Why used games are nowhere near piracy....

[QUOTE="garland51"]

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.AnnoyedDragon

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

Since when did I ever say that? I do buy new games. I'm saying that this practice of what they're doing is stupid, especially considering that they make more than enough money.

Please don't put words in my mouth, thanks. I'm not stupid enough to be taken advantage of by companies like that, even if I buy used copies (& that only happens when a certain game that I like is no longer in stock being new).

[QUOTE="001011000101101"][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.

Vambran

I buy them from EB/Gamestop.

snip

ActicEdge

Old products last longer because they were actually higher quality. Thanks to our race to the bottom economy; and cheap imported products, stuff degrades a lot faster today. But that's a different topic entirely.

Argument about the delivery method is irrelevant, as that's going to change with technology. It doesn't matter if it comes on a optical disk, a hard drive or digital distribution. You're paying for the software, not the means of storing it.

Courts have repeatedly struck down the legality of the view of the license as you and the software companies would like it.

santoron

As I'd like them?

I see PC gamers get bashed for piracy, while console gamers talk about 2nd hand sales as a legitimate practice; despite it having 'the exact same' impact as piracy. I'm not a anti consumer/corporate profits protector; like is being suggested. I'm just disgusted by the hypocrisy, and attempted to use licencing agreements to get that across.

But what I'm increasingly finding is some people arguing for 2nd hand sales; hold surprisingly similar views to pirates. Either not caring for the developers not getting paid for that sale, or even using business decisions to justify not paying them out of spite. All while, still denying any relation between the impact of piracy; and 2nd and sales.

So in the end, it's not something that can actually be argued. Because these people aren't going to change their views; even if some rock solid argument was ever offered. Like pirates, they are rationalizing to themselves why what they are doing isn't a bad thing, despite the obvious affects. Even though if they were just patient, they could get the game cheaper at a later time; and the devs would get paid.

It's people rationalizing access to cheaper games; and they don't want the guilt of their impact, that's all.

PC crowd is trying to grasp at straws to defend pirates.

Vambran

Defend pirates? Hahah, wow. I wonder where you got that from.

The only people grasping at straws here, is the people trying to defend their access to cheaper games, regardless of the impact they have.

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.

AnnoyedDragon

Agreed, its a matter for the courts to decide.

There is no way to prove that people that buy used games would buy the game new. A willingness to pay for something is different from a willingness to pay for something at a cheaper price. There's no garuantee that people that buy a game at $40 dollars will buy the same game at $60. As things are now, I can easily get a used copy of a game for $10-$15 a few weeks after it's released. Meanwhile, the new copies take significantly longer to go down in price. Not to mention the fact that people tend to trade games in toward the purchase of another game. As I said earlier, if the used game market were to disappear, I believe most people will simply turn to the rental market. They get the game while it's still "hot" (in terms of being available near the release window and they save money.

Without the used game market, I'd expect to see a shrinkage in the number of games purchased as a whole, and the growth of the real industry. The only games people would buy are major blockbusters - only leading more quickly to repetitive sequels and "safe bet" games that don't break the mold.

Since when did I ever say that? I do buy new games. I'm saying that this practice of what they're doing is stupid, especially considering that they make more than enough money.

Please don't put words in my mouth, thanks. I'm not stupid enough to be taken advantage of by companies like that.

garland51

You used the profiteering methods of companies to argue they got enough money, so that they shouldn't be concerned about 2nd hand sales. That they "get enough money" is a argument used by pirates, as well as "I disapprove of what they are doing, so I'll pirate".

These annoying methods didn't really pop up until development costs became a problem, starting with this gen. How do we know that if it wasn't for the sales lost to second hand copies and piracy, that we wouldn't be seeing such terrible milkage this gen? Costs are the problem, so logically higher profits would reduce those cost pressures.

To be fair it probably wouldn't, just a rational link, but one worth noting none the less.

Argument about the delivery method is irrelevant.

AnnoyedDragon

You would like to think that but its only a legal grey area because of the delivery method. As you said, with something like steam you obviously can't sell the disk used so no problem. When you have a physical median, there are 800 more issues with that and laws fully realize that hence why we are having this discussion. Don't try to detach the physical aspect, that's entirely part of the issue.

As that's going to change with technology.

AnnoyedDragon

Not my problem, everyone go digital then. Until that day, this is reality, this is an issue.

