Why used games are nowhere near piracy....

Its because every copy of a game the dev/pub makes, they make money off each new game. When the OWNER of that game wants to sell it, why should the company who made it get another cut? This is the side of the used game argument I don't understand.

For example: I go to Wal-Mart and buy a case of Dr. Pepper. Those are now MY Dr. Peppers. If I want to sell them at a fair, thats my buisiness. Why should I have to pay Wal-Mart again to sell MY drinks? Fact is, I shouldn't. The games Industry seems to be getting away with this by whining about Gamestop and implementing online passes.

Your thoughts?

Of course used games =/= piracy. Some people just say crazy things for attention. If used games is like piracy, $60 for games = highway robbery.

Used games are nowhere near piracy? Man I never knew that, maybe next time I'll pay for my used games that I get from retailers.

So...

how is piracy implied?

I believe used game sales will eventually kill the games industry. Just like how the Statute of Anne killed the book publishing industry back in the 1700s, the player piano killed the music industry in the beginning of the 20th century, the VCR Boston Strangler'd the film industry, home taping killed the music industry, and P2P killed all the publishing industries. If there's one thing we know, it's that publishing industries are never hyperbolic or misleading when it comes to anything that threatens their business model.

So...

how is piracy implied?

TC, its a bit different than what you are saying. Video games are an experience, not really an item or product. Uncharted 2 is a roller coaster ride, but you dont own the rights to Naughty Dog or Nathan Drake. It would be like buying a ticket to disney world and reselling that ticket to gamestop in exchange for another theme park ticket. 100 people can experience disney world for the price of one or 2 tickets. Not really fair to Disney world. Im not saying do away with used games because i love them. I fully support giving the devs a cut of used game sales. They deserve a royalty for every person who enjoys their game in the same way a musician gets royalties every time their song gets played in a movie or commercial.

TC, its a bit different than what you are saying. Video games are an experience, not really an item or product. Uncharted 2 is a roller coaster ride, but you dont own the rights to Naughty Dog or Nathan Drake. It would be like buying a ticket to disney world and reselling that ticket to gamestop in exchange for another theme park ticket. 100 people can experience disney world for the price of one or 2 tickets. Not really fair to Disney world. Im not saying do away with used games because i love them. I fully support giving the devs a cut of used game sales. They deserve a royalty for every person who enjoys their game in the same way a musician gets royalties every time their song gets played in a movie or commercial.

navyguy21

Not sure how you came about that analogy, as buying and selling used games (something that can be used indefinitely) is obviously different than buying and selling one time use tickets to Disney World. What you say would make sense in terms of copyright infringement, but reselling used games isn't copyright infringement as per the first sale doctrine.

If developers/publishers are concerned about used sales perhaps they should make more games that people want to keep, rather than something that loses its worth so quickly thousands of people are willing to trade it in at GameStop for about the cost of a Big Mac?

Same as cars... Does buying a used car mean i'm doing Citroen out of a sale? No! It has never been like this al though they don't like it there is nothing they can do about it, they just gotta do that extra bit to make me want a new one instead which developers are adopting by adding one time DLC along side preorders.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

TC, its a bit different than what you are saying. Video games are an experience, not really an item or product. Uncharted 2 is a roller coaster ride, but you dont own the rights to Naughty Dog or Nathan Drake. It would be like buying a ticket to disney world and reselling that ticket to gamestop in exchange for another theme park ticket. 100 people can experience disney world for the price of one or 2 tickets. Not really fair to Disney world. Im not saying do away with used games because i love them. I fully support giving the devs a cut of used game sales. They deserve a royalty for every person who enjoys their game in the same way a musician gets royalties every time their song gets played in a movie or commercial.

PBSnipes

Not sure how you came about that analogy, as buying and selling used games (something that can be used indefinitely) is obviously different than buying and selling one time use tickets to Disney World. What you say would make sense in terms of copyright infringement, but reselling used games isn't copyright infringement as per the first sale doctrine.

If developers/publishers are concerned about used sales perhaps they should make more games that people want to keep, rather than something that loses its worth so quickly thousands of people are willing to trade it in at GameStop for about the cost of a Big Mac?

The only problem I have with it is stores doing it. Paying you peanuts for your trade-in, then selling it for 5 dollars less than the brand new one. F that.

Person to person sales - sure.

