Why used games are nowhere near piracy....

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

The difference to developers is identical, no money. The difference in general is no money from 1000 people not buying my game is worse then no money from 110 people not buying my game because in situation A I lost 1000 potential sales while in situation B I lost 110. No money is no money, if you could kill off one though which would you choose is what I am getting at.

AnnoyedDragon

Obviously you'd go after the bigger problem, but which is bigger is debatable. Pirates go in with the intent to spend no money, where as second hand buyers are willing to spend money; just less of it. If both issues were somehow resolved. It's debatable how many pirates would become legitimate buyers, were as with second hand sales; they've demonstrated their willingness to spend money on the product. Whether they would buy it full priced, or wait for the price to drop, wouldn't change that they are still a willing purchase.

A debate for another day. As it's quite late my end, and I'm not sure how much longer I'll be up.

This has dragged on for a while I agree but in general I don't think pirate = jerk who will never buy games and a second hand buyer equals wants cheap game at all costs. Simple classification but I don't think its accurate. Piracy is not something that is necessarily 1 person finding 1 website, torrenting 1 game and only playing their torrented version. But yeah, another debate for another day indeed.

I also am not for shiny shallow 5 hour experiences with some mp thrown in that seem to be common trend these days.

ActicEdge

Then why buy those games at any price? If a game is a shallow 5 hours experience, what changes so you have to have it at $30 that it doesn't have at $60?

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]I also am not for shiny shallow 5 hour experiences with some mp thrown in that seem to be common trend these days.

WhiteKnight77

Then why buy those games at any price? If a game is a shallow 5 hours experience, what changes so you have to have it at $30 that it doesn't have at $60?

I don't buy shiny shallow 5 hour experiences at all. Where in my post did I say I bought those.

Your defense of buying used games may have gotten me crossing you up with other posters in this thread.

I have a question for you. You post a picture on Deviant Art and someone takes it and starts selling your work, do you say OK or do you want to get paid? Remember that you own the copyright for that picture.

Your defense of buying used games may have gotten me crossing you up with other posters in this thread.

I have a question for you. You post a picture on Deviant Art and someone takes it and starts selling your work, do you say OK or do you want to get paid? Remember that you own the copyright for that picture.

WhiteKnight77

In terms of me or in terms of like what I should legally do? I mean if I post a free pic I made on Deviant Art for people to enjoy and someone takes my free work and tries to profit off of it without giving me anything for my work that's a problem. I'm not even making money off of my work originally, its not okay for someone to use it for their own profit without my consent. If the sitaution was that I was selling it and someone was taking it and selling it too then obviously that's a problem too. Its not theirs to profit off of if I am not creating it to be a product.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Your defense of buying used games may have gotten me crossing you up with other posters in this thread.

I have a question for you. You post a picture on Deviant Art and someone takes it and starts selling your work, do you say OK or do you want to get paid? Remember that you own the copyright for that picture.

ActicEdge

In terms of me or in terms of like what I should legally do? I mean if I post a free pic I made on Deviant Art for people to enjoy and someone takes my free work and tries to profit off of it without giving me anything for my work that's a problem. I'm not even making money off of my work originally, its not okay for someone to use it for their own profit without my consent. If the sitaution was that I was selling it and someone was taking it and selling it too then obviously that's a problem too. Its not theirs to profit off of if I am not creating it to be a product.

It's funny that you say this as that is what publishers and developers are saying. They have a problem with someone making a killing on the intellectual property (like your pic on Deviant Art) that they created and own the rights too. GameStop already sold the game once. Then they are reselling that game again and reaping a profit from it without the permission of the developer or publisher (as the person selling your picture from Deviant Art is). If you are selling it, it is a product.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Your defense of buying used games may have gotten me crossing you up with other posters in this thread.

I have a question for you. You post a picture on Deviant Art and someone takes it and starts selling your work, do you say OK or do you want to get paid? Remember that you own the copyright for that picture.