It doesn't matter if it comes on a optical disk, a hard drive or digital distribution. You're paying for the software, not the means of storing it.

AnnoyedDragon

Again, the law doesn't have a real answer to that which is why I keep finding it funny that you think you have it. If everything was soooo clear cut, there wouldn't be a discussion happening. Also, you are paying for the package, how they deliver it to you is relevant. Its useless data without the disk, the disk is entirely relevant. Its like telling me the act of driving is only based on having a license, the car is irrelevant. Regardless of whether the license says you can drive or not, you really can't do jack all with that license without a car. That's the issue here.

Agreed, its a matter for the courts to decide.

There is no way to prove that people that buy used games would buy the game new. A willingness to pay for something is different from a willingness to pay for something at a cheaper price. There's no garuantee that people that buy a game at $40 dollars will buy the same game at $60. As things are now, I can easily get a used copy of a game for $10-$15 a few weeks after it's released. Meanwhile, the new copies take significantly longer to go down in price. Not to mention the fact that people tend to trade games in toward the purchase of another game. As I said earlier, if the used game market were to disappear, I believe most people will simply turn to the rental market. They get the game while it's still "hot" (in terms of being available near the release window and they save money.

Kickinurass

A 2nd hand sale, unlike piracy, is evidence of a willingness to pay for something. The only difference is that person would have had to wait for the retail prices to drop, as opposed to accessing a 2nd hand sale. Full price or reduced, the developers would have been paid.

Regarding rentals. I cannot personally confirm this, but the last time rentals was brought up in a similar manner to 2nd hand sales now, it was mentioned that rental companies had to pay royalties to rent out a game. So if that's true, even with rentals; the developers would get paid.

Without the used game market, I'd expect to see a shrinkage in the number of games purchased as a whole, and the growth of the real industry. The only games people would buy are major blockbusters - only leading more quickly to repetitive sequels and "safe bet" games that don't break the mold.

Kickinurass

There is no link between reduced profits from retailers, and the games industry itself losing growth. These 2nd hand profits are being pocketed by the companies selling them, not the games industry itself.

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.

ShadowMoses900

If gamers want more content, then gamers need to stop buying the games with such little content. Whether you buy a game at full price or not, the fact that you bought the game new or used is not lost on the publishers. When they see that the game is selling like hotcakes, they will continue to churn out similarly short games. Same if the game is garbage. When gamers keep buying garbage, they will keep producing garbage. It all boils down to the gamers causing the problems.

*edited for spelling*

I'm not going to argue whether or not used games are as bad as piracy or whatever. I just want to ask this one question. Let's say you or anyone buys a game that they don't like or that they have had for a while but no longer want. Also let's say that person put 40 to 60 dollars into this game new and because they put this money into the game they want to get some money back on an item they no longer want. What would you expect this person to do? Have an item sitting around they no longer want? Throw away the item?

I am only asking this because not everyone has the money to drop on new games or not everyone has the money to buy games without getting rid of some they already have and no longer want.

I dont think people are stating that used games are piracy. As far as I know, the law does not.

[QUOTE="Kickinurass"]

Agreed, its a matter for the courts to decide.

There is no way to prove that people that buy used games would buy the game new. A willingness to pay for something is different from a willingness to pay for something at a cheaper price. There's no garuantee that people that buy a game at $40 dollars will buy the same game at $60. As things are now, I can easily get a used copy of a game for $10-$15 a few weeks after it's released. Meanwhile, the new copies take significantly longer to go down in price. Not to mention the fact that people tend to trade games in toward the purchase of another game. As I said earlier, if the used game market were to disappear, I believe most people will simply turn to the rental market. They get the game while it's still "hot" (in terms of being available near the release window and they save money.

AnnoyedDragon

A 2nd hand sale, unlike piracy, is evidence of a willingness to pay for something. The only difference is that person would have had to wait for the retail prices to drop, as opposed to accessing a 2nd hand sale. Full price or reduced, the developers would have been paid.

Regarding rentals. I cannot personally confirm this, but the last time rentals was brought up in a similar manner to 2nd hand sales now, it was mentioned that rental companies had to pay royalties to rent out a game. So if that's true, even with rentals; the developers would get paid.

Without the used game market, I'd expect to see a shrinkage in the number of games purchased as a whole, and the growth of the real industry. The only games people would buy are major blockbusters - only leading more quickly to repetitive sequels and "safe bet" games that don't break the mold.

