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?

Plagueless

From a developers point of view used games are worse, retail shops are making all the profit and its essentially a stolen sale.

I think the introduction of codes and locking games to a specific console would be great for the industry.

The co-founder of Blitz Games Studios believes that pre-owned games are a bigger threat to developers than piracy.

Andrew Oliver told Develop that the "damage done" by used games sales would push publishers even more towards digital downloads. Oliver cited a figure that original copies of games are traded in up to four times to claim that such a practice effectively cuts publisher and developer royalties to such an extent that "the money going back up the chain is a fraction of what it was only a few years ago."

Oliver added, "I understand why players do this, games are expensive and after a few weeks of playing you've either beaten it, or got bored of it so trading it back in to help pay for the next seems sensible when people are short of cash."

Obviously Oliver is not alone in his thinking, especially following in the wake of EA's plan to effectively charge $10 for online play with its used games. EA's plan follows a similar initiative introduced by Sony earlier this year, in which online play in its latest SOCOM release for the PSP was tied to a redeemable code included with the game.

I buy the majority of older games used. Unless it's a game by a small developer that I want to support.

Oh and how could ANYONE be ok with games being locked to just one console? Don't you guys ever bring games over to a friends house?

Used games aren't nowhere near piracy......they are just used like the used cars.Used cars are not robbery.

I think the introduction of codes and locking games to a specific console would be great for the industry.

tenaka2

Yeah, more DRM is exactly what the industry needs! It's not like intrusive DRM has ever backfired. :|

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I think the introduction of codes and locking games to a specific console would be great for the industry.

Kickinurass

Yeah, more DRM is exactly what the industry needs! It's not like intrusive DRM has ever backfired. :|

I mean just for consoles. I am a PC gamer.

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

I think the introduction of codes and locking games to a specific console would be great for the industry.

tenaka2

Yeah, more DRM is exactly what the industry needs! It's not like intrusive DRM has ever backfired. :|

I mean just for consoles. I am a PC gamer.

But why would any gamer want more DRM at all? Hell, why would an consumer want DRM on any digital content. It is really only a hassle for the end user.

What esle is new with this fourm.

Let me explain this to you.

A used game sale the publisher gets nothing, so in pratical terms, to the devs eyes a pirate is no worse than person who buys it used. You didn't pay the dev for the game. The whole resale of games and other media has been a grey area in law for a while.

Trying to justify used games sales is the same as trying to justify piracy. You aren't paying the person who created it and owns the copyright.

Used games aren't nowhere near piracy......they are just used like the used cars.Used cars are not robbery.

AtariKidX

Except the car manufacturers still get money from the used cars market, making this point become, as usual, utter bs.

^^How so? If i find a car on Craigslist, how does Ford get any cut of the sale? I'll pay the previous owner, plus any applicable taxes, but nothing goes to the manufacturer.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="nosmokingbandit"]

So to those who are avidly against used games sales:

Do you despise the very fact that libraries exist? They let people borrow book, for FREE (!!), and the author and publisher don't see a penny. You should be more upset about that than used games sales! Authors get ripped off thousands of times every day, in a government institution!

nosmokingbandit

That book was paid for, by the library system.

Often not, actually. I volunteered at a library for a few years and a large amount of the books were donated. I donated quite a few books myself to clean out the bookshelf.

Even so, if the library bought one copy of Ender's Game (a personal favorite of mine), they are letting hundreds of people "steal" the experience of this book from Orson Scott Card (the author) according to some of the facetious arguments earlier in the thread. The outcome is the same for both the author and the game dev in this case: they each get paid once and the product is enjoyed several times by many different people.

So again I ask, do the opposers of used game sales protest libraries and their flagrant theft from authors?

Lately gamers have been up in arms about games being considered art (which I agree with, they should), but certain pitfalls accompany games being considered art. They must be subject to the same market paradigm as any other art form. Games can't expect to be equal with other forms of art yet retain some kind of special set of rules.

I guess nobody can counter this then? Sad that there are so many strong opinions yet nobody can answer why games should get special treatment.

