it won,t get fixed.
Piracy is a service problem people don't want to pay money releasing it on Steam/Origin will fix it since you can lower the price more easily (Portal 2 went from 50 to 20 euro,s in a few days).
Another way to fix piracy is re-releasing older games I wouldn't be surprised if various people here on the escapist resorted to piracy because the game was out of print (like System Shock)
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.
"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."
What on earth do you mean?
" Same thing goes for converts - what is similar to a concert in games?"
How about MMOs or arcade games, where you pay for the time?
"Also, I'm pretty sure that movie companies get paid for showing their movies on TV."
The network airing a movie buys a license to show it. I don't get entirely what you're getting at here, but the right to distribute games is bought and sold quite frequently, too.
Look, I'm a fine artist, so let me explain why used games aren't the same as pirating in another medium to help clarify it.
So, let's say I make a pretty painting and sell it. They put it up on their wall for a while, then go and sell it at a museum because they want money and the local museum wants the work of local artists.
Have I been wronged because the museum did not pay me for the painting, and payed the previous owner instead?
No, I haven't. I sold that painting and now it is not my possession. I made it, yes, but once they bought the privileged to own that one painting and then passed it on to another.
While you seem to argue that the experience of the game is being duplicated or something, isn't everything in a way an experience? Did those people not buy the experience of having that painting on the wall, which they will keep even after they sold it to the museum?
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.
Firstly, there can be a infinite amount of pirated downloads for one game since it is hosted through the internet.
Secondly with Used Games. There can only be one copy of a used game at one time, and in order for it to become a used game then it would have had to be bought new somewhere at the begging of the sales transactions. This means there are a equal number of used games to the amount of games published by the dev/publisher.
Used games are not bad, and are in fact hurting the industry less when the dev already gained money for their creation, these used games don't just appear out of thin air.
Publishers love to *****, loooovvvveee to *****. They ***** when their game gets a bad score, they ***** when they don't make X amount of money and shut down Y company, they ***** when their greedy tactics don't work. So many cases. If I buy a game new, and it isn't digital, then I should be allowed to do what I please with it. I can sell the game to a friend or trade it back into the store, sure I'm not allowed to straight up start selling the games 60$ on a street corner, but I should be able to do one of those two, sell it to a friend or give it back to the store.
I'm not a evil scoundrel since I bought the damn thing, and I'm not going to get into the laws that allow me to do this because I'll probably mess it up. Places like Gamestop wouldn't exist without used game sales. They physically wouldn't be able to.
Do you want hundreds to lose their jobs so a publisher can gain more then 10,000,000 a year?
xSKULLY said:
next console generation all sales will be on the xblm and piracy and used games will cease to be a problem
Neither will end in the fullest. Even for gaming long after we all went cloud the consoles themselves could be sold second hand and the circle comes again full circle. Piracy will always be a issue, there is no technical way to change that, since Piracy is basically using a game in its fullest form without buying it.
Well, should this go for all second hand stuff then? why just games?
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...
Irrelevant points there - these are physical products.
teisjm said:
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.
Music artists have those things called concerts which get them extra money on top of just music sales. Software doesn't have that.
teisjm said:
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...
OK, I see - you haven't heard of Microsoft Windows. Let me enlighten you - when you buy a copy, you go ahead and activate it. You can't just give your copy of windows to somebody else afterwards. Also, OS X -if you run it on something that is not an Apple Mac (i.e. Hackintosh) you don't get full support. As in, after an update you might find that OS X refuses to boot up.
Do you consider that less limiting?
henritje said:
it won,t get fixed.
Piracy is a service problem people don't want to pay money releasing it on Steam/Origin will fix it since you can lower the price more easily
Piracy is partly a service problem. Not entirely. Not all people choose to get their games, etc. completely free of charge because they are too expensive otherwise or because the logistics are inconvenient. Some people are pirate stuff because it is completely free of charge.
Well, should this go for all second hand stuff then? why just games?
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...
Congrats, you've hit the central point. But here's the thing: Copyright is the method used to artificially create scarcity, so that goods like games, music, etc can be traded as if they were physical products. Because of this, saying that teisjm's logic doesn't apply no longer makes sense. It does- because of copyright.
Somewhat ironically, the used game argument would make more sense if there were no copyright. But since it does exist, well, I refer you to my last post. The people pushing for these just plain weird policies are trying to have it both ways, and encapsulate perfectly Information Feudalism.
Well, should this go for all second hand stuff then? why just games?
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...
Irrelevant points there - these are physical products.¨
not sure why that is irrelevant, specifically, when we're talking about physical copies of games, and not piracy. Theres a lot of costs to say a car, apart from the raw materials used to make it, an there are copyright protecting the intelectual property of the designers of cars
teisjm said:
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.
