Why used games are nowhere near piracy....

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

TruthBToldShow

Every single one, and they get all of the exclusive DLC as opposed to just 1 item from 1 retailer.

What makes you think, given that defense, said pirate will somehow miracuously decide one day to rebuy his entire collection of pirated games?

Kickinurass

Many, many people have done this due to the greatness that is Steam and also Steam sales.

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

Actually it won't. And the word is "sales" for ****s sake. Those thousands of people just like you don't give any more money to the publisher/developer anyway, so they can only gain from implementing these online passes.

[QUOTE="sonny2dap"]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.tormentos

A billion? I doubt that number.

[QUOTE="sonny2dap"]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.tormentos

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="sonny2dap"]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.TruthBToldShow

But here is my question. Why would they want to do this? They make less money. They would have to do it themself (requiring work / storage space / taxes and other things). The thing is that the people in the "used games" bubble are a sure market. if you remove the used market the vast majority of these people will buy it new = more money. Why? Because they are willing to spend money. They are spending money. Hell they even walked to the store (or ordered a trade in online) and paid for it. A pirate did not even intend to buy it as he never spent any money or anything. In other words even if you removed piracy its not a sure sale of the game. While if you remove used games then you will get the money from the people that are willing to spend the money. Illegal? No Morally wrong? No Bad for the industry? Yes Worse then piracy? Yes in my opinion.

KalDurenik

I can honestly say that I'd never have bought GeoW, CoD, Fable, Shadowrun, Oblivion/Fallout (360 version) new, and if I waited for the price drop I'd probably just end up buying a game that I did want instead, ie Halo, Mass Effect, Pokemon, etc.

As for the quesiton of why developers should do this, I understand they are looking out for thier bottom line. My counterargument, is why should I care about the developers when they are 1) equating me with what is essentially a thief and 2) trying to undermind my rights as a consumer. If they want to look only after themselves, I'm inclined to do the same as well. There are other options to resolving the used game issues; developers get no sympathy from me because they want to do it the easiest way. Worse than piracy - no way in hell.

Also, everyone saying this is bad for the industry - please realize that Gamestop IS a part of the gaming industry. What you mean to say is bad for the developer - the industry on a whole likely benefits from second hand sales, judging by Gamestop's profit margins.

Many, many people have done this due to the greatness that is Steam and also Steam sales.

Remmib

There in lies a solution - stop charging people $60 for a game that has about $30 worth of content.

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

[QUOTE="KalDurenik"]

But here is my question. Why would they want to do this? They make less money. They would have to do it themself (requiring work / storage space / taxes and other things). The thing is that the people in the "used games" bubble are a sure market. if you remove the used market the vast majority of these people will buy it new = more money. Why? Because they are willing to spend money. They are spending money. Hell they even walked to the store (or ordered a trade in online) and paid for it. A pirate did not even intend to buy it as he never spent any money or anything. In other words even if you removed piracy its not a sure sale of the game. While if you remove used games then you will get the money from the people that are willing to spend the money. Illegal? No Morally wrong? No Bad for the industry? Yes Worse then piracy? Yes in my opinion.

Kickinurass

I can honestly say that I'd never have bought GeoW, CoD, Fable, Shadowrun, Oblivion/Fallout (360 version) new, and if I waited for the price drop I'd probably just end up buying a game that I did want instead, ie Halo, Mass Effect, Pokemon, etc.

As for the quesiton of why developers should do this, I understand they are looking out for thier bottom line. My counterargument, is why should I care about the developers when they are 1) equating me with what is essentially a thief and 2) trying to undermind my rights as a consumer. If they want to look only after themselves, I'm inclined to do the same as well. There are other options to resolving the used game issues; developers get no sympathy from me because they want to do it the easiest way. Worse than piracy - no way in hell.

Also, everyone saying this is bad for the industry - please realize that Gamestop IS a part of the gaming industry. What you mean to say is bad for the developer - the industry on a whole likely benefits from second hand sales, judging by Gamestop's profit margins.

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.

Kickinurass

Crime =/= breach of license.

Something doesn't have to be in the law to be a breach of license. But when you are buying a license to use software, you are agreeing to the terms of the license. Selling 2nd hand is a breach of that license. Something that a variety of software companies HAVE taken to court on various occasions, but mostly when targeting entire companies rather than individuals.

Sometimes the company wins, sometimes the person who used 2nd hand software. But ultimately it is something that companies highly object to, Microsoft in particular stating in their licenses that resale is "expressly forbidden".

