not bunch them with those who just simply steal regardless what product it is.
-good Public relations- laying off staff and then advertising stellar profits, I don't know how it fits into the equation ,but it leaves you open to a lot of criticism, elitism and no empathy when you lose profits and earnings later on.. this just doesn't sit well.
It's obvious that there are way more people who buy legitimately otherwise the vifeo game market wouldn't have grown to its size right now, but at least try to earn those profits.
[QUOTE="raynimrod"]
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
What point, Its part of the package they are offering, I paid for that too and when the game is sold its assumed that the feature set is transfered with that. guess what, they got my $60 buck and 2 people can't play online on the same disk, there is no difference.
ActicEdge
I disagree. The fact that the used game is being re-used for a longer period than originally intended, at the expense of (not just the non-profit of) the publisher (in certain circumstances) means they are continually financing resources for people to keep playing the game - People who otherwise would have had to purchase the game themselves (and thus contributed to the expense).
I think that makes it a bit of an unfair detriment.
Its being used longer than originally inteneded in some circumstances yes but the reality of the matter is that the $60 is suspose to be an infinite cover for the person who bought it. If I play a game online for 3 straight years they can't turn around and charge me for extended gameplay use. The deal is I have a infinite access to the online features for the $60 I paid, who ends up using that infinite access is irrelevant. If I decide to sell it or not really is not relevant to the fact that what I paid for was unlimited online. Is it wrong to lend out my games now too?
I definitely appreciate your position. However, take Halo 2 for example. Do you think it was wrong of "them" to shut down the last remaining online servers since you ought to be entitled to an infinite supply of online features and resources? Is there not a reasonable timeframe after which you can say, well it's about time we stopped paying for something we're not making money from? I don't know - just throwing it out there.
Sure. Shut it down. Just don't ask me for money and then shut it down anyway. Which is what publishers will be doing. Or do you think FIFA 10 servers will be up and running longer than FIFA 09's because they're profiting off of used sales? How long does it typically take for EA to pull the plug on their annual franchises?I definitely appreciate your position. However, take Halo 2 for example. Do you think it was wrong of "them" to shut down the last remaining online servers since you ought to be entitled to an infinite supply of online features and resources? Is there not a reasonable timeframe after which you can say, well it's about time we stopped paying for something we're not making money from? I don't know - just throwing it out there.
raynimrod
That poor FIFA by the way, really needs the additional revenue, used sales are totally cannibalizing it, just barely scraping by that series. :(
God, the mindset that these companies take about used games makes me so sick.
What other industry can make such claims like the gaming industy can?
I mean, when you buy a used car I suppose that you are cheating "GM, Ford, Honda, Toyota, etc..." out of money as well. Do they whine about it endlessly? NO.
Same goes for houses, furniture, used cd's, pre-owned clothes, ...well you get the picture.
They made money on the initial purchase. After that, the consumer can do as they wish with their property.
What entitles these companies to make money off of each subsequent sale of an item they already made money off of? Sickening.
Hey, when THQ gives me a WWE game that isnt **** on PS3, ill pay for more of their games.
This is a bad analogy because I don't think people are trading in cars 1-6 months after they have bought it. Most the time used car sales arrive after the new car has ceased being made. This isn't the case with games. Sometime they will have used games come in 2-4 weeks after a new release when new games are still trying to be sold. It is taking away from their sales.[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]
Well maybe if they didn't charge $60 for every freaking game used games wouldn't be as much a problem with them. I swear, only the games industry can get away with this BS. If you bought a car used, would the original car manufacturer get money? No they wouldn't, because someone else already purchased the car. This industry just annoys the crap out of me, and I don't see it changing anytime soon.
CajunShooter
If you made games you would feel the same way. Publishers make a ton of money, the developers of games do not. I don't care about the publishers, but I do care about the talented developers that make games. The developers may not see some incredible bonus from a game selling well, but every little bit helps.