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

TC, its a bit different than what you are saying. Video games are an experience, not really an item or product. Uncharted 2 is a roller coaster ride, but you dont own the rights to Naughty Dog or Nathan Drake. It would be like buying a ticket to disney world and reselling that ticket to gamestop in exchange for another theme park ticket. 100 people can experience disney world for the price of one or 2 tickets. Not really fair to Disney world. Im not saying do away with used games because i love them. I fully support giving the devs a cut of used game sales. They deserve a royalty for every person who enjoys their game in the same way a musician gets royalties every time their song gets played in a movie or commercial.

navyguy21

Not sure how you came about that analogy, as buying and selling used games (something that can be used indefinitely) is obviously different than buying and selling one time use tickets to Disney World. What you say would make sense in terms of copyright infringement, but reselling used games isn't copyright infringement as per the first sale doctrine.

If developers/publishers are concerned about used sales perhaps they should make more games that people want to keep, rather than something that loses its worth so quickly thousands of people are willing to trade it in at GameStop for about the cost of a Big Mac?

I said it before in the last thread, when a company puts used game sales in the forefront of selling games, it is a problem. When a customer goes in to GameStop to buy a game and the sales person tries to get you to buy a used game when you really want to buy the new one and worse, the savings is only $5, but the developer does not get a sale due to that pushing of used games.

GameStop Report Reveals Profit Margins on Used Games, Best-Selling Publishers shows that GameStops profits are higher from used game sales compared to new game sales though new game sales has a larger dollar amount. The profit from used games is 25% more than new game sales. That is why developers and publishers are rather unhappy. Granted this report is from the 2009 fiscal year, but the 2010 totals are similar with used games again bringing more profit for GameStop.

At least with piracy, they know that they do not have a sale, but with used game sales, they know that they lost a sale.

Yeah, but you can then go on and sell that movie to someone else after you've watched it without an issue. Why should video games be any different? Rental companies are different because they retain ownership of the product. With video games and movies, once you sell it, you give up ownership and your right to experience it to someone else.dk00111

Its because every copy of a game the dev/pub makes, they make money off each new game. When the OWNER of that game wants to sell it, why should the company who made it get another cut? This is the side of the used game argument I don't understand.

For example: I go to Wal-Mart and buy a case of Dr. Pepper. Those are now MY Dr. Peppers. If I want to sell them at a fair, thats my buisiness. Why should I have to pay Wal-Mart again to sell MY drinks? Fact is, I shouldn't. The games Industry seems to be getting away with this by whining about Gamestop and implementing online passes.

Your thoughts?

Plagueless

This debate really is pointless. The only reason people ***** about used game sales is because the industry is built on a **** model that can't support its self. Like a 300 pound man of muscle with weak knees. That's not anyone elses problem. Fix your damn knees, don't blame everyone for it.

I kind of agree with you, but i disagree at the same time. I do feel like games are experiences. We are really arguing how we view the item in hand. You are buying the disc that happens to have a great game on it, while i am buying a great experience that happens to be housed on a disc. So, in my opinion, they are experiences that shouldnt be resold without paying a royalty. i mean i completely see where you are coming from, i just view it in a different way. ME is an experience. I dont see it the same way i see buying Windows 7. Think of it as buying a movie. Its an experience. You can own the disc all you want. Video rental and cable companies have to pay a fee for sharing that experience with each user. VIdeo games are interactive movies, not a solid product like say a car or a stereo. In my opinion of coursenavyguy21

But I can resell movies. And books. And albums. And paintings. And sculptures. What makes games different?

Furthermore, you're entering the slippery slope of, essentially, what does and does not constitute art. I can appreciate the argument that artists should be paid per performance, but that begs the question of who qualifies as an artist? You may not think your stereo qualifies as art, but what about something like this:

Can Bang & Olufsen argue their speakers are actually first-and-formost pieces of art, and therefore can't be resold without compensation? What about beautifully designed cars? Or drool-worthy industrial design like the unibody Macbooks? Furniture? Appliances? Really nice looking coffee mugs?

The thing about copyright/IP law -- and this is something that's been largely forgotten in recent history -- is that it's as much about balancing the needs of the consumer with those of the creator. So while, ideally, sure, creators would get some sort of compensation every time their creation is used/traded/sold, the fact is the net-benefit (both in terms of the concept of personal property and the ability for a greater number of people to experience a product) of being able to use/trade/sell products without the authorization of the creator is greater than giving Naughty Dog a $X cut of every used sale (nevermind the logistics of trying to work out such a system).

