A point of contraversy (part 1) - Buying a game used is as bad as pirating?

[LiraelG]

By buying the game used, no money is reaching the publisher or developer so it as bad as piracy in that sense.

However does that mean we should be felling deep emotional guilt? I don't think so, we as humans always want the best deal so we always look for a way to save a bit of money...

I buy used games for an additional reason - recycling. When a new game comes out that I want to play, I buy it. I don't hesitate. But if I discover an old/oldish game and have the option of buying it New or Used I will consider the Used game's condition. If the Used game has been looked after, I will buy it happily because I believe it's important to ensure these plastic and metal products don't end up in a dump. Preserving the planet is more important to me than supporting a business EVERY time.

Should we blame the used games market stores? Well yes and no really. Yes for not giving some of that used game revenue back to publishers but not for the idea of providing customers what they want, games at cheaper prices.

This does raise an interesting point. However, one could argue that the money does reach the publishers...it just reaches them in a roundabout way.

It is quite possible that a number of game stores would close if they didn't receive a profit on used games. If the game stores closed, it would be less easy for gamers to buy the new games. We must remember that not everyone has access to the internet; some can only buy products in store.

Also: stores make it easy for the customer to browse. If the stores closed and we turned to online buying only, people may end up buying only what they know about. It could make it difficult for new publishers and new developers to make their mark.

 

[Torrasque]

I see this whole situation like this:
When I buy a game, its now mine, and I can do whatever I like with it.
If that happens to be trading with a friend to play some game that he has, then I want him to be able to play the game just like I can, and the same for myself.
Now, if I gave him my copy of Rage, he can't do that.
He's not buying used, he's not pirating it, he's just borrowing it for a few days or weeks. He might buy it if he likes it, but that depends on the game.

In this situation, id is demanding money from my friend... To play my game? How does this make any sense.
Its like borrowing a friend's cd, but half the songs are locked; you have to pay to listen to them.
WELL NO, ITS MY PROPERTY AND I WILL DO WHAT I LIKE WITH IT.

The devs demanding extra payment whenever someone gets a used copy of their game, is just a money grab. They want a cut of the used game sales, they don't care about the integrity of their game, they just want more money because they feel cheated somehow.
This should be an issue to be sorted out between the retailer and the devs, not the devs and the consumer.

 

[Sir Prize]

I wouldn't it's worse than pirating, most items that are brought second-hand do not bring in profit for the company or alike that made them. The money only ever goes to the seller(s), so I don't see what the Games Industry is comaplaining about.

 

[TastySurvivor]

If I buy a used Ford from a mom and pop dealership, am I pirating the car because Ford isnt getting any more money off that car? No and they shouldnt because its not THEIR property anymore.

 

[WaruTaru]

Retailers don't. Gamestop has to pay for each used game individually. Even if it comes back to the store after being sold as used they still have to buy it back. Publishers want to get paid multiple times for the game but only paying for it once. Gamestop is using their own money, not the publishers, to buy those used copies and if they don't sell Gamestop has to eat the loss on what they paid for the game, not the publisher. Those publishers and developers are free to go out and risk their own money by buying secondhand games from people and sell them used if they feel they are truly losing out so badly. However, they choose not to and as such deserve no money from what private citizens and businesses do with a product that the publisher and developer have already been paid for.

Yes they do. They can preempt the number of buyers for the game and the number of returners, and shape their purchase for the next title of the series accordingly. If there are 1000 players wanting the game, Gamestop do not need to buy 1000 copies of that game. If half of them returns the game, and the other half don't mind waiting, Gamestop only needs to buy 500 copies to serve all its customers.

The point is they are making a profit for 1000 gamers when they have only sold 500 copies of the game. The more the people return, the less new copies they need to order. It was never a risk. They can more or less predict how many people would buy that game.

Developers/Publishers are there to create new game, not to buy and resell used games. They depend on new game sales to make a profit. If they are selling less and less new game, they won't be making a profit for very long now. Asking them to buy and resell games is just plain ridiculous because they are buying and reselling ONE game.

It's not the consumers problem if they gaming industry can't run a profitable business. That's up the developers and publishers to worry about. The consumers shouldn't be the one paying for their incompetence in running a business. If their current business model is unsuccessful it's not the fault of a second hand market or piracy it's due to their own failures. They need to look within and stop trying to blame everyone but themselves.

As I said previously the video game industry in it's current form needs to be burned to ashes and rebuilt from the ground up. Gaming is driven by people who couldn't be paid to give a flying fuck about the actual games but worry solely on the bottom line and as a result the bottom line is the one thing that ends up suffering. Publishers like Activision Ubisoft and EA are a cancer to gaming and the sooner they go the way of the dinosaur the better gaming will be.

Yet its those very same people who don't give a flying fuck about actual games that makes the most profits. Again, I can't help but bring Zynga into this. Bottomline decides what consumers supposedly "want".

Consumers shape the business pattern. How can you say its not the consumers' problem? Anything and everything that makes money is consumer-based. If Activision-Ubisoft-EA dies, you will have even more bad games flooding the market when the ex-employees decide to go indie. Just scroll through XBox indie games and guess the ratio of bad games to good games.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

But the used games have already been sold legally to you, and you then sell the product to the game store. They're two separate transactions. All done through legal avenues. There is nothing wrong, legally or otherwise, with selling something you own.

Now if you want to talk about business model, maybe game stores should come to some sort of agreement as to used game sales and how they can strike a balance between their profits and the profits of the producers of the game, but as-is, this system of punishing consumers who are doing nothing wrong by locking-out portions of the product they're buying is wrong, and I'm shocked as to how many people are in favour of the basic concept of a transaction, or the even more basic concept of ownership, being undermined.

Doesn't stop it from becoming a legal pirate. The value of an abstract entertainment media is the enjoyment factor. Once you've played a game, read a book, watched a movie or listened to a music, and you have had enough of it, you have exhausted the entertainment value of the media. These media are different from ownership because property ownership (cars, house) do not have entertainment value, and thus cannot be exhausted as such. Their use is infinite, so long as the property remains in good shape.

If game shops re-sell used game, each time someone buys the re-used version instead of a brand new version, they player exhausts the entertainment value of the game, and the game shop extinguishes interest in the game. The player will not buy a new copy to replace a broken one if they have already completed the game. A completed, broken game is not the same as a broken house, which you WILL replace.

With regards to the business model, read this http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/braben-calls-for-action-against-pre-owned-sales (A bit dated, but it still applies even today!)

Asserting that "people" will extinguish interest by experiencing a form of media is inaccurate. I for one have, in fact, bought new copies of games after I've experienced the game from start to finish. I've also re-bought new copies of games that have been broken on me. I've also bought books and films after experiencing them in their entirety. And I cannot possibly be the only person on Earth who has done this.

And then there is the concept of used book stores. The existence of stores which exclusively sell previously owned works has not sunk any of the large publishers. Game stores which allow used sales are also offering new titles.

"Legal pirate" Is a very FOX News-y label. It is not theft of someone else's property, but the sale of one's own property.

And then there is the matter of circulation and exposure. Let's say ten years from now, someone buys a used copy of RAGE on the cheap, near the end of the Xbox 9001's lifespan; they take it home, play it, and find that there are sections of the game which are made out clearly to be accessible, are not actually accessible. The person then finds out that they needed DLC from the now-dead Xbox 360 Marketplace in order to access the content. That content has now officially been killed. Nobody will ever be able to experience what was locked out, as most copies are now deep in the cycle of resales. Then, when this person finds out that RAGE 55 is coming out, will they be inclined to play it at all, when they know that the creators of the series willingly locked him out of content?

And then there is the case of "Give them an inch...". If this practice of locking-out content from people is accepted as valid now, where does it stop? Why not lock out portions of the game for people who don't buy the special edition? Why not, instead of making the content free DLC for new copies, make it cheaper DLC for new copies? This strategy of punishing used buyers instead of rewarding new buyers is another testing of the water. We've already seen people accept games being shipped broken, and seen that people are willing to pay for content that is already on the disc, so why not go even further? In a world where so much profiteering and "Ending is better than mending" philosophy is spread in business, people who let those who should be providing us, the consumer, with services instead punish us for performing completely legal transactions outside the parameters they want, is deeply disheartening.