That you personally don't care what companies think; doesn't change that it is something that all software companies, and games are software, are trying to stamp out. Arguing that it is just a license agreement, and not a law, is nothing more than a rationalization to continue purchasing 2nd hand games against the developers wishes. Which, regardless of rationalizations, result in their developers not getting paid for the sale of the product. People try to equate it to 2nd hand vehicles and furniture, but software is a very different product from these things, it doesn't exist in any physical sense. Instead, a different set of rules are needed.

Services like Steam are a better example of these differences. But when the game is stored on a physical disk, people become confused.

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.

Plagueless

A billion? I doubt that number.Remmib

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

Bigboi500

Sadly, there are many gullible people out there that still thinks it's piracy & still thinks that the used gaming market is killing developers or some other sort (in which it is not true).

Piracy is far worse. Anyone saying otherwise is delusional. I'm sorry, with a used game you have it sold once newwhich gives the developers the sale. Then it's traded in and sold used, but you already have the original sale for every copy of the game that's sold used. With piracy you can have someone buy one copy and put it online and have it given to others hundreds of thousands of times, just off that one copy that was bought. I find it amazing that people think used games are worse than piracy. Talk about delusional.

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

[QUOTE="Ikuto_Tsukiyomi"]

Piarcy: No money goes to the Developers

Used game sales: No money goes to the developers

Yup there nowhere near Priacy.

USBxDVD

Piracy: No Money goes out to the market at all.

Used Game Sales: Money is being given to the Workers at the Used Game Store.

Yup they're no where near Piracy.

If the Store didn't get money then how would they pay the workers? My statement stays the same.

Piracy is far worse. Anyone saying otherwise is delusional. I'm sorry, with a used game you have it sold once newwhich gives the developers the sale. Then it's traded in and sold used, but you already have the original sale for every copy of the game that's sold used. With piracy you can have someone buy one copy and put it online and have it given to others hundreds of thousands of times, just off that one copy that was bought. I find it amazing that people think used games are worse than piracy. Talk about delusional.

Puckhog04

[QUOTE="Puckhog04"]

Piracy is far worse. Anyone saying otherwise is delusional. I'm sorry, with a used game you have it sold once newwhich gives the developers the sale. Then it's traded in and sold used, but you already have the original sale for every copy of the game that's sold used. With piracy you can have someone buy one copy and put it online and have it given to others hundreds of thousands of times, just off that one copy that was bought. I find it amazing that people think used games are worse than piracy. Talk about delusional.

KalDurenik

So you're assuming that if a pirate wants a game and pirates it, that they wouldn't actually buy a copy if they weren't able to pirate it? Clearly, because they spent time downloading the game, they most certainly would've bought a new or used copy of the game because they wanted to play it. Even if they bought a used copy at this point, the developers would've at least had the original sale of the game as New. One way (used) you have at least 1 for sure sale of the game as New and the other you have a small group (possibly even 1) putting the game up on the internet for free for whatever amount to download. Could be 5 and could be 500,000. Either way, those are users who have the game off of that 1 person buying the game. With used games it's a 1:1 ratio, with piracy it IS NOT.

[QUOTE="KalDurenik"][QUOTE="Puckhog04"]

Piracy is far worse. Anyone saying otherwise is delusional. I'm sorry, with a used game you have it sold once newwhich gives the developers the sale. Then it's traded in and sold used, but you already have the original sale for every copy of the game that's sold used. With piracy you can have someone buy one copy and put it online and have it given to others hundreds of thousands of times, just off that one copy that was bought. I find it amazing that people think used games are worse than piracy. Talk about delusional.

Puckhog04

So you're assuming that if a pirate wants a game and pirates it, that they wouldn't actually buy a copy if they weren't able to pirate it? Clearly, because they spent time downloading the game, they most certainly would've bought a new or used copy of the game because they wanted to play it. Even if they bought a used copy at this point, the developers would've at least had the original sale of the game as New. One way (used) you have at least 1 for sure sale of the game as New and the other you have a small group (possibly even 1) putting the game up on the internet for free for whatever amount to download. Could be 5 and could be 500,000. Either way, those are users who have the game off of that 1 person buying the game. With used games it's a 1:1 ratio, with piracy it IS NOT.

^^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="nosmokingbandit"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

That book was paid for, by the library system.

nosmokingbandit

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.

While libraries do get books donated to them, how else does a library system stock it's shelves with books, they have to buy them and not just a single book, they buy multiple copies of said books. Libraries can increase sales of an author's books by introducing said author to new readers. This is unlike used games.