When you are buying a game you are not buying the disc, you are licensing what is on it. The product isn't the physical disc, it's what's stored on it. As a licensed product, your license can be invalidated, and passing ownership onto someone else is one of those breaches. This is the way games are in the law, they just don't have the technology to enforce this.

This is what people don't get when they complain about second hand game sales, comparing it to cars and furniture. But cars and furniture are not the same as a licensed product in the law. They have intrinsic value in and of themselves, they are not intellectual property. Regardless of people's unwillingness to accept this, this is how it is in the law, and developers view second hand sales as a problem.

People just don't want to be associated with pirates, and I understand that. But they have to recognise that a license isn't the same as a physical product. When you try to sell it to someone else, you are just passing around the physical media where it is stored, not ownership of the product itself. If the game was stored online and you tried to sell the account it was registered to, people would view it differently.

I guess nobody can counter this then? Sad that there are so many strong opinions yet nobody can answer why games should get special treatment.

nosmokingbandit

You're missing a point.

Readers who borrow from libraries do it because they don't get charged for it.

A gamer who walks in a store and buys used had his mind already set on buying said game.

Besides, there are many other things that could be argued in a comparison.

Publishing a book doesn't take the same amount of resources publishing a game does.

The sales of a game in this generation are concentrated between the first week and the first month of the game's life, while a book "has legs" and sells on word of mouth rather than advertising. If a game is particularly short day one used has a devastating effect. I know this is bs: everyone can say "make a longer game, stupid developer!" which I completely agree with, but I'm talking from the corporates' PoV.

[QUOTE="AtariKidX"]

Used games aren't nowhere near piracy......they are just used like the used cars.Used cars are not robbery.

Mograine

Except the car manufacturers still get money from the used cars market, making this point become, as usual, utter bs.

No...they don't.The cars market get money from the used cars.And don't forget that we live in hard times and we can't buy new games and cars.:(

^^How so? If i find a car on Craigslist, how does Ford get any cut of the sale? I'll pay the previous owner, plus any applicable taxes, but nothing goes to the manufacturer.

nosmokingbandit

Don't ask me, I'm not into the car industry. I've seen that point countered many times though.

No...they don't.AtariKidX

Yeah, they do.

[QUOTE="AtariKidX"]No...they don't.Mograine

Yeah, they do.

[QUOTE="nosmokingbandit"]

^^How so? If i find a car on Craigslist, how does Ford get any cut of the sale? I'll pay the previous owner, plus any applicable taxes, but nothing goes to the manufacturer.

Mograine

Don't ask me, I'm not into the car industry. I've seen that point countered many times though.

Ok so I've read through the majority of the thread and it seems like those who consider second hand game sales to be a problem are forgetting a key fact....every single copy of a game you see in store shelves the publisher has been paid for whether or not someone goes in and buys second hand instead of new, the publisher has still been paid when gamestop or whatever retailer purchased the games to sell. It doesn't matter how you cut it every single game you see on a store shelf has at one point or another supported the publisher, if the devs/publishers cant create a game with high enough demand to keep retailers purchasing new stock then that is their problem.sonny2dap

Completely agree.

Devs/publishers should stop whining and realize that this problem only appeared in this generation because they make 4 to 6 hours long games and noone cares about them once they're finished.

[QUOTE="AtariKidX"]No...they don't.Mograine

Yeah, they do.

Sorry but i was have work in used cars market and the money are goes to the used cars market.Only the money from new cars goes to manufacturer.AtariKidX

Pieces for maintenance? Do you grow those in your garden :P ?

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

Yeah, more DRM is exactly what the industry needs! It's not like intrusive DRM has ever backfired. :|

Kickinurass

I mean just for consoles. I am a PC gamer.

But why would any gamer want more DRM at all? Hell, why would an consumer want DRM on any digital content. It is really only a hassle for the end user.

Perhaps something like a steam account where you need the disk and the login?

I just hate to see the retail monopoly making money for doing nothing.

Well... The book argument... You do know that the library is being paid from taxes right? And the ones that make the books get money atleast in our country from something known as "culture [something (dont know what the translation would be)].