WhiteKnight77

In terms of me or in terms of like what I should legally do? I mean if I post a free pic I made on Deviant Art for people to enjoy and someone takes my free work and tries to profit off of it without giving me anything for my work that's a problem. I'm not even making money off of my work originally, its not okay for someone to use it for their own profit without my consent. If the sitaution was that I was selling it and someone was taking it and selling it too then obviously that's a problem too. Its not theirs to profit off of if I am not creating it to be a product.

It's funny that you say this as that is what publishers and developers are saying. They have a problem with someone making a killing on the intellectual property (like your pic on Deviant Art) that they created and own the rights too. GameStop already sold the game once. Then they are reselling that game again and reaping a profit from it without the permission of the developer or publisher (as the person selling your picture from Deviant Art is). If you are selling it, it is a product.

The difference here is that the diviant art pic isn't being re sold. Its just straight up being ripped from a profile and sold. A used game has to be a new game at some point. If they were just re selling what I already sold then that really is their right.

There is no difference. Both sales deprive an entity of the money made on said product.

There is no difference. Both sales deprive an entity of the money made on said product.

WhiteKnight77

The difference is reselling is legal under the first sales doctrine. Taking work that is copyrighted, reproducing it and selling it against the creator is blatantly illegal. That's the difference.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

There is no difference. Both sales deprive an entity of the money made on said product.

ActicEdge

The difference is reselling is legal under the first sales doctrine. Taking work that is copyrighted, reproducing it and selling it against the creator is blatantly illegal. That's the difference.

Yes, you can resell a game under the first sales doctrine, but when GS resells a game that was previously sold, that is not a first sale, that is a second sale. You are correct, taking work that is copyrighted (even if they are not reproducing it) and selling it more than once is illegal just as reproducing it is.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

There is no difference. Both sales deprive an entity of the money made on said product.

WhiteKnight77

The difference is reselling is legal under the first sales doctrine. Taking work that is copyrighted, reproducing it and selling it against the creator is blatantly illegal. That's the difference.

Yes, you can resell a game under the first sales doctrine, but when GS resells a game that was previously sold, that is not a first sale, that is a second sale. You are correct, taking work that is copyrighted (even if they are not reproducing it) and selling it more than once is illegal just as reproducing it is.

There is no such thing as "second sale".

I buy a new game from Gamestop, as the purchaser I have first sale doctrine rights to sell it back to Gamestop (or whoever I choose), in turn Gamestop, as the purchaser, has first sale doctrine rights to sell it back to me (or whoever they choose).

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?

Bigboi500

Of course not. You gave more money to the devs/publishers than someone who bought the game used.

[QUOTE="nosmokingbandit"]

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.

Mograine

You're missing a point.

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, so according to you, its ok to read a book without the author making any money because books dont require as much effort? Dont be asinine.

The end result is the same, someone enjoys the product for whatever amount of time they choose, then the next person does the same. The whole time the original author only sees one unit of sales revenue. Period. Motivations, effort, value, etc. All irrelevant. Gamers whine about money, then you throw out all of these ridiculous excuses?

This generation of gamers and publishers is the worst ever. Its just sickening to see so much arrogance and lack of intellegence coupled with loud voices.

The FACT is this:

Every industry in the world deals with used product sales and have since the beginning of time. Only in recent years, with the advent of DRM, has used product sales been demonized. Capitalism has existed for thousands of years with used product sales, and gamers can either accept this and be part of the respected market, or whine about it and carry the stigma of being whiny kids for the rest of their lives. Dont let publishers tell you that used game sales will destroy the industry. Casette tapes were supposed to have killed the music industry years ago and they are still making record profits. The market has survived thus far, dont pretend that Publishers need yet another way to suck money out of the consumer.

Of course you can compare them: they're entertainment publishing companies that all compete for consumers hard-earned money and limited free time. If the other industries have found alternate business models that alleviate issues with the second-hand market without having to trample the first sale doctrine, then maybe the gaming industry should take a hard look at their own business model and think of ways they can improve things on that end?

PBSnipes

Here's the alternate business plan (read below)...