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]I kind of agree with you, but i disagree at the same time. I do feel like games are experiences. We are really arguing how we view the item in hand. You are buying the disc that happens to have a great game on it, while i am buying a great experience that happens to be housed on a disc. So, in my opinion, they are experiences that shouldnt be resold without paying a royalty. i mean i completely see where you are coming from, i just view it in a different way. ME is an experience. I dont see it the same way i see buying Windows 7. Think of it as buying a movie. Its an experience. You can own the disc all you want. Video rental and cable companies have to pay a fee for sharing that experience with each user. VIdeo games are interactive movies, not a solid product like say a car or a stereo. In my opinion of coursePBSnipes

But I can resell movies. And books. And albums. And paintings. And sculptures. What makes games different?

Furthermore, you're entering the slippery slope of, essentially, what does and does not constitute art. I can appreciate the argument that artists should be paid per performance, but that begs the question of who qualifies as an artist? You may not think your stereo qualifies as art, but what about something like this:

Can Bang & Olufsen argue their speakers are actually first-and-formost pieces of art, and therefore can't be resold without compensation? What about beautifully designed cars? Or drool-worthy industrial design like the unibody Macbooks? Furniture? Appliances? Really nice looking coffee mugs?

The thing about copyright/IP law -- and this is something that's been largely forgotten in recent history -- is that it's as much about balancing the needs of the consumer with those of the creator. So while, ideally, sure, creators would get some sort of compensation every time their creation is used/traded/sold, the fact is the net-benefit (both in terms of the concept of personal property and the ability for a greater number of people to experience a product) of being able to use/trade/sell products without the authorization of the creator is greater than giving Naughty Dog a $X cut of every used sale (nevermind the logistics of trying to work out such a system).

Again, the individual CAN resell it, but not a steady stream of income from the SAME product. You can sell your movie, but you cant rent tons of them out for profit. Same with new release books. Electronics are different, though Sony proved that this may also apply there. Again, you are arguing your rights as an individual, you cant apply that to a corporation who deals with thousands of games as opposed to you reselling a few games.......ONCE. Gamestop sells multiple copies.......multiple times. This takes money from devs, forcing them to implement the 5-10 dollar online fees. What IM saying is charge Gamestop that 5 - 10 bucks and NOTHING to the consumer

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]I kind of agree with you, but i disagree at the same time. I do feel like games are experiences. We are really arguing how we view the item in hand. You are buying the disc that happens to have a great game on it, while i am buying a great experience that happens to be housed on a disc. So, in my opinion, they are experiences that shouldnt be resold without paying a royalty. i mean i completely see where you are coming from, i just view it in a different way. ME is an experience. I dont see it the same way i see buying Windows 7. Think of it as buying a movie. Its an experience. You can own the disc all you want. Video rental and cable companies have to pay a fee for sharing that experience with each user. VIdeo games are interactive movies, not a solid product like say a car or a stereo. In my opinion of coursenavyguy21

But I can resell movies. And books. And albums. And paintings. And sculptures. What makes games different?

Furthermore, you're entering the slippery slope of, essentially, what does and does not constitute art. I can appreciate the argument that artists should be paid per performance, but that begs the question of who qualifies as an artist? You may not think your stereo qualifies as art, but what about something like this:

Can Bang & Olufsen argue their speakers are actually first-and-formost pieces of art, and therefore can't be resold without compensation? What about beautifully designed cars? Or drool-worthy industrial design like the unibody Macbooks? Furniture? Appliances? Really nice looking coffee mugs?

The thing about copyright/IP law -- and this is something that's been largely forgotten in recent history -- is that it's as much about balancing the needs of the consumer with those of the creator. So while, ideally, sure, creators would get some sort of compensation every time their creation is used/traded/sold, the fact is the net-benefit (both in terms of the concept of personal property and the ability for a greater number of people to experience a product) of being able to use/trade/sell products without the authorization of the creator is greater than giving Naughty Dog a $X cut of every used sale (nevermind the logistics of trying to work out such a system).