So what if used games come in 2-4 weeks after the new games are trying to be sold? It just shows how short of games developers are making nowdays, if they want people to buy new and hold onto their copies, make some games of decent length for crying out loud. And you just proved my counter-point. Developers can be talented, yes, that is true, but does it matter? Publishers are the ones who make far and away the majority of the money, while the developers get next to nothing. If I buy a new game for $60, I'd bet you that 55 of those dollars are going to the publisher at least. And if you haven't noticed, who are the ones crying about used game sales? Not the developers, but the publishers. THQ, EA, Activision... all publishers who just want to try and squeeze every last penny out of consumers.
"I don't think we really care whether used game buyers are upset because new game buyers get everything", THQ's creative director for wrestling titles told Gamasutra. "So if used game buyers are upset they don't get the online feature set I don't really have much sympathy for them".
"That's a little blunt but we hope it doesn't disappoint people. We hope people understand that when the game's bought used we get cheated".Link.
LOL.
Zune_HD
Buying used cars cheats the car manufacturers.
Buying a house used is cheating the builders who make them.
Buying a used console cheats the manufacturers.
Buying a used boat cheats the manufacturers.
Buying used clothes cheats the manufacturers....
not seeing anything different here from buying a used game besides greed. Its like what.. 10-15% of users buy the games used... but also that means 10-15% of users buy games new and sell them off. Lets not forget the rediculous price of $60-70 per game which lasts 5-10 hours. Were talking $7-14 per hour of gameplay!! Totally rediculous, PLUS $15 for DLC like 4 maps, or 15 minutes of extra gameplay.
How about all that glitchy multiplayer gameplay that requires patch after patch over the period of many months. These are common with all game developers, and thats why them whining over used sales is total BS! EVERY game should be uncharted 2 quality, instead of crap or rehashes. Everygame should be glitch free upon release. Every game should give you a months worth of play. Then i would consider listening to this tribble verbal diarhea. Until then, suck it up princess'.
I actually agree that the developers should be getting paid for their hard work. However in my opinion they are going after the wrong people for a couple reasons. First the customer is always right especially when you are dealing in luxury entertainment goods. Second in the U.S. under the First Sale Doctrine the purchaser is allowed to transfer (sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained (purchased). This is why they make these comments and try these tactics because lawfully at least in the U.S. where most of this is taking place anyway (Gamestop) there is nothing they can do about it.
I don't understand why the biggest game publishers who are the ones beating the drum on this issue (EA, THQ) and any others with such qualms don't just band together and form their own videogame shops around the country. Sure it would cost some serious money but obviously there is some serious money to be made here. They should be going after Gamestop not the consumer. If they had their own shops they could cut out the middle man, keep within the First Sale Doctrine, and make all of the money they are losing up. Guess its just alot easier to pick on the little guy than try to go up against the corporation that is apparently running these other company's into the ground all while pandering to them at every major game's release with the best preorder bonus's so that Gamestop can make a killing off the interest all of that preorder money generates. :roll:
If there is online I can agree with this. If the publishers want to give an incentive for buying new there is nothing wrong with that.Yeah, providing incentives is fine, but that's not what this is at all. The second hand price should get lowered, you'll get less if you decide to sell it. There are a bunch of different implementations of this online pass. But I don't think THQ offers a 7 day trial like EA does for their sports games. So if someone else in your family, or a friend, wants to utilize online functions, on your console, or theirs, they can't, without paying AGAIN to access online. You also obviously can't really gift or sell the game, as in the whole game, either.
What I can't agree with is a publisher trying to keep me from selling or buying a used game. I will boycott any pub that puts a code on their games that does not allow other people to play the game after I am done with it.
kuu2
also, we could also say they are cheating us by releasing garbage and selling it for the same price as good games, if they want to play it that way.mtradr43Indeed.
I kind of support them. I mean you get what you pay for right. Maybe after a games been released for a couple of years or something they could open online content etc to second hand game players._Cadbury_
After a couple of years the servers will have been shut down for quite some time.
