A different Piracy Idea

[Doitpow]

I'm not a huge fan of pirates, I also disagree with the demonisation of them, but in general I see that it's a bit of a dick move to rip off an artist...

<spoiler=but there is just one thing I don't understand><image=http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/peter-falk-columbo-msm-mainstream-media-oslo-norway-terror-sad-hill-news1.jpg>

People who say that pirating results in the artist/dev being ripped of are correct, but USED game sales damage them in just to same way. If not worse
to the dev
piracy=no money + 1 more person playing the game, who probably would not have bought the game...not good
used game sale=no money + 1 person WHO HAS DEFINITELY DECIDED TO PAY FOR THE GAME JUST NOT AT THE MARKET PRICE playing the game + one tangible less sale to the publisher (who will do all they can to pass of this loss onto the dev)...very not good.

Do you think it would be possible for 2nd hand distributors to be forced to pay a commision to the artist from their sales?
Say a dev. gets a 5% cut. The CEX/Gamestation/Gamestop could just tack the extra on (a £10 game now costs £10.50, I don't think any customer would care (espicially if you let them know exacly what it was for you could even use it as a PR campaign...shit I reckon you might be able to make it optional, people would probably do it if you described it in the right way.
"CEX supports developers of the games you love!" "Tip the developer" all that jazz

what do you think? Feasible?
probably a moot point when Digital ditribution really kicks of anyway...ho hum

Edit: Lol tot columbo misquote there...so much fail

 

[Doitpow]

thats essentially what project 10 dollar and day 1 dlc are designed to do.

Not really a new idea.

both those involved denying content to consumers, and were transparent attempts by publishers, not developers, to extort extra profit.

 

[Aeshi]

I must have missed the part where used games were both free and infinite in number.

 

[DoPo]

There is a missing image in the OP.

Anyway, what you're saying isn't exactly new. Jimquisition has a few [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4568-Online-Passes-Are-Bad-For-Everybody] episodes [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4720-Used-Games-Have-A-Right-To-Exist] on the matter [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4745-Fighting-The-Problem-Of-Used-Games] and has some related rants in others.

However, it does sound like a reasonable idea. The problem is how big do you make the cut? 5% is fine for customers and retailers but publishers probably wouldn't be happy. 10$ are a bit too much, however. "Tip the developer" sounds good to me[footnote]note these two words[/footnote]. However, we still hit the problem with how much do you pay? I'd gladly pay an extra quid or two for, say, a £5 game and that's 20%-40% on top of the price but would that sum satisfy anybody aside from me and the retailer? And we still hit the publishers problem. And that's a big problem - the publishers get the money, not the devs, the devs get a cut of that money. So out of my £2 I basically donated, they would get something between 30% and 60%[footnote]I don't really know what the usual cut is, but I think that at least sounds reasonable.[/footnote]

Well, to build on "tip the developers", maybe they can offer something extra for doing it. I can imagine this working similar to how open source makes some money - for example, selling manuals can be source of income, also technical support (I don't really know how they'd handle it, though). Now I'm oversimplifying here, obliviously, and I can actually see that fall apart if not handled extremely carefully.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

There is a missing image in the OP.

Yeah, and it's this:



That being said:

Do you think it would be possible for 2nd hand distributors to be forced to pay a commision to the artist from their sales?

Possible? Sure. A spectacularly bad precedent to set? Also sure. No other creative industry on Earth gets a cut of secondhand sales, and videogames should be no different. The publishers and developers already made their money on any individual copy got sold the first time. Beyond that, the first sale doctrine applies.

 

[Wolfram23]

I
used game sale=no money + 1 person WHO HAS DEFINITELY DECIDED TO PAY FOR THE GAME JUST NOT AT THE MARKET PRICE playing the game + one tangible less sale to the publisher (who will do all they can to pass of this loss onto the dev)...very not good.