Again, the individual CAN resell it, but not a steady stream of income from the SAME product. You can sell your movie, but you cant rent tons of them out for profit. Same with new release books. Electronics are different, though Sony proved that this may also apply there. Again, you are arguing your rights as an individual, you cant apply that to a corporation who deals with thousands of games as opposed to you reselling a few games.......ONCE. Gamestop sells multiple copies.......multiple times. This takes money from devs, forcing them to implement the 5-10 dollar online fees. What IM saying is charge Gamestop that 5 - 10 bucks and NOTHING to the consumer

I refuse to take this argument seriously until game companies boycott Gamestop. Until then, they can shut up.

[QUOTE="dk00111"] Yeah, but you can then go on and sell that movie to someone else after you've watched it without an issue. Why should video games be any different? Rental companies are different because they retain ownership of the product. With video games and movies, once you sell it, you give up ownership and your right to experience it to someone else.navyguy21

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]I kind of agree with you, but i disagree at the same time. I do feel like games are experiences. We are really arguing how we view the item in hand. You are buying the disc that happens to have a great game on it, while i am buying a great experience that happens to be housed on a disc. So, in my opinion, they are experiences that shouldnt be resold without paying a royalty. i mean i completely see where you are coming from, i just view it in a different way. ME is an experience. I dont see it the same way i see buying Windows 7. Think of it as buying a movie. Its an experience. You can own the disc all you want. Video rental and cable companies have to pay a fee for sharing that experience with each user. VIdeo games are interactive movies, not a solid product like say a car or a stereo. In my opinion of coursenavyguy21

But I can resell movies. And books. And albums. And paintings. And sculptures. What makes games different?

Furthermore, you're entering the slippery slope of, essentially, what does and does not constitute art. I can appreciate the argument that artists should be paid per performance, but that begs the question of who qualifies as an artist? You may not think your stereo qualifies as art, but what about something like this:

Can Bang & Olufsen argue their speakers are actually first-and-formost pieces of art, and therefore can't be resold without compensation? What about beautifully designed cars? Or drool-worthy industrial design like the unibody Macbooks? Furniture? Appliances? Really nice looking coffee mugs?

The thing about copyright/IP law -- and this is something that's been largely forgotten in recent history -- is that it's as much about balancing the needs of the consumer with those of the creator. So while, ideally, sure, creators would get some sort of compensation every time their creation is used/traded/sold, the fact is the net-benefit (both in terms of the concept of personal property and the ability for a greater number of people to experience a product) of being able to use/trade/sell products without the authorization of the creator is greater than giving Naughty Dog a $X cut of every used sale (nevermind the logistics of trying to work out such a system).

Again, the individual CAN resell it, but not a steady stream of income from the SAME product. You can sell your movie, but you cant rent tons of them out for profit. Same with new release books. Electronics are different, though Sony proved that this may also apply there. Again, you are arguing your rights as an individual, you cant apply that to a corporation who deals with thousands of games as opposed to you reselling a few games.......ONCE. Gamestop sells multiple copies.......multiple times. This takes money from devs, forcing them to implement the 5-10 dollar online fees. What IM saying is charge Gamestop that 5 - 10 bucks and NOTHING to the consumer

Yes.

"I refuse to take this argument seriously until game companies boycott Gamestop. Until then, they can shut up."

Yes to this as well. (Isn't Best Buy starting to jump in on used game sales now too?)

Problem solved :D

Totally flawed analogy. Youre selling Dr Pepper that you never used. The makers of Dr Pepper dont lose out on a sale. lawl. Think before posting

Totally flawed analogy. Youre selling Dr Pepper that you never used. The makers of Dr Pepper dont lose out on a sale. lawl. Think before posting

Cranler

If they were used (like half a case) they still wouldn't lose out on a sale. But yeah I think comparing used products to piracy is just retarded anyway

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

Totally flawed analogy. Youre selling Dr Pepper that you never used. The makers of Dr Pepper dont lose out on a sale. lawl. Think before posting

NirdBerd

If they were used (like half a case) they still wouldn't lose out on a sale. But yeah I think comparing used products to piracy is just retarded anyway

Not for retail distribution. You read that on your Dr Peppers?ocstew

These are people who went into a store with the intention to buy. Most likely theyd buy it new for a few bucks more if there wasnt a used version.