[QUOTE="CajunShooter"]One more thing those is not really that people resell or are buying other peoples games such as ebay or Craigslist or just from a friend. Game companies have problems with gaming stores specializing in the used game market and telling their employees that if a person brings up a new game and we have a used game in stock then try and talk them into getting that used game. That is where the problem is. Microsoft1234yea, see system wars has a tendency to think the only used game market is gamestop which is primarily not true. Ebay and craiglist will usually get you a used game much less than you can find on gamestop. I agree its the industry, but people are stupid and dont realize they can get more for their game and just trade it in (especially sport games) But there is a difference between someone searching for a cheaper used game and someone being talked into buying a used game. Same as the piracy issue. The majority of pirates wouldn't buy the games if they didn't pirate. The majority of people searching on ebay and craigslist wouldnt be buying the game new if they are going to take the time to search for it used.
As previous stated though. The problem arises with gaming stores talking their customers who bring up a new game for $60, $50,$40 in which the publishers/developer makes money and the employees talk the customer into buying a used copy for $5 cheaper in which they get no money.
You don't own games, only licenses to play them.selling ANYTHING used does not make money for the original seller. I dont see how it is any of THQ's business. If i want to sell a game i own , i will. If want to buy a used game from someone i will.
Videodogg
Screw em. Make your games a reasonable price to content ratio and I won't need to buy used.locopathoYou clearly haven't been playing games for very long. Atari games were $30-$40 and most you would see everything the game had to offer in 10 mins or less. NES and SNES games were $50 and some can be beat within a couple hours. That was back in the 80s and early 90s which is the equivalent of paying $80-$90 in todays money.
Now people complain about a 10 hour game that cost $60? Gaming has been one of the few things that has been inflation proof and has gotten cheaper throughout the years.
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"][QUOTE="Dogswithguns"]
No, but the sellers are....
DarkLink77
No, explain why its pirating to sell my own property? And yes, I bought the game from THQ, they relinquished the rights of the title to me, I can do whatever the hell I please with it beside reproduce it. Now how is it piracy?
Quoted for truth. Piracy is taking someone's intellectual property without compensation. That used game has already been payed for. so has the pirated version, at some point.[QUOTE="Videodogg"]You don't own games, only licenses to play them. so true, otherwise you could make copies and sell to everyone you wanted.selling ANYTHING used does not make money for the original seller. I dont see how it is any of THQ's business. If i want to sell a game i own , i will. If want to buy a used game from someone i will.
shakmaster13
cheated? Ok, I would like to know if ANY of those THQ employees have every purchased a used car instead of buying a new one. How about have they ever SOLD their old car? What about houses......has anyone of them ever purchased a used house or have all of them purchased new ones? What about sold as well? Are they saying you cheat each of those business because you sold your OWN property? Essentially what THQ is trying to do is say, well you may buy one of our used cars but we are going to disable the engine so you'll have to come to us to fix it. Give me a break........these developers are asking for sympathy when a lot of the entire world economy is based on selling used items lol. Like games are supposed to be special or something?darthogreThese are terrible analogies as cars are only manufactured for 1 year. I don't know a huge used car market for cars still being manufactured so it isn't like used car sales are taking away from sales of new cars because none of the new cars exist.
The problem in the gaming world is that used game stores will get copies of a recently released game just a couple weeks after its release. The store will then persuade people that are bringing up new copies of the game to buy the used for $5 less instead.
selling ANYTHING used does not make money for the original seller. I dont see how it is any of THQ's business. If i want to sell a game i own , i will. If want to buy a used game from someone i will.