Lesson 3: Not really a lesson but rather piracy probably won't die and used everything has never really died either. Its probably safe bet to assume its not going anywhere for a long while. So yeah pretty much those, follow them and you'll be good :)

ActicEdge

Publishers could easily kill used game sales if they wanted to, the solution is quite simple.

Publishers could kill used game sales and make more money by:
1. Issuing a CD-Key to a game. This CD-Key must be entered when you put the disc in your console. It will then be verified by your internet connection and logged into the Publisher/Console Creator's database.
2. Also, this would allow them to drop the price of games to say $40-45 on release date; this price point is perfect for those who want the game right away and don't want to wait for a drop in price. Then a planned price reduction a few months after release, say down to a price point of $30; this price point is used to target used game buyers.
3. In theory, this eliminates used game sales and increases profit to publishers.

There are a few issues with this concept, such as 'what about the people who don't have internet connections, etc'. However, this system has worked very well for the PC platform, and the used games market for PC is virtually nonexistant. This and in addition digital distribution allows publishers and developers to be able to sell their games much cheaper than console alternatives as the profit margin and amount of sales are much higher.

Well maybe if devs nowadays made more Games that had actual substance/quality instead of Good Graphics to cover up it's shallow 6 hour long **** gameplay....then maybe there would be alot less people selling their games a month later to gamestop.

Used games isnt the same as piracy.

1. people are still paying for the product.

2.Devs still made money off original copy,they're just not getting a extra cut.

...so the argument really should be: Devs are greedy pigs that want more money.

It is pretty stupid however to buy a used game that's only $5 cheaper than a New copy.

Wait, so according to you, its ok to read a book without the author making any money because books dont require as much effort? Dont be asinine.

The end result is the same, someone enjoys the product for whatever amount of time they choose, then the next person does the same. The whole time the original author only sees one unit of sales revenue. Period. Motivations, effort, value, etc. All irrelevant. Gamers whine about money, then you throw out all of these ridiculous excuses?

This generation of gamers and publishers is the worst ever. Its just sickening to see so much arrogance and lack of intellegence coupled with loud voices.

nosmokingbandit

I love how you only addressed the sidepoints and completely ignored the main point.

+1 for coherence.

The FACT is this:

Every industry in the world deals with used product sales and have since the beginning of time. Only in recent years, with the advent of DRM, has used product sales been demonized. Capitalism has existed for thousands of years with used product sales, and gamers can either accept this and be part of the respected market, or whine about it and carry the stigma of being whiny kids for the rest of their lives. Dont let publishers tell you that used game sales will destroy the industry. Casette tapes were supposed to have killed the music industry years ago and they are still making record profits. The market has survived thus far, dont pretend that Publishers need yet another way to suck money out of the consumer.

nosmokingbandit

I'm not pretending anything. You are the one pretending that companies have no right to do what they want with their stuff because it hurts your wallet.

I'm annoyed that there are hypocrites that are somehow trying to deny the fact that piracy has the same effect as second hand sales.

Again, get this through your skull - we are not talking of morality or legality. Only about the EFFECT these two have on corporates.

You don't like reality, it's not my concern. You are lying to yourself if you think the above is false, period. Read through AnnoyedDragon's posts, he's better at wording than I am.

And drop these utter bs comparisons for gods sake, they only make you look bad. Casette tapes do not have even remotely the same quality original casettes and music CDs can offer. A used game does not deteriorate compared to a new game.

Well maybe if devs nowadays made more Games that had actual substance/quality instead of Good Graphics to cover up it's shallow 6 hour long **** gameplay....then maybe there would be alot less people selling their games a month later to gamestop.

Used games isnt the same as piracy.

1. people are still paying for the product.

2.Devs still made money off original copy,they're just not getting a extra cut.

...so the argument really should be: Devs are greedy pigs that want more money.

It is pretty stupid however to buy a used game that's only $5 cheaper than a New copy.