GameStop buys a used game from a gamer for a small pittance then turns around and offers said game for a small difference in price compared to the new copy thus bagging more profit from the used game instead of the new game. I have rarely seen gamers here state that they will buy a new game if they liked a used game from a developer. The argument is, if I can buy it cheaper, I will. Thus, the devs and publishers never make money from someone willing to spend money on the game.

[QUOTE="USBxDVD"]

The consumers are also part of this fight. Its basically the publishers vs Game Stop and the consumers. The publishers are doing this prevent the consumers from buying used and being able to sell used (if nobody buys used, GS wont buy from you). I think its absolutely essential that a gamer can lend out games and borrow games from friends or even share with family members without losing the full experience. Now we have to deal with one time only online passes thats destorying a tradition weve all been used to.

KungfuKitten

Consumers are part of the fight due to the fact that they keep buying the garbage publishers (and developers) keep shoveling out the door. When consumers buy billions of dollars worth of games that are short or junk, then the companies see no reason to change the practice of releasing garbage. That falls squarely on the person spending the money, not the those who do the work.

The complaints in this thread about 5-6 hours of games are directly related to those spending the money to begin with. If gamers keep buying the garbage, then they have no right to complain about what they buy as you have a choice. What I do not understand is why would anyone spend $55 on garbage if they are not willing to spend $60 on garbage.

[QUOTE="tormentos"][QUOTE="sonny2dap"]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.Remmib

A billion? I doubt that number.

GameStop Sees Used Game Sales Up 9.5% as Earnings Jump 17% in Q1

Total sales increased 9.5% to $2.28 billion, while used games sales were up by the same amount, the highest growth used has seen at GameStop in six quarters.Industrygamers

Also see one of my earlier posts showing that close to 50% of GameStops' profits are from used games by themselves.

[QUOTE="Remmib"]A billion? I doubt that number.tormentos

Wow, that really is insane.

I guess there are still a lot of children who drag their parents there to buy games, and who don't know of the wonderful thing that is Amazon.

Sadly, there are many gullible people out there thatstillthinks it's piracy & still thinks that the used gaming market is killing developers or some other sort (in which it isnottrue).

garland51

lol at thinking used game sales and piracy don't have the same effect on devs/pubs.

[QUOTE="garland51"]

Sadly, there are many gullible people out there thatstillthinks it's piracy & still thinks that the used gaming market is killing developers or some other sort (in which it isnottrue).Remmib

lol at thinking used game sales and piracy don't have the same effect on devs/pubs.

Piracy, yes, but if you honestly think that used game sales is hurting developers/publishers & thinks that the money off of bought new copies of games are going towards new IP's or even more games, then I just got to laugh at you.

Crime =/= breach of license.

Something doesn't have to be in the law to be a breach of license. But when you are buying a license to use software, you are agreeing to the terms of the license. Selling 2nd hand is a breach of that license. Something that a variety of software companies HAVE taken to court on various occasions, but mostly when targeting entire companies rather than individuals.

AnnoyedDragon

You originally said that it is illegal. I gave you an explanation of why there is definitive way for you to say that. The First Sale Doctrine, as it stands, applies to all copyright work. As such, EULA forbidding resale could be seen to be in violation of the law, and rendered void.

The fact the small court cases only proves my point - there is a legal grey area surrounding the issue and the only way to really resolve the issue is for the case to actually carry through and not get settled out of court, as most seem to do. If you aware of the cases, then you know the defintion between "owning" and "liscensing" is murky at best.

But used games are also hindering discount prices. If i as store owner sat down and looked at the numbers. What would you rather have. 100% of the money or have to share it with the publisher? They have no reason to make any major discounts when they can sell them used and get 100% of the money from the used sale. And about the 5-6 hour games well its another topic its about the used game market and not what the publishers / devs are doing wrong. Honestly i could make a 200 hour long game in a few weeks with horrible graphics. That dont mean that it would be fun to play or have good "content". The problem is that the market is okey with "short, low quality" cash grabs. If people stopped buying them devs would have to invest more time in a project. Well renting is another thing as renting (in most cases) require said retailer / website to pay a fee to the publisher so the publisher is getting paid. Well i have alot of games that i will never buy for alot of reasons everything from DRM, gameplay, ui, price, style, graphics, art style. But in the end with used games they never see the money anyway. So hell if you go out and buy another game for a higher price from the same publisher they are not going to cry about it. They will probably stand there and cheer as they count their money (that you did not give them in used games). Well in my opinion it is. There are 3 bubbles. Pirate bubble, Customer bubble (consumer) used games buyer bubble. The majority of people in the used games bubble have the intent to buy a game. And if the new game got cheap they would buy it at some point. A pirate is not a customer. Sure every "pirate" that buy a game from you is a +. But used games buyers are willing and ready to spend their money... Its just that the publishers / devs dont see any of it. And honestly i dont think they care what you... I or anyone else for that mater. If the back lash is to big they will remove it. If not... Well its all game! Yes its bad for the publishers / devs as they get no money. Gamestop get it all.KalDurenik

I can agree with the damage to developers, I just think developers are going the complete wrong way about this.