Its a fact that someone who buys a used game feels its worth money to buy the game, you cant prove the same for a pirate.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]I kind of agree with you, but i disagree at the same time. I do feel like games are experiences. We are really arguing how we view the item in hand. You are buying the disc that happens to have a great game on it, while i am buying a great experience that happens to be housed on a disc. So, in my opinion, they are experiences that shouldnt be resold without paying a royalty. i mean i completely see where you are coming from, i just view it in a different way. ME is an experience. I dont see it the same way i see buying Windows 7. Think of it as buying a movie. Its an experience. You can own the disc all you want. Video rental and cable companies have to pay a fee for sharing that experience with each user. VIdeo games are interactive movies, not a solid product like say a car or a stereo. In my opinion of coursePBSnipes

But I can resell movies. And books. And albums. And paintings. And sculptures. What makes games different?

Same as cars... Does buying a used car mean i'm doing Citroen out of a sale? No! It has never been like this al though they don't like it there is nothing they can do about it, they just gotta do that extra bit to make me want a new one instead which developers are adopting by adding one time DLC along side preorders.

JohnF111

So...

how is piracy implied?

These are people who went into a store with the intention to buy. Most likely theyd buy it new for a few bucks more if there wasnt a used version.

Its a fact that someone who buys a used game feels its worth money to buy the game, you cant prove the same for a pirate.

Cranler

Can you prove that the person who bought used would have ever bought the game at full price?

And where is everyone getting the idea that people buy games that are only marked down $5. Most people I know that buy used games won't consider it unless we're talking about savings of $20 or more.

When you bought the game, you DON'T OWN the game. What you bought is a LICENSE to PLAY it. Hence, why you are not allowed to modify or change the game and have no right to sell the game to another person. This is what you don't get. A video game isn't a physical thing, it's an intangible thing. Anyone who brings up the car or any physical thing analogy is being illogical.lordlors

Do you have any precedents of that? Because the only one I am aware of is a court case being Autodesk and an Ebay seller. One court said it's okay to resell software, and another said it wasn't. It's pretty much a legal grayzone at this point.

I'm more inclined the believe that as a consumer, I can resell anything that I bought. I paid money for it - its mine. The right of first-sale is not a new idea, the games industry just likes to pretend it is.

[QUOTE="NirdBerd"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

Totally flawed analogy. Youre selling Dr Pepper that you never used. The makers of Dr Pepper dont lose out on a sale. lawl. Think before posting

navyguy21

If they were used (like half a case) they still wouldn't lose out on a sale. But yeah I think comparing used products to piracy is just retarded anyway

I can't bring myself to believe that used game sales are the outcome of a stale FPS market, but it's plausible.

Developers should contain their passion for making great games! Why make a bad game because they didn't get 10,000 more sales. They shouldn't make one at all.

Maybe if a game is amazing then the sequel upsettingly flops to the extreme, then I'll believe a BIT that used game sales are the reason a lot of games are getting stale :P

[QUOTE="lordlors"]When you bought the game, you DON'T OWN the game. What you bought is a LICENSE to PLAY it. Hence, why you are not allowed to modify or change the game and have no right to sell the game to another person. This is what you don't get. A video game isn't a physical thing, it's an intangible thing. Anyone who brings up the car or any physical thing analogy is being illogical.Kickinurass

Do you have any precedents of that? Because the only one I am aware of is a court case being Autodesk and an Ebay seller. One court said it's okay to resell software, and another said it wasn't. It's pretty much a legal grayzone at this point.

I'm more inclined the believe that as a consumer, I can resell anything that I bought. I paid money for it - its mine. The right of first-sale is not a new idea, the games industry just likes to pretend it is.

While your argument is interesting and right, it doesn't matter at all.

It's a case of damage done and no matter how you look at it, second hand sales do damage to developers and this damage is comparable to the damage done by piracy. So at least from a developers point of view, piracy equals second hand sales.

Ofcourse the real reason of financial troubles in gaming are the publishers asking 500 times more money then they are worth.

[QUOTE="lordlors"]When you bought the game, you DON'T OWN the game. What you bought is a LICENSE to PLAY it. Hence, why you are not allowed to modify or change the game and have no right to sell the game to another person. This is what you don't get. A video game isn't a physical thing, it's an intangible thing. Anyone who brings up the car or any physical thing analogy is being illogical.Kickinurass

Do you have any precedents of that? Because the only one I am aware of is a court case being Autodesk and an Ebay seller. One court said it's okay to resell software, and another said it wasn't. It's pretty much a legal grayzone at this point.