Music artists have those things called concerts which get them extra money on top of just music sales. Software doesn't have that.
what about Dvd's then? they're digital, i know tehres theater showings, but still?
how bout games with DLC? MW2 got away with releasing 5 maps for 10$, some of them were even from MW1, and didn't even have to be designed or anything.
How bout games witgh micro transactions, where you can buy more power, or just vanity items, they have continous sources of income after launch.
If the devs play their cares right, they can even get commercial income from product placement i'd think. Take any game set in a current time city, since it's already trying to immitate real life, and sometimes even a real city, commercial banners, like a coca cola poster on a wall (not pop-ups) in that city would only add to the authencity of the experience, and if movies can make money off of it, why not games?
teisjm said:
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?
again, i have to ask why?
I've played several games that i never owned or had paid for, becaouse i borrowed it from a friend, and played through it.I don't think it matters on the developers whether someone plays their game without them recieving a cent because they borrowed it, or bought it used.
Since we're in essence discussing whether or not developers should just sell their stuff and then thats it, or whether they should maintain some sort of ownership over the physical copies, so they'd get a cut from second hand sales, i don't see how this is irellevant.
I have a hard time, coming up with "solutions" to second hand game sales, that wouldn't affect borrowing games as well, since both are basicly giving someone else the physical copy of the game, and whether they pay gamestop money, or just shake hands with their friend doesn't change the devs profit.
teisjm said:
Gamesoftware 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...
OK, I see - you haven't heard of Microsoft Windows. Let me enlighten you - when you buy a copy, you go ahead and activate it. You can't just give your copy of windows to somebody else afterwards. Also, OS X -if you run it on something that is not an Apple Mac (i.e. Hackintosh) you don't get full support. As in, after an update you might find that OS X refuses to boot up.
Do you consider that less limiting?
scratched games, wrote software instead, you happy now? i guess it goes for digital purchase of music/movies as well, which, and i may be wrong here, technically isn't software but files
Heck, i would only find it fair, if i could give my copy of windows away to someone else, if i bought a new version.
As far as i know i've actually done that before, since it came on a disc, and could be re-installed.
If i couldn't reinstall the software in question on a new computer, it would kind of make me loose all my old products, when i upgraded, and got a new pc
Well, should this go for all second hand stuff then? why just games?
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...
not sure why that is irrelevant, specifically, when we're talking about physical copies of games, and not piracy. Theres a lot of costs to say a car, apart from the raw materials used to make it, an there are copyright protecting the intelectual property of the designers of cars
Can you or can you not use a car indefinitely? Are you or are you not forced to buy a new car at some point at the future? In light of this, should you or should you not treat software different to physical products?
Let me explain - a car breaks down and wears out because that's in it's nature. Very few things are eternal and do not degrade at all. Unless put some effort (and money) into it, the car would last you, say, a decade (for the sake of the argument, let's say that is the case I don't know an actual figure). Software would be the same quality whether you purchased it today, a couple of months ago or several years ago. Proper effort to preserve it is minimal. I'm not talking about them getting outdated or behind the times, nor any extra touches that extend the usefulness of the product (put a better engine in the car, update/put addons to the software) - just the quality of the product itself. Software doesn't degrade, doesn't lose quality (it does, however, get behind the quality of everything else).
So, as for my second question - since the actual value and usefulness of the physical product degrade, you will have to replace them, otherwise they just stop working at some point. A car will run for 10 years (example again) and then it wouldn't. It wouldn't be fit for the job it did all this time. Software that does the same job for 10 years can continue doing it for another decade if it needs to. You are not forced to change it. Now there is the question of whether or not a new one would perform better, but for the sake of the example, let's limit ourselves to games - here's a personal example - I like playing Crimsonland - it's a top down shooter where you mow down waves after waves of stuff. I played it eight[footnote]And only now I realise how old it is[/footnote] years ago, I play it today. I am not required to buy a new game that does the same thing because Crimsonland is fit for the job.
When we couple those thing, you can see where the problem is. Let's use another hypothetical example: Car Company Unltd. makes 10 000 cars a year and sells them. People buy them then they can resell them (for a lower price) but eventually people still buy the cars. Even if there are people who buy second hand cars from CCU, there are another 10 000 that buy them new. And the used cars will stop working after time and disappear from the market. Now, Game Manufacturer Corporation ships 10 000 copies of a game. Second hand copies don't disappear from the market, they stay around generally forever. Gamers do not need to buy fresh copies after a while because the old ones aren't fit any more.
Of course, the above example is very simplified and not at all perfect but it serves to illustrate the fact that software shouldn't automatically be treated as a physical product.
teisjm said:
DoPo said:
teisjm said:
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.
what about Dvd's then? they're digital, i know tehres theater showings, but still?
how bout games with DLC? MW2 got away with releasing 5 maps for 10$, some of them were even from MW1, and didn't even have to be designed or anything.