Kickinurass

There is no link between reduced profits from retailers, and the games industry itself losing growth. These 2nd hand profits are being pocketed by the companies selling them, not the games industry itself.

I actually brought that point up, ironically :P. It's actually incredibly difficult to decipher that actual deal between rental angencies between Redbox/Gamefly etc and actual game developers. I've actually taken to renting more myself, or I did when I still had my Xbox. I wouldn't mind a shift away from used game to renting, but that gives me a scary vision of a game industry in which a majority of games are designed to be completed in a rental period; short disposable epidsodes released frequently but with a fraction of budget. It could be interesting I guess, but it's such a unknown I don't know how I'd react to such a future.

As per your second point, Gamestop is part of the game industry. It is a business that deals exclusively in video game sales - It's growth represents a growth in the industry, even if it also correlates to a shrinkage for developers.

I'm not going to argue whether or not used games are as bad as piracy or whatever. I just want to ask this one question. Let's say you or anyone buys a game that they don't like or that they have had for a while but no longer want. Also let's say that person put 40 to 60 dollars into this game new and because they put this money into the game they want to get some money back on an item they no longer want. What would you expect this person to do? Have an item sitting around they no longer want? Throw away the item?

I am only asking this because not everyone has the money to drop on new games or not everyone has the money to buy games without getting rid of some they already have and no longer want.

CHOASXIII

If you do not have the money to drop on games all the time, do not buy the games. Sell the games at a yard sale or to a friend, but don't sell it back to a company that reaps ~50% of it's profits from the sale of used games, especially if you are only getting $5-$10 when at a yard sale you could get more.

[QUOTE="CHOASXIII"]

I'm not going to argue whether or not used games are as bad as piracy or whatever. I just want to ask this one question. Let's say you or anyone buys a game that they don't like or that they have had for a while but no longer want. Also let's say that person put 40 to 60 dollars into this game new and because they put this money into the game they want to get some money back on an item they no longer want. What would you expect this person to do? Have an item sitting around they no longer want? Throw away the item?

I am only asking this because not everyone has the money to drop on new games or not everyone has the money to buy games without getting rid of some they already have and no longer want.

WhiteKnight77

If you do not have the money to drop on games all the time, do not buy the games. Sell the games at a yard sale or to a friend, but don't sell it back to a company that reaps ~50% of it's profits from the sale of used games, especially if you are only getting $5-$10 when at a yard sale you could get more.

No, no you answered my question. I don't sell back my stuff to Gamestop and places like that. I just wanted to see someones opinion on what they think should be done with a used game.

[QUOTE="CHOASXIII"]

I'm not going to argue whether or not used games are as bad as piracy or whatever. I just want to ask this one question. Let's say you or anyone buys a game that they don't like or that they have had for a while but no longer want. Also let's say that person put 40 to 60 dollars into this game new and because they put this money into the game they want to get some money back on an item they no longer want. What would you expect this person to do? Have an item sitting around they no longer want? Throw away the item?

I am only asking this because not everyone has the money to drop on new games or not everyone has the money to buy games without getting rid of some they already have and no longer want.

WhiteKnight77

If you do not have the money to drop on games all the time, do not buy the games. Sell the games at a yard sale or to a friend, but don't sell it back to a company that reaps ~50% of it's profits from the sale of used games, especially if you are only getting $5-$10 when at a yard sale you could get more.

The thing about gamestop is that they buy back ANY game. That makes it convient for people. I agree though that selling to your inner circle then expanding out and limiting big corporation gain is the best way to do things. Hell, my friends have sold stuff that I would have paid them much better then Gamestop for :(

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

snip

ActicEdge

What exactly are you arguing? The reason I'm saying this is because product quality plays a significant role in the price tag. A 2nd hand chair, even if kept well, is used; and hence of a lower value to the market than a freshly manufactured one. The product you are paying for when buying software is the software itself, the disk is just the means of storing and transporting it.

It's fairly common for PC gamers to completely disregard the disk once their game is installed, just slapping a no-cd patch on it; for convenience sake. If consoles allowed fully disk-less installations of their games, they would do the same. The product is the software, and there is no difference between new software and 2nd hand software. It doesn't matter whether it's on a optical disk or digitally downloaded, the quality of the software is identical.

So why should 2nd hand copies of software be worth less? The only rational for it is the state of the disk, which is just the delivery method of the product that is actually being paid for. Games are DIGITAL products. Which is why they have, and should, have a whole other set of rules for them; than traditional products.