I'm more inclined the believe that as a consumer, I can resell anything that I bought. I paid money for it - its mine. The right of first-sale is not a new idea, the games industry just likes to pretend it is.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

But I can resell movies. And books. And albums. And paintings. And sculptures. What makes games different?

Furthermore, you're entering the slippery slope of, essentially, what does and does not constitute art. I can appreciate the argument that artists should be paid per performance, but that begs the question of who qualifies as an artist? You may not think your stereo qualifies as art, but what about something like this:

Can Bang & Olufsen argue their speakers are actually first-and-formost pieces of art, and therefore can't be resold without compensation? What about beautifully designed cars? Or drool-worthy industrial design like the unibody Macbooks? Furniture? Appliances? Really nice looking coffee mugs?

The thing about copyright/IP law -- and this is something that's been largely forgotten in recent history -- is that it's as much about balancing the needs of the consumer with those of the creator. So while, ideally, sure, creators would get some sort of compensation every time their creation is used/traded/sold, the fact is the net-benefit (both in terms of the concept of personal property and the ability for a greater number of people to experience a product) of being able to use/trade/sell products without the authorization of the creator is greater than giving Naughty Dog a $X cut of every used sale (nevermind the logistics of trying to work out such a system).

ActicEdge

Again, the individual CAN resell it, but not a steady stream of income from the SAME product. You can sell your movie, but you cant rent tons of them out for profit. Same with new release books. Electronics are different, though Sony proved that this may also apply there. Again, you are arguing your rights as an individual, you cant apply that to a corporation who deals with thousands of games as opposed to you reselling a few games.......ONCE. Gamestop sells multiple copies.......multiple times. This takes money from devs, forcing them to implement the 5-10 dollar online fees. What IM saying is charge Gamestop that 5 - 10 bucks and NOTHING to the consumer

I refuse to take this argument seriously until game companies boycott Gamestop. Until then, they can shut up.

EXACTLY! if gamestop is such a detriment to the industry, why do all these developers and publishers constantly throw in free DLC and discounts for preordering or buying from them? maybe because this whole whining over the used game market is just greedy bull****.

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

Do you have any precedents of that? Because the only one I am aware of is a court case being Autodesk and an Ebay seller. One court said it's okay to resell software, and another said it wasn't. It's pretty much a legal grayzone at this point.

I'm more inclined the believe that as a consumer, I can resell anything that I bought. I paid money for it - its mine. The right of first-sale is not a new idea, the games industry just likes to pretend it is.

lordlors

The EULA does say it, but there's a matter of is it actually legal to do so? For all we know at this point, the EULA may be against the Constitution, because the First Sale Doctrine, detailed in the Copyright Act of 1976, may extend to digital copyright as well. It's a a legal grey area - we really need a case to actually fully test the extent of the law in this regard.

I'm just saying, that right now, I'm assuming that the First Sale doctrine applies in this case. I bought it, and I feel as though I can resale it. I can sympathatize with game companies wanting to protect their bottom line, but I can't really agree with whining about a basic consumer right in America.

While your argument is interesting and right, it doesn't matter at all.

It's a case of damage done and no matter how you look at it, second hand sales do damage to developers and this damage is comparable to the damage done by piracy. So at least from a developers point of view, piracy equals second hand sales.

Ofcourse the real reason of financial troubles in gaming are the publishers asking 500 times more money then they are worth.

rastotm

From my point of view, second hand sales are a fact of life. I don't really care how the developers themselves see it; I'm willing to bet most of them buy other products second hand as well. On principle, it's hypocritical really.

And the truth of the matter alot of big budget games really don't deserve $60 anyway. So maybe the developers should focusing on

A) actually making a game thats Worth $60 or

b) Cutting back costs and making a budget game that I wouldn't mind spending $30 - $40 anyway.

W

[QUOTE="lordlors"][QUOTE="Kickinurass"] The EULA states it and you are required to agree to it if you want to play the game hence you are under it. Truthfully i haven't read all of the EULA since it's full of technical and legal terms that i can't comprehend right away.Kickinurass

The EULA does say it, but there's a matter of is it actually legal to do so? For all we know at this point, the EULA may be against the Constitution, because the First Sale Doctrine, detailed in the Copyright Act of 1976, may extend to digital copyright as well. It's a a legal grey area - we really need a case to actually fully test the extent of the law in this regard.