Piracy, yes, but if you honestly think that used game sales is hurting developers/publishers & thinks that the money off of bought new copies of games are going towards new IP's or even more games, then I just got to laugh at you.

garland51

I think it's more along the lines of console gamers not liking their own medicine, so they use every rational they can to deflect the argument.

Some console gamers love telling PC gamers that they are killing their own platform. As if every legitimate PC gamer is somehow directly responsible for someone else pirating a PC game. But when it's suggesed that a 2nd hand sale results in not a penny of that sale going to the people who actually made the game, which is a undeniable fact, then we get people like you mocking the concept; in the hopes it will go away.

It's really quite simple. What are the affects of piracy? Someone is enjoying the game, without the developers getting paid. What are the affects of 2nd hand sales? Someone is enjoying the game, without the developers getting paid.

Looks like a closed case to me, regardless of how much you smirk and laugh at people who bring up such inconvenient information. I'm in awe over the jaw dropping hypocrisy of some people.

No matter how you look at it, someone is enjoying the game; and the developers were not paid.

I think it's more along the lines of console gamers not liking their own medicine, so they use every rational they can to deflect the argument.

Some console gamers love telling PC gamers that they are killing their own platform. As if every legitimate PC gamer is somehow directly responsible for someone else pirating a PC game. But when it's suggesed that a 2nd hand sale results in not a penny of that sale going to the people who actually made the game, which is a undeniable fact, then we get people like you mocking the concept; in the hopes it will go away.

It's really quite simple. What are the affects of piracy? Someone is enjoying the game, without the developers getting paid. What are the affects of 2nd hand sales? Someone is enjoying the game, without the developers getting paid.

Looks like a closed case to me, regardless of how much you smirk and laugh at people who bring up such inconvenient information. I'm in awe over the jaw dropping hypocrisy of some people.

No matter how you look at it, someone is enjoying the game; and the developers were not paid.

AnnoyedDragon

Except devs/pubs were paid for the original purchase of the used copies. People who use this argument make it sound like there's one copy of Game X out there, and everyone just keeps buying and selling it to eachother. It would be interesting to see the statistics if they're out there, but if I had to guess I'd say the average game is only traded ~3-4 times (at most).

Except devs/pubs were paid for the original purchase of the used copies. People who use this argument make it sound like there's one copy of Game X out there, and everyone just keeps buying and selling it to eachother. It would be interesting to see the statistics if they're out there, but if I had to guess I'd say the average game is only traded ~3-4 times (at most).

PBSnipes

The uploader/cracker bought the original copy too.

It's a one to many relationship rather than a many to many one.

And this is offset by the fact that original PC games usually cannot be resold.

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

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]

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

FinalB

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.

As a corporation I know that they are going to take matters into their own hands. I just don't have sympathy for them and will not think about the poor developers when I'm buying games. They have their bottom line and I have mine. As far as being cheap is concerned, I do not buy any games at full price ever. In 6 months a new copy costs like 30 to 20 canadian, I'm never in any hurry. Just the idea that a used sale is something they wanna take away from the consumer while directly supporting exactly who they are *****ing about makes me even less inclined to care about them.

The uploader/cracker bought the original copy too.

It's a one to many relationship rather than a many to many one.

And this is offset by the fact that original PC games usually cannot be resold.

Mograine

I'm not sure what your point is. Someone buying one copy and uploading it so that it can be pirated thousands upon thousands of times is slightly more damaging to the devs/pubs bottom line that a single physical copy being resold two or three times by Gamestop.

[QUOTE="garland51"]

Piracy, yes, but if you honestly think that used game sales is hurting developers/publishers & thinks that the money off of bought new copies of games are going towards new IP's or even more games, then I just got to laugh at you.

AnnoyedDragon

I think it's more along the lines of console gamers not liking their own medicine, so they use every rational they can to deflect the argument.

Some console gamers love telling PC gamers that they are killing their own platform. As if every legitimate PC gamer is somehow directly responsible for someone else pirating a PC game. But when it's suggesed that a 2nd hand sale results in not a penny of that sale going to the people who actually made the game, which is a undeniable fact, then we get people like you mocking the concept; in the hopes it will go away.