How bout games witgh micro transactions, where you can buy more power, or just vanity items, they have continous sources of income after launch.
If the devs play their cares right, they can even get commercial income from product placement i'd think. Take any game set in a current time city, since it's already trying to immitate real life, and sometimes even a real city, commercial banners, like a coca cola poster on a wall (not pop-ups) in that city would only add to the authencity of the experience, and if movies can make money off of it, why not games?
My point was that if you have a movie that sells 1000 DVDs and a game that sells 1000 copies (assuming they are the same price), movies would still make more money because of the theatre showings.
However, I fully agree with what you said and that seems to be the direction where everything is going. But it's still a too immature concept.
teisjm said:
DoPo said:
teisjm said:
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?
again, i have to ask why?
I've played several games that i never owned or had paid for, becaouse i borrowed it from a friend, and played through it.I don't think it matters on the developers whether someone plays their game without them recieving a cent because they borrowed it, or bought it used.
Since we're in essence discussing whether or not developers should just sell their stuff and then thats it, or whether they should maintain some sort of ownership over the physical copies, so they'd get a cut from second hand sales, i don't see how this is irellevant.
I have a hard time, coming up with "solutions" to second hand game sales, that wouldn't affect borrowing games as well, since both are basicly giving someone else the physical copy of the game, and whether they pay gamestop money, or just shake hands with their friend doesn't change the devs profit.
Appeal to ridicule - in that first post you tried to portray the idea as pathetic instead of making an argument why it wasn't needed.
With that said, I already talked about how software was different to physical products. Games in particular suffer slightly more from it because they try to treat them as if they were a piece of clothing or a brick. Digital goods are not exactly cheap to produce and publishers are known to crush developers. Choices are limited you either try to do it yourself, find another publisher and hope for the best or grit your teeth and try to endure.
I actually don't know if devs should get a cut for second hand sales. I personally feel they should. Not if you hand your copy of ShooterX to your buddy for five bucks and a beer, I mean actual retail sales. I'd prefer to buy a game at reduced price rather than second hand because at least that way money goes to the people who made it and they get a (minuscule, I suppose) satisfaction from having another customer. Gamestop or whatever deprive the people that matter of both of those.
teisjm said:
DoPo said:
teisjm said:
Gamesoftware 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...
OK, I see - you haven't heard of Microsoft Windows. Let me enlighten you - when you buy a copy, you go ahead and activate it. You can't just give your copy of windows to somebody else afterwards. Also, OS X -if you run it on something that is not an Apple Mac (i.e. Hackintosh) you don't get full support. As in, after an update you might find that OS X refuses to boot up.
scratched games, wrote software instead, you happy now? i guess it goes for digital purchase of music/movies as well, which, and i may be wrong here, technically isn't software but files
Heck, i would only find it fair, if i could give my copy of windows away to someone else, if i bought a new version.
As far as i know i've actually done that before, since it came on a disc, and could be re-installed.
If i couldn't reinstall the software in question on a new computer, it would kind of make me loose all my old products, when i upgraded, and got a new pc
Well, by making it unobtrusive. By making the game worth it in the first place. Modularity is a good thing - sell the core package and people can pay extra to pimp it out. But they shouldn't have to. Offer something the used game retailer cannot offer the customers. Or charge a small percentage - 10% wouldn't make that much of a difference, would it? You can even combine that 10% cut with something else, for example make it optional but give people something for it. Extra skins or something.
These are general ideas, for more check out the Jumquisution episodes I linked to in the beginning, as well as, the Extra Credits episode called Project Ten Dollar (s1e10).
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
If you had spent any time here you would know that this idea is not new or different. NO! It is and has always been a horrible idea to make used sellers pay a fee to the original manufacturer of a product. Games are not special and if it happened with games it would soon happen with every other used good. NO!
Nope. See the jimquisition. He put it better than I can but here are some of his points. Every used copy represents a purchased copy rather than piracy which is one purchased copy being replicated infinately with no money what so ever going back to the publishers/devs. A used market exists in many other markets for example cars and the manufacturers dont throw hissy fits and remove features if you havent bought it new. Why is gaming so different.
No it does not. It means the consumer gets the choice if he wants to pay for the content "premium" customers got. If they like the game it's probably worth the price to toss out some cash for DLC, but if they aren't sure about the game it's less risky to buy used and rather get the missed content when they can afford it or when they are sure they like the game. Forcing the party selling used to pay a commission would mean we rewrite the laws of the market. That's not something that is easily done. It means to change laws for every country that has used video game stores. It means that all websites like eBay will have to stop their practice or introduce fees that will make them useless in either case.