Honestly, where exactly are we going with all this? I've lost track. This has been going a few hours, and it ultimately boils down to people defending their right to enjoy games; despite the developers not getting paid.

No argument can justify that.

[QUOTE="Remmib"][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).garland51

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.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

snip

AnnoyedDragon

What exactly are you arguing? The reason I'm saying this is because product quality plays a significant role in the price tag. A 2nd hand chair, even if kept well, is used; and hence of a lower value to the market than a freshly manufactured one. The product you are paying for when buying software is the software itself, the disk is just the means of storing and transporting it.

It's fairly common for PC gamers to completely disregard the disk once their game is installed, just slapping a no-cd patch on it; for convenience sake. If consoles allowed fully disk-less installations of their games, they would do the same. The product is the software, and there is no difference between new software and 2nd hand software. It doesn't matter whether it's on a optical disk or digitally downloaded, the quality of the software is identical.

So why should 2nd hand copies of software be worth less? The only rational for it is the state of the disk, which is just the delivery method of the product that is actually being paid for. Games are DIGITAL products. Which is why they have, and should, have a whole other set of rules for them; than traditional products.

Honestly, where exactly are we going with all this? I've lost track. This has been going a few hours, and it ultimately boils down to people defending their right to enjoy games; despite the developers not getting paid.

No argument can justify that.

Its really simple. Its that when you distribute a product with a physical median, there are issues that come into play that are different from a non physical median. A game on a disk is not the same as a game on a hard drive. They are sold with different intentions, through different means and have different aspects and simply saying its a license, they are the EXACT SAME is wrong and that's why its a legal grey area and we are debating. I am saying YOU ARE WRONG to pretend its clear cut because you have some idea that just because a company says something, the law automatically is on their side if you agree. If secretly in the software agreement the terms said to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger and you agreed, the law isn't suddenly going to say that's okay. That is what I'm getting at, its grey because of other circumstances so stop trying to make an issue that IS NOT clear cut seem so simple. Why are you having trouble grasping that? Its not hard.

As for the second part. Every other industry in the world has aspects of this debate. People using something anf others not getting paid for it, the justification is that the creators make their money on the initial sale and after that they are suppose to gtfo as its none of their business. That's the justication plain and simple.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

The developer getting paid is not our problem.

AnnoyedDragon

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

So essentially, he is no better than a pirate.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

The developer getting paid is not our problem.

Remmib

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

So essentially, he is no better than a pirate.

If so then tha't the way it is I suppose. This idea that I should just buy everything new just because is just baffling to me.

Its really simple. Its that when you distribute a product with a physical median, there are issues that come into play that are different from a non physical median. A game on a disk is not the same as a game on a hard drive. They are sold with different intentions, through different means and have different aspects and simply saying its a license, they are the EXACT SAME is wrong and that's why its a legal grey area and we are debating. I am saying YOU ARE WRONG to pretend its clear cut because you have some idea that just because a company says something, the law automatically is on their side if you agree. If secretly in the software agreement the terms said to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger and you agreed, the law isn't suddenly going to say that's okay. That is what I'm getting at, its grey because of other circumstances so stop trying to make an issue that IS NOT clear cut seem so simple. Why are you having trouble grasping that? Its not hard.

ActicEdge

Maybe if I played on consoles I'd be of a different opinion, given that the game is unplayable without the disk. But since I play primarily on PC, and are more familiar with disks being nothing more than a storage medium for a product; that is identical to its digital equivalent. My perception on the matter is different. To me, there is no difference, they are the same thing.

As for the second part. Every other industry in the world has aspects of this debate. People using something anf others not getting paid for it, the justification is that the creators make their money on the initial sale and after that they are suppose to gtfo as its none of their business. That's the justification plain and simple.

ActicEdge

I've gone into enough detail as to why I think you cannot equate a 2nd hand game sale with a physical product, and I haven't changed my views on the matter. That you disagree, just puts us in a position to agree to disagree. Because I have seen no arguments that have changed my views on the matter.

[QUOTE="garland51"]

Since when did I ever say that? I do buy new games. I'm saying that this practice of what they're doing is stupid, especially considering that they make more than enough money.

Please don't put words in my mouth, thanks. I'm not stupid enough to be taken advantage of by companies like that.