Kandlegoat

Agree with the premise, however those points don't really concern the discussion at hand. 1 is irrelevant, 2 - so do developers for the cracker/uploader. This is offset by the fact that PC games are much, much less likely to turn into a second hand sale.

I'm annoyed that there are hypocrites that are somehow trying to deny the fact that piracy has the same effect as second hand sales.

Again, get this through your skull - we are not talking of morality or legality. Only about the EFFECT these two have on corporates.

Mograine

That's because they don't have the same effect. Only if narrow the scope of the argument so we only see the effect on developers do the things have the same effect, but that isn't the reality of the matter.

Fact is, used games retailers are part of the game industry. When someone buys a used game, the money does go back into the industry. You can argue whether the effect is good or bad, but obviously the used games retailers invests the money to obtain better deals with publishers, which is obvious by the greater deal of pre-order DLC bonus. Piracy is thievery; there is no return or support. they merely leech off the industry.

Just because used game sales hurt a segment of the industry, does not mean they hurt the entire industry. And if we are ignoring the legal and moral issues, only considering the business aspect, then empirically the fact that the used game industry's growth leads to a growth in the industry as a whole defeats any claim that used games sales is equal to piracy.

That's because they don't have the same effect. Only if narrow the scope of the argument so we only see the effect on developers do the things have the same effect, but that isn't the reality of the matter.Kickinurass

We are talking SPECIFICALLY of the effect they have on developers. We're not "narrowing the scope" - it's second hand apologists that are trying to widen it.

Who else would be talking about considering *they* are those who decide what to do to with their games to cash in on second hand sales :|

Fact is, used games retailers are part of the game industry. When someone buys a used game, the money does go back into the industry. You can argue whether the effect is good or bad, but obviously the used games retailers invests the money to obtain better deals with publishers, which is obvious by the greater deal of pre-order DLC bonus. Piracy is thievery; there is no return or support. they merely leech off the industry.

Kickinurass

Can I assume you're actually agreeing that second hand sales have a negative effect on the industry then? If the money is going back to the "industry" and not to the developers, that's bad. Pre-order DLC is *not* good for your wallet either.

Piracy is not thievery. It's piracy. You are not "leeching" anything, you create a copy of the product.

Its effects are unknown. Only speculation and counterspeculation are bred by piracy. You can assume all you want - you know well enough that this has been discussed a thousand times and counting and we can't conclude anything solid about its negativity.

Just because used game sales hurt a segment of the industry, does not mean they hurt the entire industry. And if we are ignoring the legal and moral issues, only considering the business aspect, then empirically the fact that the used game industry's growth leads to a growth in the industry as a whole defeats any claim that used games sales is equal to piracy.

Kickinurass

"Empirically"? So you're assuming second hand helps the industry while piracy hurts it, despite you NOT knowing the effects piracy has on the industry? Just like that? Tsk, tsk, tsk...

By mentioning retailers you are - once again - trying to widen the scope of the discussion...and we are *not* interested in that. Only about DEVELOPERS.

Well maybe if devs nowadays made more Games that had actual substance/quality instead of Good Graphics to cover up it's shallow 6 hour long **** gameplay....then maybe there would be alot less people selling their games a month later to gamestop.

Used games isnt the same as piracy.

1. people are still paying for the product.

2.Devs still made money off original copy,they're just not getting a extra cut.

...so the argument really should be: Devs are greedy pigs that want more money.

It is pretty stupid however to buy a used game that's only $5 cheaper than a New copy.

Kandlegoat

Christ this is still going, a video game is a product just like any other, when the retailer buys the video games the dev/pub is getting paid, beyond that point a dev/pub just like any other manufacturer no longer has a right to that particular copy including any % of additional re-sales, if I wish to sell it on then thats my business the same way that if Gamestop or whoever wishes to buy that game from me that's their business and what they do with that game from after I sell it is up to them. people go yeah but thats ok for things like cars, video games are an IP so it's different. well lets take art for example a work of Art is sold by an artist to a buyer for an amount and the buyer sells it on to a collector as far as the artist is concerned he has been paid for his work, now lets say this work of art is popular so prints are produced, well provided the artist gets a cut of the money for the original sale of the prints then he has been paid for his work even if people then trade in second hand prints it is of no concern to the artist as he has been paid for every copy in existence, now if someone decides to buy one of these prints and use it as a template to produce their own prints and create copies to sell that the artist hasn't been paid for then that is wrong and is what we know as piracy. this is the difference. one is classed as wrong by certain companies as they see a potential new revenue stream, the other is classed as wrong because it's flat out plagiarism.