A used game = 1 person who definitely DID buy the game at market price, and a second person who bought it for less. That's a pretty big difference.

Anyway, I don't see anything bad about making game distributors cough up a little change on used sales to the publishers, but I wonder how that would seep into the private sales market.

 

[DoPo]

Possible? Sure. A spectacularly bad precedent to set? Also sure. No other creative industry on Earth gets a cut of secondhand sales, and videogames should be no different. The publishers and developers already made their money on any individual copy got sold the first time. Beyond that, the first sale doctrine applies.

But video games don't have to do the same thing everybody does. They don't even do it now. Or at least I haven't recently bought an additional plot ark for a movie that nobody else gets, nor have I bought a book and afterwards paid some extra for a fancier font. Also, if we use other industries as example, where does cinema fall in? Last time I checked I couldn't sell back the movie after I watched it. I could only if I bought it on a DVD for example - games don't have that luxury. Same thing goes for converts - what is similar to a concert in games? Also, I'm pretty sure that movie companies get paid for showing their movies on TV.

I don't think that analogy works, besides the video games are software - it is possible to pay for second hand software. Well, not literally second hand (not always, at least), but rather one you acquired and didn't give any money to the devs.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Honestly, they really should be going after the retailers for their "lost" income rather than the gamers who sometimes have little choice.
Places like gamestop limit the new stock of games to those that were pre-ordered and jack up the prices of used to near new prices. So it's not really the consumers fault as their only option is paying for a game before it comes out and nobody knows if it's any good OR buying the used copy which is the only thing available to them. As places like gamestop put the customer in a no-win situation, it's real shitty for the publishers to put the responsibility of the lost income on them.

OP- I don't agree that a used sale is a lost new sale. As someone who used to buy used (before gamestop got their near monopoly and gouged the market; and used games were more than a $2 savings) because it was all he could afford, a used sale isn't necessarily a lost new sale. I just wouldn't have had most of my collection if the used market wasn't available. I can see how a used sale at gamestop could equal a lost new sale (as it's only $2 short) but once again, the blame lies with gamestop rather than the consumer.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

First sale doctrine pretty much means no you can't.

 

[Jodah]

Why is it that game publishers get away with bitching about used game sales but car manufacturers, house builders, authors, move makers, and countless other product creators don't care or, at least, don't make noise about it?

No, used game stores should not, in any way what-so-ever, be forced to pay game manufacturers for used games. If they do it will be the beginning of the end for any used product market.

 

[omega 616]

piracy=no money + 1 more person playing the game, who probably would not have bought the game...not good
used game sale=no money + 1 person WHO HAS DEFINITELY DECIDED TO PAY FOR THE GAME JUST NOT AT THE MARKET PRICE playing the game + one tangible less sale to the publisher (who will do all they can to pass of this loss onto the dev)...very not good.

It seems somehow that this site (not based on this thread) has got to a place that says "piracy = bad but used games = worst thing ever".

Piracy actually = 1 game bought but enjoyed by thousands.

Used game = bought once, enjoyed by 2 ... maybe 3 or 4 if a bit of whore. The big difference is once the game is sold and bought again the first person can't play it.

 

[DEAD34345]

I don't see why these theoretical "lost sales" are an issue. We don't owe publishers or developers anything, they're merely offering a product we may or may not wish to buy, whether it's bought directly from them, through a retailer, or through some other 3rd party. If people aren't willing to pay for these products, that's not an issue to us, the consumers. If people want to sell on their games that's also not an issue for us, the consumers. In fact it's a right of ours that game companies seem intent on taking away in order to line their own pockets.

So why the hell do we have people on their side on this!? Why do we have people that honestly go out of their way to help publishers, developers and whoever else get more money at our expense? We surely know they would never do the same for us, don't we?

I just don't get it. Have I missed out on some mass-brainwashing or something?