It's really quite simple. What are the affects of piracy? Someone is enjoying the game, without the developers getting paid. What are the affects of 2nd hand sales? Someone is enjoying the game, without the developers getting paid.

Looks like a closed case to me, regardless of how much you smirk and laugh at people who bring up such inconvenient information. I'm in awe over the jaw dropping hypocrisy of some people.

No matter how you look at it, someone is enjoying the game; and the developers were not paid.

I don't get the problem with this. If developers want to do this then why are they completely destroying the value for the consumer? When I buy Microsoft Office I can install it on 3 computers and I can buy licenses for cheap, like 20 or 30 dollars If I want to. Why don't publishers do this instead of pure 1 time codes. I wouldn't have a problem if it wasn't the idea that only 1 person can enjoy the title. As it stands, I can't lend to friends without them having to shell out money for something that was purchased with the intent of being enjoyable for multiple people. Also, the simple reality is used game sales are allowed, piracy isn't. That's the difference and that's what people ultimately care about. The developer getting paid is not our problem. Just like its no one here's problem that other people have to constantly deal with BS in their places of employment as well.

snip

Kickinurass

My arguments are just a means of trying to get the point across. While the arguments themselves can have problems with them, the underlying point is consistent.

There is a difference between someone selling a chair and someone selling software, they are not comparable. You cannot compare someone selling a physically existing object, to selling software that has no individuality and can be reproduced in unlimited amounts without cost. Software needs unique protections such as licensing agreements; because they are not bound by the usual physical laws of a typical product.

Software cannot become second hand, there is no difference between a "fresh" copy of software; and one that has changed multiple users. It hasn't degraded in the least, only the storage format has. So why would a 2nd hand game sale be worth less than a 1st hand one? In digital distribution, where software exists in its purest form (no physical attachments), the concept of a 2nd hand sale is ridiculous; because there is no difference. The only reason consumers think there is a difference, is because they are looking at a used disk; which possibly has some scratches on it. But that's just the means of distribution, not the product you are paying for.

But ultimately that's down to the courts and the interests of companies. What this thread is about, is a petty attempt by people to rationalize that they are causing no damage. If there were no 2nd hand copies available, these same people would buy a 1st hand copy; and the devs would get paid. Unlike piracy were there is no evidence that the individual will purchase the product if piracy was not a option, these people PAID to play the game. They demonstrated a willingness to pay for the game, they just took the cheaper option.

To say this isn't taking money away from the game makers is a outright lie.

I'm not sure what your point is. Someone buying one copy and uploading it so that it can be pirated thousands upon thousands of times is slightly more damaging to the devs/pubs bottom line that a single physical copy being resold two or three times by Gamestop.

PBSnipes

As stated above. The pirates have demonstrated no willingness to pay for the product, the person who purchased it 2nd hand has. Even if you disregard whether developers should be paid for 2nd hand sales, the existence of 2nd hand copies resulted in a loss for the developers, because someone who was clearly willing to part with money for the game; chose the 2nd hand option.

The developer getting paid is not our problem.

ActicEdge

That you personally don't care, and that it's legal, makes it right?

My arguments are just a means of trying to get the point across. While the arguments themselves can have problems with them, the underlying point is consistent.

There is a difference between someone selling a chair and someone selling software, they are not comparable. You cannot compare someone selling a physically existing object, to selling software that has no individuality and can be reproduced in unlimited amounts without cost. Software needs unique protections such as licensing agreements; because they are not bound by the usual physical laws of a typical product.

Software cannot become second hand, there is no difference between a "fresh" copy of software; and one that has changed multiple users. It hasn't degraded in the least, only the storage format has. So why would a 2nd hand game sale be worth less than a 1st hand one? In digital distribution, where software exists in its purest form (no physical attachments), the concept of a 2nd hand sale is ridiculous; because there is no difference. The only reason consumers think there is a difference, is because they are looking at a used disk; which possibly has some scratches on it. But that's just the means of distribution, not the product you are paying for.

But ultimately that's down to the courts and the interests of companies. What this thread is about, is a petty attempt by people to rationalize that they are causing no damage. If there were no 2nd hand copies available, these same people would buy a 1st hand copy; and the devs would get paid. Unlike piracy were there is no evidence that the individual will purchase the product if piracy was not a option, these people PAID to play the game. They demonstrated a willingness to pay for the game, they just took the cheaper option.

To say this isn't taking money away from the game makers is a outright lie.