People should have the to right to buy used games, its just like buying a used car.

Buying used games isn't even near piracy because you are paying for the game, not downloading it off some torrent site.

People should have the to right to buy used games, its just like buying a used car.

Buying used games isn't even near piracy because you are paying for the game, not downloading it off some torrent site.

HaloPimp978

People should have the to right to buy used games, its just like buying a used car.

Buying used games isn't even near piracy because you are paying for the game, not downloading it off some torrent site.

HaloPimp978

[QUOTE="HaloPimp978"]

People should have the to right to buy used games, its just like buying a used car.

Buying used games isn't even near piracy because you are paying for the game, not downloading it off some torrent site.

Arach666

[QUOTE="sonny2dap"]Ok so I've read through the majority of the thread and it seems like those who consider second hand game sales to be a problem are forgetting a key fact....every single copy of a game you see in store shelves the publisher has been paid for whether or not someone goes in and buys second hand instead of new, the publisher has still been paid when gamestop or whatever retailer purchased the games to sell. It doesn't matter how you cut it every single game you see on a store shelf has at one point or another supported the publisher, if the devs/publishers cant create a game with high enough demand to keep retailers purchasing new stock then that is their problem.Mograine

Completely agree.

Devs/publishers should stop whining and realize that this problem only appeared in this generation because they make 4 to 6 hours long games and noone cares about them once they're finished.

They already have get the money when have buy the game new......the one who sell the used game is the one who don't get any money.Εxample...i am buy a new game for 50euro and after i sell that used for 30euro.Do i getting any money or i am losing money..??I have lost 20euro. Buying used games it isn't piracy because you are pay for the game....downloading it free with some torrent that is piracy.AtariKidX

You seem confused here.

Noone argues that piracy=second hand.

We're arguing that second hand HURTS DEVELOPERS more than piracy.

Also, that analogy has to be one of the dumbest I've ever seen here on SW...just...:lol:

[QUOTE="Arach666"]

That´s nice and all,but at the end of the day,the devs aren´t getting any money from that sale,just like with a pirated game,wich is why they don´t seem to like it very much,especially lately.

AtariKidX

Like Kaldurenik said:

a pirate is not even a customer. You on the other hand are walking into a store with the intent to BUY (pay use money) something. In other words when you buy something used the publishers dont get anything.

Kaldurenik

Used games are just as bad as piracy. Stop kidding yourselves, most times when dudes download a game they do it simply because they can, a ton of those downlaods will be played for 5-10minutes adn then never touched again. 95% of those games downlaoded wouldn't have been purchased anyway.

I'd say a MUCH bigger % of those rented or used games would have been purchases otherwise. Don't hide behind a screwed up legal system thats constantly changing and tweaking it's laws so you feel better. Things aren't simply black and white.

I'm very much against restricting people's rights to sell products they own. Just sounds wrong to me.

With the incoming DD however, it's going to happen ...

Used games are just as bad as piracy. Stop kidding yourselves, most times when dudes download a game they do it simply because they can, a ton of those downlaods will be played for 5-10minutes adn then never touched again. 95% of those games downlaoded wouldn't have been purchased anyway.

I'd say a MUCH bigger % of those rented or used games would have been purchases otherwise. Don't hide behind a screwed up legal system thats constantly changing and tweaking it's laws so you feel better. Things aren't simply black and white.

DrWin

We all know the #1 reason Sony fanboys suddenly hate used games sales is because Sony wants people to start paying for MP play on their 1st party games. So ou can stop pretending it's evil just because Sony tells you it is...

[QUOTE="DrWin"]

Used games are just as bad as piracy. Stop kidding yourselves, most times when dudes download a game they do it simply because they can, a ton of those downlaods will be played for 5-10minutes adn then never touched again. 95% of those games downlaoded wouldn't have been purchased anyway.

I'd say a MUCH bigger % of those rented or used games would have been purchases otherwise. Don't hide behind a screwed up legal system thats constantly changing and tweaking it's laws so you feel better. Things aren't simply black and white.