AnnoyedDragon

You used the profiteering methods of companies to argue they got enough money, so that they shouldn't be concerned about 2nd hand sales. That they "get enough money" is a argument used by pirates, as well as "I disapprove of what they are doing, so I'll pirate".

These annoying methods didn't really pop up until development costs became a problem, starting with this gen. How do we know that if it wasn't for the sales lost to second hand copies and piracy, that we wouldn't be seeing such terrible milkage this gen? Costs are the problem, so logically higher profits would reduce those cost pressures.

To be fair it probably wouldn't, just a rational link, but one worth noting none the less.

I don't pirate games at all. Plus there are plenty of ways that developers can still make a great game on HD consoles without costing them too much money. It's been proven before.

Cause and effect. Worth/value is the issue in this situation. Most games simply aren't worth the price of admission, hence the large market for used games.

Devs, if you want people to pay full price for your games all the time, make them worth the full price all the time, otherwise quit bawwing and price them accordingly. /thread

We live in hard times and we can't all buy new games and new cars.......i really don't see anything wrong from buy used games.The pirated games are the real problem.AtariKidX

PROVE IT.

Until then, you have NO RIGHT whatsoever to make such claims.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Its really simple. Its that when you distribute a product with a physical median, there are issues that come into play that are different from a non physical median. A game on a disk is not the same as a game on a hard drive. They are sold with different intentions, through different means and have different aspects and simply saying its a license, they are the EXACT SAME is wrong and that's why its a legal grey area and we are debating. I am saying YOU ARE WRONG to pretend its clear cut because you have some idea that just because a company says something, the law automatically is on their side if you agree. If secretly in the software agreement the terms said to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger and you agreed, the law isn't suddenly going to say that's okay. That is what I'm getting at, its grey because of other circumstances so stop trying to make an issue that IS NOT clear cut seem so simple. Why are you having trouble grasping that? Its not hard.

AnnoyedDragon

Maybe if I played on consoles I'd be of a different opinion, given that the game is unplayable without the disk. But since I play primarily on PC, and are more familiar with disks being nothing more than a storage medium for a product; that is identical to its digital equivalent. My perception on the matter is different. To me, there is no difference, they are the same thing.

As for the second part. Every other industry in the world has aspects of this debate. People using something anf others not getting paid for it, the justification is that the creators make their money on the initial sale and after that they are suppose to gtfo as its none of their business. That's the justification plain and simple.

ActicEdge

I've gone into enough detail as to why I think you cannot equate a 2nd hand game sale with a physical product, and I haven't changed my views on the matter. That you disagree, just puts us in a position to agree to disagree. Because I have seen no arguments that have changed my views on the matter.

If you're a PC gamer perhaps it makes sense because you install the game and never spin the disk again but in the console realm which is what we are talking about no game no disk. So yeah, perhaps its just a difference of gaming platforms in this case.

I guess we agree to disagree. That said when I said every other inustry that included ebooks, movies, music as well of which are far easier to pirate and obtain then games are.

[QUOTE="AtariKidX"]We live in hard times and we can't all buy new games and new cars.......i really don't see anything wrong from buy used games. The pirated games are the real problem.Mograine

PROVE IT.

Until then, you have NO RIGHT whatsoever to make such claims.

It's a known fact that we live in a bad economy with about almost 10% of unemployment. Most people can't afford every $60 game right now.

The problem isn't with used games like the guy who sells on ebay. It's specifically with places like Wallmart. THEY shouldn't sell used games, because the publisher is paying a lot to market a game with them and buy shelf space. So they do marketing, but the store can then make a cut on their product without them, when publishers are partnering WITH them to sell the game.

Trust me it's the big chain stores publishers are pissed off with, not the independent stores or the average guy buying or selling his stuff on ebay.

The distingtion is VERY important but often overlooked.

Cause and effect. Worth/value is the issue in this situation. Most games simply aren't worth the price of admission, hence the large market for used games.

Devs, if you want people to pay full price for your games all the time, make them worth the full price all the time, otherwise quit bawwing and price them accordingly. /thread

Bigboi500

If the game isn't worth the price of admission, why buy it even used?

[QUOTE="AtariKidX"]We live in hard times and we can't all buy new games and new cars.......i really don't see anything wrong from buy used games.The pirated games are the real problem.Mograine

PROVE IT.

Until then, you have NO RIGHT whatsoever to make such claims.