As stated above. The pirates have demonstrated no willingness to pay for the product, the person who purchased it 2nd hand has. Even if you disregard whether developers should be paid for 2nd hand sales, the existence of 2nd hand copies resulted in a loss for the developers, because someone who was clearly willing to part with money for the game; chose the 2nd hand option.

AnnoyedDragon

Isn't it? I buy a game, said game comes on a disk. You can only play the game if you have the disk. If you damage the disk, game is useless. I buy a chair, you can only sit on the chair if its in your possession. I lend the chair out, I can't sit on it anymore. The only difference is the chair is harder to lend out and the chair degrades faster then the disk but needs no secondary unit to function. Sure the software doesn't degrade in a physical fashion but this is simlar to textbooks. The information itself in a used textbook is still correct, its still right, that doesn't degrade itself. They release new editions to try and force the old editions into being obselete. Perhaps that should be the goal of games then. Everyone is saying that they are selling you an experience. Frankly though, they are selling you a game, an experience and more. If it was meant only to be used by 1 person, they should make that clear. Of course they won't because THEY KNOW that will directly reduce their sales. In the digital realm you can't resell a game obviously but the whole space is designed with that knowledge already.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

I think it's more along the lines of console gamers not liking their own medicine, so they use every rational they can to deflect the argument.

Some console gamers love telling PC gamers that they are killing their own platform. As if every legitimate PC gamer is somehow directly responsible for someone else pirating a PC game. But when it's suggesed that a 2nd hand sale results in not a penny of that sale going to the people who actually made the game, which is a undeniable fact, then we get people like you mocking the concept; in the hopes it will go away.

It's really quite simple. What are the affects of piracy? Someone is enjoying the game, without the developers getting paid. What are the affects of 2nd hand sales? Someone is enjoying the game, without the developers getting paid.

Looks like a closed case to me, regardless of how much you smirk and laugh at people who bring up such inconvenient information. I'm in awe over the jaw dropping hypocrisy of some people.

No matter how you look at it, someone is enjoying the game; and the developers were not paid.

PBSnipes

Except devs/pubs were paid for the original purchase of the used copies. People who use this argument make it sound like there's one copy of Game X out there, and everyone just keeps buying and selling it to eachother. It would be interesting to see the statistics if they're out there, but if I had to guess I'd say the average game is only traded ~3-4 times (at most).

Exactly. That's exactly where I'm getting at. Plus there are developers out there that makes boatloads of money such as EA & Activision, yet, they're charging money for online passes. And people out there just blindly accepts it. I just don't get it.

That you personally don't care, and that it's legal, makes it right?

AnnoyedDragon

You wanna really get into an argument over what's "right" with me on the side of corporations? That's not smart Annoyed, for everything that I do that might be "questionable", corporations and companies do 1000x that that is 100% morally disgusting. Don't even play this card.

As stated above. The pirates have demonstrated no willingness to pay for the product, the person who purchased it 2nd hand has. Even if you disregard whether developers should be paid for 2nd hand sales, the existence of 2nd hand copies resulted in a loss for the developers, because someone who was clearly willing to part with money for the game; chose the 2nd hand option.

AnnoyedDragon

Which brings us back to the question of why this is such an issue for gaming, but not the other creative industries. You're arguing that the medium is irrelevant and that what we're truly buying is a license to use the IP contained within for personal use, but that's just as true for all creative endeavours. The odd dog-eared page or torn cover is no different than a scratch on a game disk, one generally doesn't buy a painting because they really like the quality of the canvas, and there's zero functional difference between a game on a disk and an album on a CD or film on DVD/BD.

If used copies are such an issue for game developers/publishers, surely the book/music/film publishing industries should be dealing with the exact same problem?

[QUOTE="FinalB"]

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

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

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

ActicEdge

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.

As a corporation I know that they are going to take matters into their own hands. I just don't have sympathy for them and will not think about the poor developers when I'm buying games. They have their bottom line and I have mine. As far as being cheap is concerned, I do not buy any games at full price ever. In 6 months a new copy costs like 30 to 20 canadian, I'm never in any hurry. Just the idea that a used sale is something they wanna take away from the consumer while directly supporting exactly who they are *****ing about makes me even less inclined to care about them.

@PBSnipes:

And why haven't developers/publishers talked about the used gaming market before the PS3/360/Wii eras? Why would they all of a sudden, be against it now? Answer is greed & monopolization.

I'm not sure what your point is. Someone buying one copy and uploading it so that it can be pirated thousands upon thousands of times is slightly more damaging to the devs/pubs bottom line that a single physical copy being resold two or three times by Gamestop.

PBSnipes

Prove it.

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

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.