001011000101101

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

Don't even get me started on this...... so many fools trying to tie those two together. "The end result is the same" ROFL!! I have to laugh at that every time.

What torrent site do you see devs/pubs creating exclusive DLC for?

Videos I recently made on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm3mwD3OlXs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-0fREuZfE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQpen_0h-As

[QUOTE="001011000101101"][QUOTE="DrWin"]

Used games are just as bad as piracy. Stop kidding yourselves, most times when dudes download a game they do it simply because they can, a ton of those downlaods will be played for 5-10minutes adn then never touched again. 95% of those games downlaoded wouldn't have been purchased anyway.

I'd say a MUCH bigger % of those rented or used games would have been purchases otherwise. Don't hide behind a screwed up legal system thats constantly changing and tweaking it's laws so you feel better. Things aren't simply black and white.

DrWin

Piracy ~ No actual "loss" takes place, impossible to track rates accurately, a pirated copy could lead to a sale of the full game
Used ~ A physical package changes hands, easy to trace all exchanges, used-game dealers encourage their customers to buy the copies that bring them 100% profits

Yeah, they are nothing alike, and used games are doing the industry way more tangible damage.

When you are buying a game you are not buying the disc, you are licensing what is on it. The product isn't the physical disc, it's what's stored on it. As a licensed product, your license can be invalidated, and passing ownership onto someone else is one of those breaches. This is the way games are in the law, they just don't have the technology to enforce this.

This is what people don't get when they complain about second hand game sales, comparing it to cars and furniture. But cars and furniture are not the same as a licensed product in the law. They have intrinsic value in and of themselves, they are not intellectual property. Regardless of people's unwillingness to accept this, this is how it is in the law, and developers view second hand sales as a problem.

People just don't want to be associated with pirates, and I understand that. But they have to recognise that a license isn't the same as a physical product. When you try to sell it to someone else, you are just passing around the physical media where it is stored, not ownership of the product itself. If the game was stored online and you tried to sell the account it was registered to, people would view it differently.

AnnoyedDragon

Please point me to the court case that's ruled reselling software is a crime. I've been dying to know the actual legality of this issue, because the only thing I could find is a court case between an EBay seller and Adobe over the issue, and with no clear inclination as to where the consumer is actually buy a liscense or a product.

Until an actual court rules on the case, the issue of ownership, at least in the United States, falls under the First-Sale Doctrine listed in the Copyright Act of 1976. If I understand the DMCA, then it doesn't actually address the issue of reselling digitmal material, only circumventing the copy protection.

In other words, as the law stands now, you're wrong. It's not illegal to resale software, and any clause of EULA that says so may or may not be inviolation of the Constitution. It's a legal grey area, nothing more - but until a law passes specifically forbidding it, then I assume that it is a legal action.

Piracy ~ No actual "loss" takes place, impossible to track rates accurately, a pirated copy could lead to a sale of the full game
Used ~ A physical package changes hands, easy to trace all exchanges, used-game dealers encourage their customers to buy the copies that bring them 100% profits

Yeah, they are nothing alike, and used games are doing the industry way more tangible damage.

foxhound_fox

The fact that used games are trackable should is a benefit. In the same way that car manufacturers resell used cars on their lot, maybe game developers should start doing to same. In any other case, buying a car off of Craiglist or getting a used game from a garage sale generates no profit for the manufacturer/developer. The fact that developers can track used games means they can control it; instead of punishing people with online passed more retailers should offer a buyback program and start attacking Gamespot business directly. We are only now just seeing Amazon, bestBuy and other scores get in on the used market. Or they could petition so that a portion of the proceeds from used sales are funneled directly back to the developer.

And as for a pirated copy leading to the sale of a full game, why can't the same be said of used games. I've bought 3 copies of oblivion, two used and one new. And two copies each of Fallout 3 and New Vegas, both one new copy and one used copy. According to most piracy apologetics here, a pirate can't be determined to be a lost sale because there's no inclination of them buying the product in the first place. What makes you think, given that defense, said pirate will somehow miracuously decide one day to rebuy his entire collection of pirated games?