 

[Baldr]

Honestly, they really should be going after the retailers for their "lost" income rather than the gamers who sometimes have little choice.
Places like gamestop limit the new stock of games to those that were pre-ordered and jack up the prices of used to near new prices. So it's not really the consumers fault as their only option is paying for a game before it comes out and nobody knows if it's any good OR buying the used copy which is the only thing available to them. As places like gamestop put the customer in a no-win situation, it's real shitty for the publishers to put the responsibility of the lost income on them.

OP- I don't agree that a used sale is a lost new sale. As someone who used to buy used (before gamestop got their near monopoly and gouged the market; and used games were more than a $2 savings) because it was all he could afford, a used sale isn't necessarily a lost new sale. I just wouldn't have had most of my collection if the used market wasn't available. I can see how a used sale at gamestop could equal a lost new sale (as it's only $2 short) but once again, the blame lies with gamestop rather than the consumer.

Exactly, as a Game Artist and developer, I don't mind the sale of used games, what I mind is retail undercutting new game sales over a matter of a few dollars. I know it is good for that retail, but it is bad for the industry overall. That less money going back into the development of new games. Luckily the game industry has been putting pressure on store like Gamestop to stop this practice in the past couple months. I think Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. may have scared Gamestop.

 

[targren]

ITT: "A different idea" is the exact same idea all over again.

These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along.

 

[Rude as HECK]

The argument about used sales is, quite frankly, fraudulent.

Copyright itself is the tool used to artificially restrict supply, so that copyright holders can profit off of said monopoly. To then attempt to extend this to secondary sales is just abhorrent- the produces have already had the ability to profit off their work, in the form of the original copyright.

There's a reason this argument isn't taken seriously anywhere outside the bleatings of those with vested interests- it's an utterly nonsensical proposition, one that effectively attempts to double the copyrights already granted to the producers.

It's simply a case of trying to have it both ways. Copyright is designed to make incorporeal products scarce, so that they are able to be traded. The current "ideas" about used sales, far from protection copyrights, strike right at the heart of their intended purpose.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Honestly, they really should be going after the retailers for their "lost" income rather than the gamers who sometimes have little choice.
Places like gamestop limit the new stock of games to those that were pre-ordered and jack up the prices of used to near new prices. So it's not really the consumers fault as their only option is paying for a game before it comes out and nobody knows if it's any good OR buying the used copy which is the only thing available to them. As places like gamestop put the customer in a no-win situation, it's real shitty for the publishers to put the responsibility of the lost income on them.

OP- I don't agree that a used sale is a lost new sale. As someone who used to buy used (before gamestop got their near monopoly and gouged the market; and used games were more than a $2 savings) because it was all he could afford, a used sale isn't necessarily a lost new sale. I just wouldn't have had most of my collection if the used market wasn't available. I can see how a used sale at gamestop could equal a lost new sale (as it's only $2 short) but once again, the blame lies with gamestop rather than the consumer.

Exactly, as a Game Artist and developer, I don't mind the sale of used games, what I mind is retail undercutting new game sales over a matter of a few dollars. I know it is good for that retail, but it is bad for the industry overall. That less money going back into the development of new games. Luckily the game industry has been putting pressure on store like Gamestop to stop this practice in the past couple months. I think Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. may have scared Gamestop.

And as a developer you should also appreciate the fact that used game purchasers used to be able to get more games for their dollar, that means more chance of them finding another game they really like, and more chance of them getting the follow up to said game at launch. I think publishers forget that used game purchasers do sometimes buy new games when they're looking forward to something and also get new games as gifts.

But I want to ask you another question. I get the impression that devs don't like online pass & day 1 dlc because it threatens the integrity of the title that so much hard work has gone into.
I know that when I work hard on a creative venture, I just want as many people as possible to experience it regardless of what they pay and I sure as hell wouldn't want them to experience a butchered version of it. Is that the perception of schemes like online pass within the dev circle?
I just feel like I would feel insulted if I was the one who worked on one of the LA Noir cases (for example) that was cut from the original game so it could be a pre-order bonus for one particular retailer.