AnnoyedDragon

Crime =/= breach of license.

Something doesn't have to be in the law to be a breach of license. But when you are buying a license to use software, you are agreeing to the terms of the license. Selling 2nd hand is a breach of that license. Something that a variety of software companies HAVE taken to court on various occasions, but mostly when targeting entire companies rather than individuals.

Sometimes the company wins, sometimes the person who used 2nd hand software. But ultimately it is something that companies highly object to, Microsoft in particular stating in their licenses that resale is "expressly forbidden".

That you personally don't care what companies think; doesn't change that it is something that all software companies, and games are software, are trying to stamp out. Arguing that it is just a license agreement, and not a law, is nothing more than a rationalization to continue purchasing 2nd hand games against the developers wishes. Which, regardless of rationalizations, result in their developers not getting paid for the sale of the product. People try to equate it to 2nd hand vehicles and furniture, but software is a very different product from these things, it doesn't exist in any physical sense. Instead, a different set of rules are needed.

Services like Steam are a better example of these differences. But when the game is stored on a physical disk, people become confused.

Courts have repeatedly struck down the legality of the view of the license as you and the software companies would like it. They've ruled that branding a sale a license does not make it true, nor does a license automatically suprceed the established rights of property owners under the first sale doctrine. Software companies write all sorts of things into their agreements... that does Not make it a binding agreement, anymore than if they claimed they owned your first born, or your soul (at least in the U.S.). You're right in that software companies are trying to skirt the issue by removing the physical media, but when the inevitable legal challenge arrives, one would hope the courts continue to hold fast on your rights... even if you don't personally want them. As you pointed out when we buy games (or books, music, movies, or any form of art) it isn't the physical medium we are buying, but the content held within. A new distribution method shouldn't be allowed to diminish the rights of the consumer.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="FinalB"]

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.

FinalB

As a corporation I know that they are going to take matters into their own hands. I just don't have sympathy for them and will not think about the poor developers when I'm buying games. They have their bottom line and I have mine. As far as being cheap is concerned, I do not buy any games at full price ever. In 6 months a new copy costs like 30 to 20 canadian, I'm never in any hurry. Just the idea that a used sale is something they wanna take away from the consumer while directly supporting exactly who they are *****ing about makes me even less inclined to care about them.

That's not true, if I don't support a business practice it makes no sense to go and purchase titles from them at the price I'm against. I am for games at a $20 to $30 price point and that's what I pay for them the majority of the time. That's the model I want the industry to look at an d observe and that's also what I as a consumer am comfortable paying for the product I get. I don't want to see my favourite developers go under but I'm not going to give them free range to allow them to give it to me up the behind because of that. You want to take it up the behind that's fine though. Also, I can live without games at a $60 price point. I LOVE games with a passion but being blinded by your love of something is a fools decision and while some people want to play the fool, I'm not one of them.

Isn't it? I buy a game, said game comes on a disk. You can only play the game if you have the disk. If you damage the disk, game is useless. I buy a chair, you can only sit on the chair if its in your possession. I lend the chair out, I can't sit on it anymore. The only difference is the chair is harder to lend out and the chair degrades faster then the disk but needs no secondary unit to function. Sure the software doesn't degrade in a physical fashion but this is simlar to textbooks. The information itself in a used textbook is still correct, its still right, that doesn't degrade itself. They release new editions to try and force the old editions into being obselete. Perhaps that should be the goal of games then. Everyone is saying that they are selling you an experience. Frankly though, they are selling you a game, an experience and more. If it was meant only to be used by 1 person, they should make that clear. Of course they won't because THEY KNOW that will directly reduce their sales. In the digital realm you can't resell a game obviously but the whole space is designed with that knowledge already.

ActicEdge

The optical disk is not the product, it is solely the means of distribution. It's the same with the textbook. The paper the book is written on is only a means of distribution, what is written in the book is the actual product. The chair is fundamentally different from both of them, because the chair IS the product.

Chairs and books can be justifiably sold second handed, because they have physically degraded; and are less desirable than the new product. There is a difference between the experience of a new product and a second hand one. There is no difference between second hand software and new software, only the storage medium can degrade; but that isn't the product being sold.

Exactly. That's exactly where I'm getting at. Plus there are developers out there that makes boatloads of money such as EA & Activision, yet, they're charging money for online passes. And people out there just blindly accepts it. I just don't get it.

garland51

You're using the annoying decisions of companies to justify not paying them for their work? Well, doesn't that sound familiar...

If used copies are such an issue for game developers/publishers, surely the book/music/film publishing industries should be dealing with the exact same problem?