We are talking SPECIFICALLY of the effect they have on developers. We're not "narrowing the scope" - it's second hand apologists that are trying to widen it.

Who else would be talking about considering *they* are those who decide what to do to with their games to cash in on second hand sales :|

Mograine

We'd be talking about the game industry as a whole, narrowing the scope to game developers is a step away from reality. Why the hell would this dicussion occur in a vacuum?

Can I assume you're actually agreeing that second hand sales have a negative effect on the industry then? If the money is going back to the "industry" and not to the developers, that's bad. Pre-order DLC is *not* good for your wallet either.

Piracy is not thievery. It's piracy. You are not "leeching" anything, you create a copy of the product.

Its effects are unknown. Only speculation and counterspeculation are bred by piracy. You can assume all you want - you know well enough that this has been discussed a thousand times and counting and we can't conclude anything solid about its negativity.

Mograine

No, I am not agreeing. It's funny you started talking how we can't talk about morality in this case, yet by assuming that the needs of the developer are greater than the needs of the industry. That's a moral judgment! If we are truly considering this without morals, then the only thing we can measure is the growth of the industry versus the growth a sector.

Piracy is leeching. Theyare forming a relationship in which you take and give nothing in return to the industry that creates it. You may claim it's not thievery, but it's purely semantic. They are taking work that legally doesn't belong to them.

Just because used game sales hurt a segment of the industry, does not mean they hurt the entire industry. And if we are ignoring the legal and moral issues, only considering the business aspect, then empirically the fact that the used game industry's growth leads to a growth in the industry as a whole defeats any claim that used games sales is equal to piracy.

"Empirically"? So you're assuming second hand helps the industry while piracy hurts it, despite you NOT knowing the effects piracy has on the industry? Just like that? Tsk, tsk, tsk...

By mentioning retailers you are - once again - trying to widen the scope of the discussion...and we are *not* interested in that. Only about DEVELOPERS.

Mograine

I'm sure there are benefits to piracy. I'm sure most people buy systems with the only intent of pirating, in such a way that it does create a positive for the industry. And in that case, perhaps I was wrong in my earlier argument.

The funny thing is, you have just implicitly widened the argument though. Either we look at this as the industry view, in which piracy is a postive to hardware manufacturers, or we look at it in a vacuum, where piracy is detrimental to the game industry.

We'd be talking about the game industry as a whole, narrowing the scope to game developers is a step away from reality. Why the hell would this dicussion occur in a vacuum?

Kickinurass

A step away from reality? What the hell?

Who do you think decides what DRM a game gets :| ?

No, I am not agreeing. It's funny you started talking how we can't talk about morality in this case, yet by assuming that the needs of the developer are greater than the needs of the industry. That's a moral judgment! If we are truly considering this without morals, then the only thing we can measure is the growth of the industry versus the growth a sector.

Piracy is leeching. Theyare forming a relationship in which you take and give nothing in return to the industry that creates it. You may claim it's not thievery, but it's purely semantic. They are taking work that legally doesn't belong to them.Kickinurass

"The rest of the industry" - that only leaves the retailers. Retailers grow => developers need to rely more and more on them => retailers no longer act as a mean of distribution but also get a say in development => preorder DLC and such crap = BAD. It's NON NEGOTIABLE.

No, it's not purely semantic. The law is not dictated by YOU. You can't equate one to another just because it fits YOUR needs. This discussion has no purpose if we are at this kind of low :|

Why are you so STUCK on the legality point? We are NOT discussing that.