I agree with the tc, buying games used isn't piracy, but its the next worse thing.

[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.

Why should they simply boycott when they have the power to take matters into their own hands? It seems their plan to crap on the used game business will be plenty effective. Which is the main reason why cheap gamers are butt hurt right now. If they knew this idea wasn't going to work, no one would be whining about it at all.

I really couldn't care less what others think on the issue. It is my money and I will spend it any way I see fit. I have bought used games before and will do so in the future. In fact when I get my PS3, I intend to search for a lot of games I want for that system on Ebay/Amazon so I can get them used and cheap.

If people want to label me as a bad guy because of it, or cheap because. Well to that I say more power to them because their opinion means nothing to me.

As for their attempts to stop people from buying used games. All that will do is cost them sells. There are thousands and thousands of people like me who will just wait until those games are dirt cheap to buy new, then get them.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

Piracy ~ No actual "loss" takes place, impossible to track rates accurately, a pirated copy could lead to a sale of the full game
Used ~ A physical package changes hands, easy to trace all exchanges, used-game dealers encourage their customers to buy the copies that bring them 100% profits

Yeah, they are nothing alike, and used games are doing the industry way more tangible damage.

Kickinurass

The fact that used games are trackable should is a benefit. In the same way that car manufacturers resell used cars on their lot, maybe game developers should start doing to same. In any other case, buying a car off of Craiglist or getting a used game from a garage sale generates no profit for the manufacturer/developer. The fact that developers can track used games means they can control it; instead of punishing people with online passed more retailers should offer a buyback program and start attacking Gamespot business directly. We are only now just seeing Amazon, bestBuy and other scores get in on the used market. Or they could petition so that a portion of the proceeds from used sales are funneled directly back to the developer.

And as for a pirated copy leading to the sale of a full game, why can't the same be said of used games. I've bought 3 copies of oblivion, two used and one new. And two copies each of Fallout 3 and New Vegas, both one new copy and one used copy. According to most piracy apologetics here, a pirate can't be determined to be a lost sale because there's no inclination of them buying the product in the first place. What makes you think, given that defense, said pirate will somehow miracuously decide one day to rebuy his entire collection of pirated games?

I really couldn't care less what others think on the issue. It is my money and I will spend it any way I see fit. I have bought used games before and will do so in the future. In fact when I get my PS3, I intend to search for a lot of games I want for that system on Ebay/Amazon so I can get them used and cheap.

If people want to label me as a bad guy because of it, or cheap because. Well to that I say more power to them because their opinion means nothing to me.

As for their attempts to stop people from buying used games. All that will do is cost them sells. There are thousands and thousands of people like me who will just wait until those games are dirt cheap to buy new, then get them.

AmazonTreeBoa

I really couldn't care less what others think on the issue. It is my money and I will spend it any way I see fit. I have bought used games before and will do so in the future. In fact when I get my PS3, I intend to search for a lot of games I want for that system on Ebay/Amazon so I can get them used and cheap.

If people want to label me as a bad guy because of it, or cheap because. Well to that I say more power to them because their opinion means nothing to me.

As for their attempts to stop people from buying used games. All that will do is cost them sells. There are thousands and thousands of people like me who will just wait until those games are dirt cheap to buy new, then get them.

AmazonTreeBoa

[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).

Too many apologists on this board, used game was originally purchased by a retailer and the dev/pub has been paid for that copy, pirate copy means one copy has become many copies and therefore say out of a hundred users only ten bought legit copies, the dev/pub has only been subsidised for 10% of the copies in existence, used games simply change hands lets say there is only one copy, well regardless of how many times that copy changes hands the dev/pub has been subsidised for that one copy. The only time second hand sales will impact new sales is if the rate of trade back outstrips new demand, 20-30 trade ins will make no impact on a retailer ordering 100's of pcs of stock every quarter to maintain stock levels, unless demand is so low that people are simply picking up the cheaper versions in which case that says more about the product than anything else.sonny2dap