PBSnipes

They'd all ban it if given the chance, the technology/laws just don't exist to support it. You're only really allowed to use purchased media in private living spaces, but it's so unenforceable; that no one takes it seriously.

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

Well I agree with you TC, and not only that but I COMPLETELY understand buying used as long as the game is still in good condition, I'll explain.

My college buddy bought Fable 3 for full price (60$ in the US) and that game was ONLY about 4 or 5 hours long. It was also very easy and he talked about how he felt getting ripped off by paying full price for it. He later sold that game and bought oblivion and a few other games used with the money he got from the trade, he never played an Elder Scrolls game before but now he is obsessed by how much content there is in it. That used oblivion copy cost him about 10 or 15 bucks.

The point I'm making is that most games are NOT worth paying 60$ for, if I buy a 60$ game I expect A TON of content, not just a weak 5 hour story that you beat once and never play again or just some mediocre single player with a tacked on online mode. For 60$ I should be getting a game that has high quality and takes quite awhile to playthrough, and it should also have alot of replay value as well either through the campaign or good online mode.

And if I buy a brand new car I have FULL ownership over it and I can sell it to a friend or take it to a dealer whenever I want, it's the same thing with games too.

The optical disk is not the product, it is solely the means of distribution. It's the same with the textbook. The paper the book is written on is only a means of distribution, what is written in the book is the actual product. The chair is fundamentally different from both of them, because the chair IS the product.

Chairs and books can be justifiably sold second handed, because they have physically degraded; and are less desirable than the new product. There is a difference between the experience of a new product and a second hand one. There is no difference between second hand software and new software, only the storage medium can degrade; but that isn't the product being sold.

AnnoyedDragon

Its a fools game to argue that the storage holds no relevance to the situation. The information cannot be shared without the pages. It doesn't mater if I'm paying for knowledge, the reality is I'm also paying for the convience of having that knowledge in A FORM THAT IS CONVIENT AND USABLE TO ME. Otherwise they may as well be selling me this information on a stone tablet. The pages are the form the customer wants it in, that holds relevance. You can't detach that from the story period. Also, how you treat your product will determine how long it lasts, my grand parents have hand made chairs from 25 years ago in better condition then 3 year old new furniture, you treat your product well and it will last far beyond the point where it is no longer truly profitable for a company. My father has textbooks in excellent conditon from 30 years ago and the core information is not false either. The only difference is that what you want from the disk is either really usable or unusable but this is an IP we are talking about, a chair generally is not going to lose its worth of being a comfortable chair. A game will in 10 years lose some of what made it a desirable game.

To add to this, companies want to kill used sales at the beginning of a games life because that's when they sell the most copies. In the same way that the value of a car or a bike goes down the longer you use it or even wait to dispose of it. They are more comparable then people are giving credit for.

Buying used games is not stealing. And now they have on-line passes for 5-15$. PC crowd is trying to grasp at straws to defend pirates. That said i don't like used games cause they tend to have mucked up cases or stickers all over them. I Only buy a used game if i can't find a new one.

Buying used games is not stealing. And now they have on-line passes for 5-15$. PC crowd is trying to grasp at straws to defend pirates. That said i don't like used games cause they tend to have mucked up cases or stickers all over them. I Only buy a used game if i can't find a new one.

Vambran

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]

If used copies are such an issue for game developers/publishers, surely the book/music/film publishing industries should be dealing with the exact same problem?

AnnoyedDragon

They'd all ban it if given the chance, the technology/laws just don't exist to support it. You're only really allowed to use purchased media in private living spaces, but it's so unenforceable; that no one takes it seriously.

The technology exists to get rid of used bookstores/record stores/videogame shops... it's called cops. As you said, the Laws don't exist. Other media industries have moved on from this losing cause, and if we can get through the next few years without consumers volunteering to give away their rights in this case, I imagine the videogame industry will move along as well.

[QUOTE="Vambran"]

Buying used games is not stealing. And now they have on-line passes for 5-15$. PC crowd is trying to grasp at straws to defend pirates. That said i don't like used games cause they tend to have mucked up cases or stickers all over them. I Only buy a used game if i can't find a new one.

001011000101101

I buy them from EB/Gamestop.

Buying used games is not stealing. And now they have on-line passes for 5-15$. PC crowd is trying to grasp at straws to defend pirates. That said i don't like used games cause they tend to have mucked up cases or stickers all over them. I Only buy a used game if i can't find a new one.

Vambran

You may want to learn to read, noone is defending pirates. Actually if you read AnnoyedDragon's post you'd realize *who* is grasping at straws now.