I'm sure there are benefits to piracy. I'm sure most people buy systems with the only intent of pirating, in such a way that it does create a positive for the industry. And in that case, perhaps I was wrong in my earlier argument.

The funny thing is, you have just implicitly widened the argument though. Either we look at this as the industry view, in which piracy is a postive to hardware manufacturers, or we look at it in a vacuum, where piracy is detrimental to the game industry.

Kickinurass

You cannot prove it is detrimental.

Repeat it until you get it through your hide. YOU - CANNOT - PROVE - IT'S - DETRIMENTAL. There's just no evidence of this. You are in complete denial if you think otherwise.

And again, we're only talking from the developer's PoV. They are the ones who call the shots on what DRM a game gets. Not hardware manufacturers.

A step away from reality? What the hell?

Who do you think decides what DRM a game gets :| ?

Mograine

I fail to see how that even relates to my point. Just because the game developer decide DRM policies means we should focus on unrealistic examples that only favor them? Forgive me if I don't agree with that.

"The rest of the industry" - that only leaves the retailers. Retailers grow => developers need to rely more and more on them => retailers no longer act as a mean of distribution but also get a say in development => preorder DLC and such crap = BAD. It's NON NEGOTIABLE.

No, it's not purely semantic. The law is not dictated by YOU. You can't equate one to another just because it fits YOUR needs. This discussion has no purpose if we are at this kind of low :|

Why are you so STUCK on the legality point? We are NOT discussing that.

Mograine

The rest of the industry includes publishers, retailers, promoters, reviewers and probably alot more people that I don't know about. It's not just retailers and developers. I don't see pre-order DLC see as bad, so again, i do not agree. I don't find it to a be a positive either - it applies a subjective middle ground depending on who you ask.

It is semantic. Please tell me the difference between pirating music and stealing music. You claim piracy is simply "copy" music, but I direct you to Merriam-Webster;

First defintion as a intransitive verb:to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice

First definition as a transitive verb:to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

The Dictionary defines stealing as

A pirate that takes downloads an ISO of a game, without contributing anything to the game industry in return, seems to fit the definition provided. I suppose you'll say I've twisted the definition to fit my needs, but I really don't think there's much headroom to argue any other way.I'm not twisting laws to suit my argument - I merely saying that the two terms are pretty much synonymous if one takes a look at any dictionary.

Also, I wasn't arguing the legality of used game sales - I was merely saying piracy is the same as stealing, ie the transferal of a copyrighted work when one has no right to do so. And no, this isn't an argument against used game sales, as the First Sale Doctrine describes the resell of copyrighted work as being a right of every American citizen.

You cannot prove it is detrimental.

Repeat it until you get it through your hide. YOU - CANNOT - PROVE - IT'S - DETRIMENTAL. There's just no evidence of this. You are in complete denial if you think otherwise.

And again, we're only talking from the developer's PoV. They are the ones who call the shots on what DRM a game gets. Not hardware manufacturers.

Mograine

Could you prove to me that isn't detrimental?

I consider it detrimental because it's a textbook example of a parasitic relationship. Pirates (the parasite) are benefitting from the act of pirating games, but offer no benefit to the the video game industry. Are you arguing with me that a parasitic relationship isn't a detrimental relationship to one party?

I don't understand your DRM point you keep bringing up. And I refuse to argue a position that only examines a incredible narrow part of a larger problem. It's akin to an ostrich sticking their head in the ground to escape for a predator - the illusion that game developers are the only important voice of the industry is surreal to me.

Lastly, calm down with your condescending smilies. There's no reason to get so worked up over this debate.

Edit: Wow, this post got butchered by an HTML error.

"The rest of the industry" - that only leaves the retailers. Retailers grow => developers need to rely more and more on them => retailers no longer act as a mean of distribution but also get a say in development => preorder DLC and such crap = BAD. It's NON NEGOTIABLE.