 

[esperandote]

piracy=no money + 1 more person playing the game, who probably would not have bought the game...not good
used game sale=one person that bought the game full price (money), another person that bought the game at a lower price (no money), the first person is gameless and, based on previous behaviour, is likely to buy a new full price game (money again), buyers rights are sustained... good

 

[boag]

What I'd think would be hilarious though, was if each time a game was inserted into a new machine it "worsened" a little bit. Not as many ammo drops, aim a bit off, resolution lower, colors missing, just a whole range of little things that could be done to reacquaint the software purchaser with the idea that used means used, not just cheaper.

That sounds like a horribly trollish idea, I dont even want to think about any publisher implementing it.

 

[Vivi22]

used game sale=no money + 1 person WHO HAS DEFINITELY DECIDED TO PAY FOR THE GAME JUST NOT AT THE MARKET PRICE playing the game + one tangible less sale to the publisher (who will do all they can to pass of this loss onto the dev)...very not good.

I disagree with you here for three reasons.

First, the person who buys a used game is not necessarily a lost sale. If the publisher doesn't offer the game at the price they want, then no sale has been lost because the person wouldn't buy it new anyway. Maybe, it would be a lost sale if that game is offered at that price months or a year down the road and they would have bought it then. But it's just as likely that a price conscious consumer would pass it over for newer options which cater to their wallet if they were forced to wait since the majority of sales happen in the first few months. The publisher loses little here, but what they do lose is due to their reliance on an outdated and inflexible retail model.

Second, a used sale does not mean the publisher gets no money. They already made money from the initial sale to the original owner. And since only one can use the game at any given time, the transfer of ownership doesn't mean any more people are enjoying the game at the same time than before.

Third, used sales also help drive new sales. Don't believe me? Think about how many used copies are available in stores within days, not to mention the first few months of a game being released. The people who buy new and then trade in aren't just trading in to get money back. They're trading in to get the next new title they want at launch. A lot of people who shell out money on day one to get a brand new game would stop if they couldn't trade in their old games anymore, or at the very least, they'd drastically cut down on how much they purchase new throughout the year, and as we already established, the people waiting for used games aren't going to buy new regardless unless prices drop quite a bit.

Publishers like to ***** and moan about used sales, but either they've never thought about the impact actually stopping them or cutting them back would do, or they have, and they know they'll never stop it, but they use it as an excuse to fleece customers for more money and convince them it's a good thing. I'm not betting on the former myself.

 

[teisjm]

Well, should this go for all second hand stuff then? why just games?

You selling some of your old music at a garage sale, make sure to send 10% t the artists, regardless of the fact that you're selling what they were already paid for, when you initially bought it, you're just passing on what you own.

How bout used cars? should the manufacturers get a cut every time the car is resold?

Used clothes as well?

How bout houses? isn't it just as unfair, that the entrepenours, engineers, architects and craftsmen, who develpoed, and constructed the building in question doesn't get a cut every time the house is resold?
If you wanna add project 10$ logic here, when you buy a house, you should pay the construction company some cash, on top of what you're buying the house for, in order to get the garage key...

As long as companies are selling their goods, they have no right, to ask for a cut, when you resell what you bought from them. They would have to change their market scheme from selling you a product, to selling you a personal permission, to use their work, but without any ownership over the disc you take home.

How bout borrowing games from friends? should the be with an added fee to the devs?
What if i have a friend over, and we play a game i've bought, should i tell him he can't use the controller and play along/take his turn in said game, untill he wires some money to the dev company?

Game companies are already limmiting costumers way beyond what any other bussines i know of does... Imagine the outrage, if Dvds had to be unlocked if you gave it to someone else, or CD's for that matter.

The industry should stop whining, they're already getting away with far more than any other bussiness i know off, and still they're crying about not beeing able to hold the costumers in a tight enough iron grip...