Simple example (and true), I know 30 kids with pirated versions of Dead Space, I know no one with a used copy. They all had computers that could run it, they all have steam accounts too. The fact that 30 free copies of Dead Space exist and they can be spread amongst to anyone these people know is an issue because it totally destroys any people they knows chance of buying it new when they can get a pirated copy, for free in minutes. At my school, pretty much every big current gen game could be downloaded for free if it was on PC along with PSP and NDS roms and Wii games. If you don't think that people with computers strong enough to run these games or dedicated systems to play games have any intention of ever buying a game, you are simply crazy.

The problem isn't with used games like the guy who sells on ebay. It's specifically with places like Wallmart. THEY shouldn't sell used games, because the publisher is paying a lot to market a game with them and buy shelf space. So they do marketing, but the store can then make a cut on their product without them, when publishers are partnering WITH them to sell the game.

Trust me it's the big chain stores publishers are pissed off with, not the independent stores or the average guy buying or selling his stuff on ebay.

The distingtion is VERY important but often overlooked.

Darth_DuMas

Carrying games is generally a detriment to stores like walmart, they barely break even on it. Hence why the developers stfu when they start a used business. How are you going to bite the hand that is feeding you?

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

Cause and effect. Worth/value is the issue in this situation. Most games simply aren't worth the price of admission, hence the large market for used games.

Devs, if you want people to pay full price for your games all the time, make them worth the full price all the time, otherwise quit bawwing and price them accordingly. /thread

WhiteKnight77

If the game isn't worth the price of admission, why buy it even used?

I don't pirate games at all.

garland51

Never said you did. Just pointing out similarities in the arguments.

Plus there are plenty of ways that developers can still make a great game on HD consoles without costing them too much money. It's been proven before.

garland51

And I've argued in favour of it. But when they do produce a big budget blockbuster, then issues like second hand sales become more relevant. A developer with a $1 million development budget can sell 500,000 copies and be quite happy about it. But the likes of EA and Activision spends 10s, sometimes even hundreds of millions on their games. When you're at that point, you suddenly need to care about every revenue source, so them lashing out is unsurprising.

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

[QUOTE="AtariKidX"]We live in hard times and we can't all buy new games and new cars.......i really don't see anything wrong from buy used games. The pirated games are the real problem.garland51

PROVE IT.

Until then, you have NO RIGHT whatsoever to make such claims.

It's a known fact that we live in a bad economy with about almost 10% of unemployment. Most people can't afford every $60 game right now.

I'm not referring to that and you know that.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

Cause and effect. Worth/value is the issue in this situation. Most games simply aren't worth the price of admission, hence the large market for used games.

Devs, if you want people to pay full price for your games all the time, make them worth the full price all the time, otherwise quit bawwing and price them accordingly. /thread

WhiteKnight77

If the game isn't worth the price of admission, why buy it even used?

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

[QUOTE="AtariKidX"]We live in hard times and we can't all buy new games and new cars.......i really don't see anything wrong from buy used games.The pirated games are the real problem.ActicEdge

PROVE IT.

Until then, you have NO RIGHT whatsoever to make such claims.

Simple example (and true), I know 30 kids with pirated versions of Dead Space, I know no one with a used copy. They all had computers that could run it, they all have steam accounts too. The fact that 30 free copies of Dead Space exist and they can be spread amongst to anyone these people know is an issue because it totally destroys any people they knows chance of buying it new when they can get a pirated copy, for free in minutes. At my school, pretty much every big current gen game could be downloaded for free if it was on PC along with PSP and NDS roms and Wii games. If you don't think that people with computers strong enough to run these games or dedicated systems to play games have any intention of ever buying a game, you are simply crazy.

Football Manager sold 400,000 copies in two weeks in the UK I think, and 1 million had been pirated in the same time frame according to the dev team and was circulating around the net. the figures sound believable as well, it's a game people know is good.

If the game isn't worth the price of admission, why buy it even used?

WhiteKnight77

Huh? The worth of a product is obviously dependent on price. I wouldn't pay the same for McDonald's as I would a meal at a nice restaurant, but that doesn't mean I have a problem with dropping $5 on a Big Mac.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

If the game isn't worth the price of admission, why buy it even used?

DragonfireXZ95

Because it just might be worth $20, or $40 instead of $60.

Bigboi500

Then why buy the game at $50-$55 at a place like GameStop? Why buy a lackluster game at all? I have noted time and again, that it is gamers fault that publishers keep shoveling garbage out the door. No matter what you pay for said game, you are telling the publisher that you like that garbage. Why buy it at any price?