No, it's not purely semantic. The law is not dictated by YOU. You can't equate one to another just because it fits YOUR needs. This discussion has no purpose if we are at this kind of low :|

Mograine

We need to accept the fact that console gamers just do not get it. They want to equate the retail industry to the video game creation industry as a way to make used game sales acceptable. They cannot accept the fact that they are selling a game not once but a second time and pocketing the majority of the money from that second (and even third and fourth sales) while none of it gets to those who actually are spending money to create the games.

Until retail establishments start hiring modelers, programmers, artists and publish said games, they will never be part of the video game industry even though they sell video games and hardware. They are part of the retail industry and nothing more.

I can also tell that no one else here has sat down (even if it were a virtual sit down) and discussed game development and sales with a developer or even tried to understand what it takes to develop a game (I have been watching a game being built for the last 4 years or so) and sell said game.

I fail to see how that even relates to my point. Just because the game developer decide DRM policies means we should focus on unrealistic examples that only favor them? Forgive me if I don't agree with that.

Kickinurass

"Unrealistic examples"? They are not unrealistic AT ALL. They are the ones who dictate how DRM works, they are the ones who whine about second hand sales and piracy. There's NO WAY to widen the discussion and (realistically) understand their PoV and the effects second hand sales and piracy have on them. We aren't discussing anything else.

The rest of the industry includes publishers, retailers, promoters, reviewers and probably alot more people that I don't know about. It's not just retailers and developers. I don't see pre-order DLC see as bad, so again, i do not agree. I don't find it to a be a positive either - it applies a subjective middle ground depending on who you ask.Kickinurass

You don't see pre-order DLC as bad?

Wow, the discussion is getting weirder by the minute. Now it turns out that you don't even know what is good for you...

It is semantic. Please tell me the difference between pirating music and stealing music. You claim piracy is simply "copy" music, but I direct you to Merriam-Webster;

[QUOTE="The Dictionary defines stealing as"]

First defintion as a intransitive verb:to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice

First definition as a transitive verb:to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

Kickinurass

A pirate that takes downloads an ISO of a game, without contributing anything to the game industry in return, seems to fit the definition provided. I suppose you'll say I've twisted the definition to fit my needs, but I really don't think there's much headroom to argue any other way.I'm not twisting laws to suit my argument - I merely saying that the two terms are pretty much synonymous if one takes a look at any dictionary.

Also, I wasn't arguing the legality of used game sales - I was merely saying piracy is the same as stealing, ie the transferal of a copyrighted work when one has no right to do so. And no, this isn't an argument against used game sales, as the First Sale Doctrine describes the resell of copyrighted work as being a right of every American citizen.

By stealing you are DEPRIVING someone else from accessing/using/owning said item.
This does NOT happen in piracy. So indeed, there really isn't headroom to argue and it's not semantic subtlety - you are just plain WRONG.

Could you prove to me that isn't detrimental?

I consider it detrimental because it's a textbook example of a parasitic relationship. Pirates (the parasite) are benefitting from the act of pirating games, but offer no benefit to the the video game industry. Are you arguing with me that a parasitic relationship isn't a detrimental relationship to one party?Kickinurass

Completely wrong. You should use that dictionary of yours.

A parasitic relationship happens when one benefits AT THE EXPENSE of the other. There is 0 evidence that piracy causes an expense, unless you can prove otherwise.

I don't understand your DRM point you keep bringing up. And I refuse to argue a position that only examines a incredible narrow part of a larger problem. It's akin to an ostrich sticking their head in the ground to escape for a predator - the illusion that game developers are the only important voice of the industry is surreal to me.Kickinurass

"Narrow part of the problem"? You're arguing that developers shouldn't do what they think is their own good because "the industry" (in this case, retailers alone) are gaining from it and are continuously trying to dodge the main point - that piracy and second hand sales have the same impact on developers, in both cases somebody plays a game and they don't see a penny of it. I still don't understand wtf has the legality of piracy to do with this.

We need to accept the fact that console gamers just do not get it. They want to equate the retail industry to the video game creation industry as a way to make used game sales acceptable. They cannot accept the fact that they are selling a game not once but a second time and pocketing the majority of the money from that second (and even third and fourth sales) while none of it gets to those who actually are spending money to create the games.