Let's take a copy of GTA IV. Rockstar puts the effort in to develop the game, package a copy, and put it on a store shelf. For this, that copy costs 59.99. Player A buys it and plays it, Rockstar has been compensated for the work they did bringing that copy to market, everyone's happy.
Player A then gets bored of it and decided to sell it. So he puts it on eBay. Player B buys it for 30 bucks. Player A gets his fair share for the effort it took to list, package, and ship his copy of the game, for which he is compensated by player B.
Problem of used games never was problem of person A selling the game to person B on e-bay. It's a problem of big retail chains that promote used games over new copies which directly cuts into publisher/developer profits. Those retailers even instruct their employees to always propose used game over fresh copy at check out to buyers.
See Your money You spend in a game shop does not go to developer. He has been paid already when the shop ordered the batch of boxes. Your money goes to the shop for future products among many other things. Now, let's say the store estimates They will sell about 1000 boxes of game, logical thing is to order a bit over that to have some back-up supply. With used games however They order less, because They know they can sell single copy several times. It directly affects "demand" on fresh copies.
Second-hand sales haven't hurt every single other industry on this planet. They don't hurt game devs either. The simple fact of the matter is, they're not doing any additional work to facilitate that second sale of that copy, therefore they aren't entitled to a single cent of the proceeds. It's no different when someone buys a second-hand Corvette, GM isn't entitled to and doesn't receive any of the money spent buying that secondhand 'vette.
And You know that how? Thing is different media found other ways to monetize their products. a movie first get it's money from cinema screening, then from DVD sales and eventually from licensing to TV stations. That's 3 different stream of revenue in case one of them doesn't do that good.
Music industry - licensing to radio stations/music TVs, concerts, CD/mp3 sale. Again 3 streams of revenue for single product You invest into.
Books - That's a specific one, but book market is generally the boy-to-beat. People don't buy books unless it's one of those super popular series (Harry Potter, Twilight, etc.) They just got used to the fact and are happy if anyone is willing to pay for it at all, plus making a book is lot cheaper than making a movie/game.
Games however... There is no other way to pull revenue from a game than sell it. You can't really monetize it in other ways, unless You would ask every game commentator/let's play maker to pay You royalties which would only antagonize Your customer base.
Oh for fuck sake, nobody cares about used game sales! Sorry, let me reword that. Oh for fuck sake, nobody should care about used game sales apart from the publishers!
You have lost nothing from used game sales. The developers have lost nothing from used game sales. The publishers have lost nothing from used game sales. You're the victim of exaggerated whining on the part of the billionaire publishers that want to grab every penny they can, even if they aren't entitled to it. They use language and patents to try and slime their way into every pocket and get hold of everything they can and you're playing right into their hands.
This is how I imagine a conversation about this would go down with you and a publisher.
Publisher: On this game we lost out on $5 million to used game sales alone, frankly we're surprised we're still afloat.
You: That's terrible, how much did you even make from it with such high losses?
Pub: Only $13 million.
You: An outrage I say! An outrage! We, the community, must resolve this issue right away. We will guilt people into giving you more money by calling you the developer and we'll demonise the issue by saying it's worse than piracy!
Pub: Okay, now can I have that $20 in your pocket? I really need to keep my hundreds for the yacht club
The developers get paid by their employers. Their employers get paid by the publishers. The publishers give them the money during the project, not at the end. The money made from sales goes entirely to the publisher. These publishing companies usually make vast amounts of money from the games they put out regardless of used game sales and you can't deny people the option of selling something they bought or force someone to give the publisher money for buying it.
Try worrying about someone more important than the billion dollar companies like the indie developers that scrape through the process of making their game and then get crushed because some AAA game had millions spent on PR and overshadowed it's release.
You really don't realize the difference between used cars or any other physical object and media? You know that used, 3-4 year old car is vastly different from a fresh one, yes? You know that things like mileage, engine use, all the components use up, You loose warranty, You pay higher insurance rate, etc.? Not to mention that whenever something breaks in Your car You have to buy new parts, which, if You want quality ones, are usually produced by the car manufacturer. All physical goods like cars or TVs loose value over time pretty quickly.
Game doesn't change. The bytes don't change over time. Game You bought 10 years ago is -exactly- the same today as it was back then. Sure the CD may be a little bit scratched (You can resurface it pretty cheap these days), but overall the data did not change at all. I can still load up my 1989 Prince of Persia from a floppy if I wanted to and it will be just the same as back when i played it on my Amstrad.
Your 10 year Honda will probably be after several service visits, with things like timing belt and tensioner or breaks exchanged because the components got used up over the time.
If You fail to see this, then sorry, You are simply ignorant and You do not understand at all how used markets work.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