You don't own games, only licenses to play them. LOL That's like saying you don't own your car........you paid them the right to drive it? So what exactly did you just pay 15k for then? You have a legitimate reciept of purchase that UNFORTUNATELY for developers gives the control over that ONE disc of the game to the purchaser.........it's not cheating ANYONE. When you sale your house, are you cheating the other companies that make new ones? If you sale your car are you cheating Ford or Toyota? Come on....video games are NOTHING special. It's like any other property. If I can sale my computer and Bill Gates isn't calling for my head why is it Game Developers suddenly think they deserve to be put in a special catagory?You clearly haven't been playing games for very long. Atari games were $30-$40 and most you would see everything the game had to offer in 10 mins or less. NES and SNES games were $50 and some can be beat within a couple hours. That was back in the 80s and early 90s which is the equivalent of paying $80-$90 in todays money.[QUOTE="locopatho"]Screw em. Make your games a reasonable price to content ratio and I won't need to buy used.CajunShooter
Now people complain about a 10 hour game that cost $60? Gaming has been one of the few things that has been inflation proof and has gotten cheaper throughout the years.
I've been playing since the SNES but Mommy and Daddy payed for things back then!Now I pay for my own games, no goddam way are you getting 50 or 60 euro from me for a short game.
Tropico 3(100+ hours), Oblivion (100+ hours), Zelda(~60 hours), Mario Galaxy(~30 hours), Mass Effect(~35 hours), Dragon Age(~20 hours and counting), these are some current gen games I payed full for.
Short little adventures I can clear in a couple of days are worthy of 20 euro or less imo.
[QUOTE="shakmaster13"][QUOTE="Videodogg"]You don't own games, only licenses to play them. LOL That's like saying you don't own your car........you paid them the right to drive it? So what exactly did you just pay 15k for then? You have a legitimate reciept of purchase that UNFORTUNATELY for developers gives the control over that ONE disc of the game to the purchaser.........it's not cheating ANYONE. When you sale your house, are you cheating the other companies that make new ones? If you sale your car are you cheating Ford or Toyota? Come on....video games are NOTHING special. It's like any other property. If I can sale my computer and Bill Gates isn't calling for my head why is it Game Developers suddenly think they deserve to be put in a special catagory? you payed for the disc, you dont own the game. The game is a bunch of code, not the disc. Otherwise yourse saying you own the code, which you dont.selling ANYTHING used does not make money for the original seller. I dont see how it is any of THQ's business. If i want to sell a game i own , i will. If want to buy a used game from someone i will.
darthogre
LOL That's like saying you don't own your car........you paid them the right to drive it? So what exactly did you just pay 15k for then? You have a legitimate reciept of purchase that UNFORTUNATELY for developers gives the control over that ONE disc of the game to the purchaser.........it's not cheating ANYONE. When you sale your house, are you cheating the other companies that make new ones? If you sale your car are you cheating Ford or Toyota? Come on....video games are NOTHING special. It's like any other property. If I can sale my computer and Bill Gates isn't calling for my head why is it Game Developers suddenly think they deserve to be put in a special catagory? you payed for the disc, you dont own the game. The game is a bunch of code, not the disc. Otherwise yourse saying you own the code, which you dont. You own that copy of the code. You can sell that copy of the code on. You can't make extra copies.[QUOTE="darthogre"][QUOTE="shakmaster13"] You don't own games, only licenses to play them.TerrorRizzing
The facts are that if 10% of the games are traded in and resold that is 10% loss in potential revenue. That may not sound like a lot and while it may not be detrimental to a publisher a may be enough to close down a developer or no longer publish that developers games.
I definitely have this feeling that the people that are backing up the game companies are the people that have been playing games for decades and appreciated the gaming companies and their talents.
That's not true at all. I buy tons of cheap used games that I wouldn't pay full for. Me buying Kameo used for 8 euro does not equal 50 euro lost for the developer. And keep the whole "appreciation" thing away from this, it sounds very pretentious.The facts are that if 10% of the games are traded in and resold that is 10% loss in potential revenue. That may not sound like a lot and while it may not be detrimental to a publisher a may be enough to close down a developer or no longer publish that developers games.
I definitely have this feeling that the people that are backing up the game companies are the people that have been playing games for decades and appreciated the gaming companies and their talents.
CajunShooter
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment