A different Piracy Idea

[Epona]

*snipped*

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.

What you fail to see is that none of that matters where the First Sale Doctrine is concerned. A car that was barely driven and was protected in a garage with a cover over it can also be sold used and it still wouldn't matter.

 

[Epona]

Here's the thing, it isn't just Gamestop selling used games anymore. Best Buy is, Wal Mart is and probably other big box stores are too. Amazon is in that group as well. That tells me that retailers are not making enough on new sales. Maybe publishers should consider giving retailers a bigger cut of that $60 because the used market is getting bigger for a reason. Maybe they would prefer that Wal Mart/Best Buy/Amazon just stop stocking games? Something has to give.

However, I think the publishers will continue whining about used sales and continue punishing customers instead of looking at one of the major reasons that used sales are growing.

Also, this whole idiotic idea that buying a game used is the same as piracy is ridiculous. I, everyone really, should just ignore people who display this kind of "logic".

 

[Keava]

*snip*

Box, manual, etc. are not really game aren't they? They are "Freebies" You get with the license to play the game You buy. The slight difference between actual physical item and intellectual property sales. And mint conditions are something that's really used only by collectioners. For average user it doesn't matter, because they buy a game to play it, not to put it on shelf and pray to the box.

Aagin on a new car You don't have to spend much on maintenance unless You plan to use it for over 2-3 years. Lot of people these days usually change cars before They have to invest in them and so the costs fall down to the second buyer. Something that doesn't really happen with media. You buy a game new or fresh, You have exactly same content/experience without additional costs. Hence companies came up with project 10$ and similar ideas.

I fail to see how a second-hand buyer is entitled to exactly same quality/quantity of service as someone who actually buys their copies fresh. You decide to buy used - you agree to consequences, it's been like that with used-items market for ages, but somehow "gamers" think They are better.

Of course. They could lower the price of games to 30$, but how much would They earn per copy then? You really think the retailer pays 60$ per box? 20-40% of the price is markup set by retailers, another 15-20% is royalties for the console manufacturer. In effect only ~40-50% goes back to publisher, sometimes less.
Now of course, digital distribution is supposed to skip the retailer and should be cheaper, but retailers aren't stupid. They know they still make up about half of the market and there already been cases of them threatening publisher to not stock games if the price of Steam/etc. will be lower than B&M. That's also the reason that some retailers get those fancy exclusive pre-order gears with special DLCs. They pretty much outright say "give us special stuff or You won't see Your game on our shelves".
If studios would drop the pricing down to 30$ They suddenly would only be getting 10-15$ per box and that's before You subtract marketing, packaging, etc. While those are minimal costs, with such little profit per box it would add up quickly.
Production costs over last years actually went up, with everyone being cray with voice overs and higher fidelity visuals. Over last 4-5 years prices of everything went up and games are pretty much keeping stable price point, preferring to increase Their profit by additional content instead.

What you fail to see is that none of that matters where the First Sale Doctrine is concerned. A car that was barely driven and was protected in a garage with a cover over it can also be sold used and it still wouldn't matter.

And it also often will be reflected in price of such used car, being very close to a new one. You can only keep something like that in near-perfect condition for pretty limited period of time and You still will get less in terms of "service" from manufacturer than if You would buy a new car.

 

[Epona]

And it also often will be reflected in price of such used car, being very close to a new one. You can only keep something like that in near-perfect condition for pretty limited period of time and You still will get less in terms of "service" from manufacturer than if You would buy a new car.

Used games are sold for $5 less than new, what are you complaining about?

 

[BRex21]

pretty much the only time i buy used is when im going to take a chance on a release i have only a little bit of interest in a title and its cheap. It really wont represent 1 lost sale to the producers of this product because quite frankly i never had the interest to buy new until the price got so low that it probably would have left store shelves. Personally i LIKE day one DLC, as a reward for my purchasing new the people who made this media give me a little something extra, however i think publishers are dead wrong in their abilities to implement this.
If Bethesda offered "complete packs" with their games, that cost more money, but got the full benefit of DLC when it was released I WOULD BUY THAT. However since i absolutely hate the process of accessing a exclusive website to trade real money for fake money in allotments either insufficient for or far grater than the purchase price.... you get the idea. I could also NOT BUY SKYRIM until they come out with the complete edition and save myself some headache. Oh and don't get me started with EA limiting the amount of games delivered to brick and mortar stores, its just stupid when i'm being told i CAN'T preorder a game. What i cant trade money for this? But i can download it for free online? wait, i got started.
Quite frankly, you CAN'T get rid of piracy, there is no software that cant be cracked there is no police force big enough to track down all these piddly little crimes and there are no laws that can scare people away from it without being completely ridiculous. Selling a convenient service what they need is to promote day one sales, not to piss off their fanbase by treating us all like criminals in waiting.

 

[teisjm]

Spoiler: snip

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

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.

Some physical products last idefinitely, or sortof at least, rolex watches, zippo lighters and a load of other stuff comes with life time warrenty.
A lot of software becomes outdated beyond usage. OS's looses support, and newer programs won't neccecerily run on them.
Games looses support/server hosting, or shuts down completely, like APB, the matrix MMO thingy, Halo1 servers as far as i read, and probably tons of others.
Other software just gets so outdated it cannot be used for it's former purpose since whatever bussiness it's used in has moved on, that won't happen to cars anytime soon.

Spoiler: snip

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?

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.

Still, games are usually 2-3 times more expensive (at least where i live) I can buy a game new, for more than i'd spend if i watched a movie in the theater(even a full night movie in 3d) and bought the blu ray the day it came out, the game would still be almost twice as expensive, at least if it was a console game
Another point is, that movies cost more to make than games, and as far as i can see, games are making equally big money.
MW2 was the best selling digital product (beating any movie, any cd) when it came out.
Games also still make money on DLC, Minitransactions like vanity items, power-unlocks etc.

Spoiler: snip

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?

Appeal to ridicule.

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.

But games are a good, like other goods. All sorts of other intellectual property have survived without any trouble.
The music industry aren't dying from second hand markets, the movie industry still spits out immensly expensive films, even though movies have been swapped around for decades, and books, while not neccecerily digital, but still intelectual property vulnerble to copying now with ebooks, that most likely won't be worn out in a lifetime, unless they're books with nude pics at a school library, have survived for centuries.

Spoiler: snip

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

I see I made my point - game companies aren't the worst out there. Not by a long stretch.

It comes down to "it's a different kind of business".

What i meant with the scratch was, okay all software does it, so the sofsware industry are getting away with far more, than any other industry, just because other software does it, doesn't eman i despise them less for their whining.

 

[Keava]

You, like the publishers that pull this shit in the first place, are only thinking short term. Everyone needs to cut that bullshit right the fuck out. Don't focus on price per copy, focus on how much you'll earn in a couple years. It's been proven that cheaper games make an absolute fuckton more, and when expensive games get huge steam sales they make far more money in a week than they normally do in a month.


It's proven time and again. Charge less for your game, make more money.


You need to come to the realization that game companies are not magically entitled to money from second-hand sales and they have no right to block those sales. They are no different than any other industry on this planet.

Okay. I see we have to go back to basics with this.

When You buy a car a car, new or used, why You do it? Most likely because You need a method of transportation, the car will serve You for at least year or two and unless You have way more money than brain You will use it for several years. Car is a tool that lasts, in some cases even 15-20 years and even if You do not have extensive knowledge of car market You will try to buy a solid product.

When You buy a game, new or used, why You do it? Because You want a quick thrill, something to entertain You for few days/nights. If You are just average console gamer You most likely don't give a damn about things like publisher/developer. You buy a game that You like the looks of or from the genre You enjoy.
So what happens when You finish/get bored of it? Well Your local game retailer has that awesome deal for You, turn it in for some cash and You can pick a different one, at cheaper price.

Back to the cars. It exists too. You can take Your car to the guy and sell it/exchange with additional pay for different model. All is fine yes? But how often would You do such thing? Every 2 weeks? Every 2 months? No. Probably, unless You are weird, You won't do it more than ever few years. Cars aren't something You buy often (unless You can't drive and crash into things all the time).

And back to games. Assuming the average scenario where ~30$ of a 60$ goes back to publisher, if the game is sold new it's perfectly fine. Everyone is happy. Now when publisher gets those 30$ once, but the retailer keeps recycling single copy 5-10 times, each time getting 30-35$ things start to get a little spiffy.
Within first week of release the cost of 60$ used game will be at ~50$. That's more then publisher even get's from fresh copy sale, it's barely less than full price of fresh copy, and it all goes to the retailer, several times, per single copy.
Now let's say out of batch of 500 boxes the shop ordered form publisher, 30 becomes those used copies. Each used 3-4 times. That's ~100 game sales above the what was ordered, which start to be noticeable cut into profits. Now multiply it by number of retailers that do it across the country, and then multiply it by number of games that come out each month.

See the problem yet?

The issue is not in Gamer A trading game with Gamer B. That has no impact on market whatsoever in the macro-scale. It's when You see Your product being abused like a cheap hooker by a retailer that starts to annoy You as a publisher. You see those guys milking Your product and not giving a dime for it, and You have no way to change it, because trade-ins are completely legal. You just watch as someone makes thousands upon thousands of dollars from product You funded and You risked, while also ordering less and less of fresh copies, because why would They? If They only make 30$ on fresh copy and 50$ on used copy?
From a business point of view the shop has no interest in stocking on fresh copies, for Them it's best to encourage gamer to buy used because that's where They get more money. This leads to the issue of ordering less fresh copies, which means the initial profit is lower for publisher, which means less money for funding new projects.
That's why DLCs, that's why exclusive fresh copy content, that's why online passes.

With cars, or any other psychical item sold used the problem doesn't exist on such scale. The car You bought used will serve You, for years if You put some money into it over the time. Rarely the used car will have more than 3-4 owners over the course of 12-15 years, while a single game copy can be played by 5-10 people in a month's time.