Until gamers quit buying garbage, publishers will not stop selling garbage.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="Mograine"]

PROVE IT.

Until then, you have NO RIGHT whatsoever to make such claims.

Darth_DuMas

Simple example (and true), I know 30 kids with pirated versions of Dead Space, I know no one with a used copy. They all had computers that could run it, they all have steam accounts too. The fact that 30 free copies of Dead Space exist and they can be spread amongst to anyone these people know is an issue because it totally destroys any people they knows chance of buying it new when they can get a pirated copy, for free in minutes. At my school, pretty much every big current gen game could be downloaded for free if it was on PC along with PSP and NDS roms and Wii games. If you don't think that people with computers strong enough to run these games or dedicated systems to play games have any intention of ever buying a game, you are simply crazy.

Football Manager sold 400,000 copies in two weeks in the UK I think, and 1 million had been pirated in the same time frame according to the dev team and was circulating around the net. the figures sound believable as well, it's a game people know is good.

Pretty much I mean I understand they want to combat used sales since the indication is money has been spent but to suggest that its a bigger issue then piracy is craziness. There is no reason to assume those pirates never would have bought the game because no one knows how they obtained their pirated version. In the story I told all those people got the gane off of 1 kids portable harddrive.

Here's something else to consider, I just bought God of War 3 BRAND NEW, not used for $15. Am I still screwing over the devs for buying it new?

[QUOTE="santoron"]

Courts have repeatedly struck down the legality of the view of the license as you and the software companies would like it.

AnnoyedDragon

As I'd like them?

I see PC gamers get bashed for piracy, while console gamers talk about 2nd hand sales as a legitimate practice; despite it having 'the exact same' impact as piracy. I'm not a anti consumer/corporate profits protector; like is being suggested. I'm just disgusted by the hypocrisy, and attempted to use licencing agreements to get that across.

But what I'm increasingly finding is some people arguing for 2nd hand sales; hold surprisingly similar views to pirates. Either not caring for the developers not getting paid for that sale, or even using business decisions to justify not paying them out of spite. All while, still denying any relation between the impact of piracy; and 2nd and sales.

So in the end, it's not something that can actually be argued. Because these people aren't going to change their views; even if some rock solid argument was ever offered. Like pirates, they are rationalizing to themselves why what they are doing isn't a bad thing, despite the obvious affects. Even though if they were just patient, they could get the game cheaper at a later time; and the devs would get paid.

It's people rationalizing access to cheaper games; and they don't want the guilt of their impact, that's all.

... There's a huge difference between piracy and used resale, no matter what percieved similarities there are between the two... not the least of which: Piracy is illegal, used resale is legal and has survived centuuries of court challenges. I have zero guilt to defray with repect to my attitude towards long established rights over resale of my property, and associating a consumers rights with piracy is preposterous. I'm going to assume you overreached here and don't actually need the "Piracy versus resale 101" lesson. Try to remember, both of these issues have been dealt with for generations by various media in the past. These issues are not novel, or new. Society has repeatedly dealt with each issue and the laws in place reflect the position we have adopted as a whole. You'd have a better argument equating piracy with libraries... and I sincerely hope you don't try that one next. :?

And I've argued in favour of it. But when they do produce a big budget blockbuster, then issues like second hand sales become more relevant. A developer with a $1 million development budget can sell 500,000 copies and be quite happy about it. But the likes of EA and Activision spends 10s, sometimes even hundreds of millions on their games. When you're at that point, you suddenly need to care about every revenue source, so them lashing out is unsurprising.AnnoyedDragon

Then they need to find a way to scale down those costs without having to spend much money, like Sony has with some of their 1st party exclusive games.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"] 60 dollars is a high price of admission. I know I waited for many console games to come down in price before I grabbed them. And he's right, most of the console games have been pretty lack luster. The only game I actually feel I got my money's worth out of this gen(that I paid 60 dollars for) for consoles was Demon's Souls so far.WhiteKnight77

Because it just might be worth $20, or $40 instead of $60.

Bigboi500

Then why buy the game at $50-$55 at a place like GameStop? Why buy a lackluster game at all? I have noted time and again, that it is gamers fault that publishers keep shoveling garbage out the door. No matter what you pay for said game, you are telling the publisher that you like that garbage. Why buy it at any price?