I'm just saying, that right now, I'm assuming that the First Sale doctrine applies in this case. I bought it, and I feel as though I can resale it. I can sympathatize with game companies wanting to protect their bottom line, but I can't really agree with whining about a basic consumer right in America.

While your argument is interesting and right, it doesn't matter at all.

It's a case of damage done and no matter how you look at it, second hand sales do damage to developers and this damage is comparable to the damage done by piracy. So at least from a developers point of view, piracy equals second hand sales.

Ofcourse the real reason of financial troubles in gaming are the publishers asking 500 times more money then they are worth.

rastotm

From my point of view, second hand sales are a fact of life. I don't really care how the developers themselves see it; I'm willing to bet most of them buy other products second hand as well. On principle, it's hypocritical really.

And the truth of the matter alot of big budget games really don't deserve $60 anyway. So maybe the developers should focusing on

A) actually making a game thats Worth $60 or

b) Cutting back costs and making a budget game that I wouldn't mind spending $30 - $40 anyway.

W

I have nothing against second hand sales I'm just saying that damage wise it's comparable to piracy.
While I completely agree with your point of view you have to realize that a 'pirate' could use exact the same arguments.

So as far as this topic goes, used games = piracy.
Wether piracy and used game are morally defendable that is another discussion.
I know I would pirate the hell out of games if i were able to donate to the developers directly :P .

It is one thing to sell a used game to a neighbor or friend or a stranger coming to your yard sale buying the game for $5-$10 and that is where the first sale doctrine comes in, but when you sell your game to a retailer for that $5 (if you are lucky you get a bit more) who turns around and sells it for $50 more, he is raking in large profits on that game compared to that new game that is selling for $60 that the company paid maybe $40 or so for it from the publisher (I would go for more) and only gets a few dollars profit per game.

That is the gripe of publishers and developers (I linked to an article earlier showing said profits vs. sales earlier, but facts have a way of getting overlooked around here). The huge profits that are being made by GameStop is ridiculous and maybe they should be charged that extra fee, but if you want to buy a used game from them instead of a new for just a few bills more, than you are as big a part of the problem as the store is. I can see it if you want to buy a game for $15 compared to $60 and that is no problem, but if you are gonna buy a game that is $55, why not just shell out the other $5 for a new game instead so the publishers and developers get the money instead?

Everyone wants to point fingers at publishers and developers and while I agree that they should do a better job of releasing a finished product, it all boils down to gamers who are really at fault for it all.

[QUOTE="Plagueless"][QUOTE="Mograine"]

So...

how is piracy implied?

Arach666

Financially they are very similar: both result in the potential loss of a sale (emphasis on potential). In fact I think that it could be argued that used games could result in more lost sales than piracy (which, according to some authorities, is statistically insignificant): a gamer walks into the store to buy a new game for $60 and is enticed by the fact that he/she can buy the EXACT same title for $10 less.

That being said I only buy new games, but I support everyone else's right to buy/sell/trade their games.

goozex all the way baby! the best bang for your buck online.

Its because every copy of a game the dev/pub makes, they make money off each new game. When the OWNER of that game wants to sell it, why should the company who made it get another cut? This is the side of the used game argument I don't understand.

For example: I go to Wal-Mart and buy a case of Dr. Pepper. Those are now MY Dr. Peppers. If I want to sell them at a fair, thats my buisiness. Why should I have to pay Wal-Mart again to sell MY drinks? Fact is, I shouldn't. The games Industry seems to be getting away with this by whining about Gamestop and implementing online passes.

Your thoughts?

Plagueless

[QUOTE="Plagueless"]

Its because every copy of a game the dev/pub makes, they make money off each new game. When the OWNER of that game wants to sell it, why should the company who made it get another cut? This is the side of the used game argument I don't understand.

For example: I go to Wal-Mart and buy a case of Dr. Pepper. Those are now MY Dr. Peppers. If I want to sell them at a fair, thats my buisiness. Why should I have to pay Wal-Mart again to sell MY drinks? Fact is, I shouldn't. The games Industry seems to be getting away with this by whining about Gamestop and implementing online passes.

Your thoughts?

lightleggy

nah it's mine, and i have a right to trade that game online for another game of my choice. lol are my dvds and blurays not mine either?