Until retail establishments start hiring modelers, programmers, artists and publish said games, they will never be part of the video game industry even though they sell video games and hardware. They are part of the retail industry and nothing more.

I can also tell that no one else here has sat down (even if it were a virtual sit down) and discussed game development and sales with a developer or even tried to understand what it takes to develop a game (I have been watching a game being built for the last 4 years or so) and sell said game.

WhiteKnight77

Alas, that really seems to be the true.

It's sad that some people just cannot accept the fact that their bubble is about to be shaken. It's understandable that such drastic measures have to be taken in the midst of an economic crisis. It's not like they will endure forever either.

As many consolites said about PC when multiplat development became the norm, "they are killing their own platform".

We need to accept the fact that console gamers just do not get it. They want to equate the retail industry to the video game creation industry as a way to make used game sales acceptable. They cannot accept the fact that they are selling a game not once but a second time and pocketing the majority of the money from that second (and even third and fourth sales) while none of it gets to those who actually are spending money to create the games.

Until retail establishments start hiring modelers, programmers, artists and publish said games, they will never be part of the video game industry even though they sell video games and hardware. They are part of the retail industry and nothing more.

I can also tell that no one else here has sat down (even if it were a virtual sit down) and discussed game development and sales with a developer or even tried to understand what it takes to develop a game (I have been watching a game being built for the last 4 years or so) and sell said game.

WhiteKnight77

Because making movies, albums, books, cars, computer parts etc. is such a walk in the park? You don't think the design and development teams at, say, Ford work their asses off for years on end in order to get new models to market? Considering all the novel ideas car engineers and designers come up with, surely they should have some expectation of royalties on used sales as well, right? How fair is it that their $20,000+ product can be resold countless times (by their company's own dealerships, no less) without them ever seeing a dime?

For the thousandth time, why is this suddenly such a huge issue? Is the videogame industry on the brink of bankruptcy? Nope. Do publishers realize they're tied to this single revenue stream (ie retail game sales) and need to change before things go south? Nope, they're increasing the number of revenue streams with DLC, subscription services, and even non-gaming content like movies. Why, after so many years of companies of all types abiding by the first sale doctrine, are used sales suddenly such a dire problem for one of the most successful and fastest growing industries in the world?

Because making movies, albums, books, cars, computer parts etc. is such a walk in the park? You don't think the design and development teams at, say, Ford work their asses off for years on end in order to get new models to market? Considering all the novel ideas car engineers and designers come up with, surely they should have some expectation of royalties on used sales as well, right? How fair is it that their $20,000+ product can be resold countless times (by their company's own dealerships, no less) without them ever seeing a dime?

For the thousandth time, why is this suddenly such a huge issue? Is the videogame industry on the brink of bankruptcy? Nope. Do publishers realize they're tied to this single revenue stream (ie retail game sales) and need to change before things go south? Nope, they're increasing the number of revenue streams with DLC, subscription services, and even non-gaming content like movies. Why, after so many years of companies of all types abiding by the first sale doctrine, are used sales suddenly such a dire problem for one of the most successful and fastest growing industries in the world?

PBSnipes

It's not a problem that swollen up all of sudden, it's just that they want to maximize their profits.

I still can't bring myself to care about this issue. I will always get the game the cheapest way I can. If that means used, then so be it. I just don't care about the developer side of this issue.

Value of games are diminished, and third parties are profiting off of work they didn't do. Gamestop wouldn't be around, or at least, nearly as profitable as they are if they weren't profiting off of other companies hard work. I'm a big supporter of online passes, and hope they're a required part of any game with any sort of online content.

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

No the problem is, someone buys a new game and then sells it back or trades it in after a couple of days. The shop then puts the pre owned copy next to the new one and then sells it a bit cheaper. They will even ask you if you would like to buy a pre owned version of a game you were going to buy for cheaper, as they then get the full amount.