Until gamers quit buying garbage, publishers will not stop selling garbage.

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

The problem isn't with used games like the guy who sells on ebay. It's specifically with places like Wallmart. THEY shouldn't sell used games, because the publisher is paying a lot to market a game with them and buy shelf space. So they do marketing, but the store can then make a cut on their product without them, when publishers are partnering WITH them to sell the game.

Trust me it's the big chain stores publishers are pissed off with, not the independent stores or the average guy buying or selling his stuff on ebay.

The distingtion is VERY important but often overlooked.

ActicEdge

Carrying games is generally a detriment to stores like walmart, they barely break even on it. Hence why the developers stfu when they start a used business. How are you going to bite the hand that is feeding you?

Thats true, the stores need the second hand market, but I was trying to point out the exact part of used games that makes publishers unhappy. It's not true that people who buy used games as wrong as pirates, I buy used and new games mostly from Amazon and Amazon market place. That's fine but on the high street, chain stores are taking a chunk of the money publishers think they should get for their product. And the publishers are helping to market in the stores.

It's still not right if they investing a whole load in the store from their point of view.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]And I've argued in favour of it. But when they do produce a big budget blockbuster, then issues like second hand sales become more relevant. A developer with a $1 million development budget can sell 500,000 copies and be quite happy about it. But the likes of EA and Activision spends 10s, sometimes even hundreds of millions on their games. When you're at that point, you suddenly need to care about every revenue source, so them lashing out is unsurprising.garland51

Then they need to find a way to scale down those costs without having to spend much money, like Sony has with some of their exclusives.

Ding Ding Ding. This is the answer. Killing used game sales is a bandaid. Used is dead in Japan and its in no better shape then the rest of the world.

Ding Ding Ding. This is the answer. Killing used game sales is a bandaid. Used is dead in Japan and its in no better shape then the rest of the world.

ActicEdge

You mean Japan? Or the used market?

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Simple example (and true), I know 30 kids with pirated versions of Dead Space, I know no one with a used copy. They all had computers that could run it, they all have steam accounts too. The fact that 30 free copies of Dead Space exist and they can be spread amongst to anyone these people know is an issue because it totally destroys any people they knows chance of buying it new when they can get a pirated copy, for free in minutes. At my school, pretty much every big current gen game could be downloaded for free if it was on PC along with PSP and NDS roms and Wii games. If you don't think that people with computers strong enough to run these games or dedicated systems to play games have any intention of ever buying a game, you are simply crazy.

ActicEdge

Football Manager sold 400,000 copies in two weeks in the UK I think, and 1 million had been pirated in the same time frame according to the dev team and was circulating around the net. the figures sound believable as well, it's a game people know is good.

Pretty much I mean I understand they want to combat used sales since the indication is money has been spent but to suggest that its a bigger issue then piracy is craziness. There is no reason to assume those pirates never would have bought the game because no one knows how they obtained their pirated version. In the story I told all those people got the gane off of 1 kids portable harddrive.

:) I know my post didn't link exactly to yours, but I thought it might back it up a bit somehow.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="Darth_DuMas"]

The problem isn't with used games like the guy who sells on ebay. It's specifically with places like Wallmart. THEY shouldn't sell used games, because the publisher is paying a lot to market a game with them and buy shelf space. So they do marketing, but the store can then make a cut on their product without them, when publishers are partnering WITH them to sell the game.

Trust me it's the big chain stores publishers are pissed off with, not the independent stores or the average guy buying or selling his stuff on ebay.

The distingtion is VERY important but often overlooked.

Darth_DuMas

Carrying games is generally a detriment to stores like walmart, they barely break even on it. Hence why the developers stfu when they start a used business. How are you going to bite the hand that is feeding you?

Thats true, the stores need the second hand market, but I was trying to point out the exact part of used games that makes publishers unhappy. It's not true that people who buy used games as wrong as pirates, I buy used and new games mostly from Amazon and Amazon market place. That's fine but on the high street, chain stores are taking a chunk of the money publishers think they should get for their product. And the publishers are helping to market in the stores.

It's still not right if they investing a whole load in the store from their point of view.

Sure but its a matter of stfu and deal. They carry your product at no gain, sometimes at a decent loss and this is how they are balancing the cost. Sure it sucks but the way you formed the industry forced their hand in this case. One Corporation mad at another Corporation becoming the consumers problem is just damn sad.