 

[ace_of_something]

No, because it's legal.

What the games industry needs to focus on is tracking and working on property laws like say USED CARS have where they still get a cut of the profits when it's sold used from a licensed dealer.

Rather than fighting it like it's some form of piracy. You know what that does? It makes me not buy the game at all.

Invalid analogy. You can OWN a car. You cannot OWN a game... you merely buy the rights to the use license. Games are a unique beast because of this little aspect.

Anyways, I feel like a broken record repeating this so many times. Despite the legally of either activity, both have the same impact on the developer and publisher of the game. A used game results in a developer and publisher not seeing a single CENT of profit from someone playing their game-- JUST like piracy. THIS is why you are seeing developers fighting against the used game market: since it cuts into their profits just as much, if not more, than piracy.

As much as devs would love to do this for nothing beyond their passion for video games, they can't. It's the real world. They need money. If their games don't make profits, then they won't have a job. It's as simple, but nonetheless a rather bitter pill to shallow.

*handles recently purchased game disc*
So you're saying this... this is all an illusion? I'm not really holding something solid? That I'm in fact holding air? That reality is all a lie? That if, say, I didn't hook my playstation up to the internet the data on this disc wouldn't work? (well they're trying to do that more and more)

Clearly YOU don't understand how used car sales work. As you pretty much ignored the analogy altogether.
To sell used cars en masse one typically has to get a 'license' from the actual manufacturer or a governing body of auto dealers (i can't recall the name) this not only insures that the manufacturer gets a slice of the profits (very small I'm told) it also shows that the dealer is reputable and if they sell you a piece of shit you can report them to someone.

You can still buy a car from someone who is not licensed but risks run higher and title transfer fees are a pain.

That would be HORRIBLE if they did that with games.

 

[Kenny Kondom]

I may be wrong, but i believe there is no correlation between buying used games and piracy in the least! The Publishers and Developers get their money from the first sale of the product. This ISNT to the user directly(gamer in this instance) but to the retailer. The Developers and Publishers get their cut EVEN IF THE UNITS ARE NOT SOLD ON AFTERWARDS!

Plus the price tag of £45-50 first hand games are not the developers prices anyway (what is the point in a retailer buying something for £45 and then selling it for £45? No revenue means no profits. no profits means bye-bye retailer). The retailer would have bought the 'basic goods' for a discounted price and added their own cut to make a profit. The developers and publishers have ALREADY recieved their cut for their product.

When the game, however, gets either re-sold BACK to the retailer, traded in or any other form of transaction with a second hand supplier, all the work to organise and resell falls to the RETAILER. As stated earlier, the pubs and Devs have already recieved their cut. the pricing then should fall entirley to what the retailer, and the retailer alone, deems acceptable. They know first hand how popular the game maybe, and what price tag would best suit it to make a sale. There is no *magically appearing additional content* for the game once it has been played once, so why should the devs and pubs get paid AGAIN!?

And yes, the argument of 'servers for the games are expensive to run', 'DLC requires extra developer and publisher work' should come into the equation. AND IT ALREADY DOES!

DLC isnt free, and is often bought straight from the developer though whatever medium they are on (MS points or the PS3 equivalent). And Servers are usually 'random host' affairs now-a-days. DEDICATED servers were expensive, and usually had to be paid for ANYWAY by players who bought the RIGHTS and EQUIPMENT to have and operate a server. But what is their beef now with servers? they are a low maintenancing thing now-a-days! [PLEASE NOTE i may be worng about this assumption. I Welcome any corrections as long as it is presented in a well mannered way ]

And one last point. Developers and Publishers claiming they do maintenance and release patches. Whoop-de-fucking-doo! That just means you product was moderatly faulty in the first place. I expect this, and any aspiring developer or designer should have contingency plans to fix this set in place for BEFORE, DURING, and in certain cases, AFTER the products life has expired. Modding and other aiding tools for developers (AKA, the fan of the game who has fixed the coding himself, and occasionally added his own flare to the game) has been taken away slowly over the years, and is really noticable on the PC gaming platform. That would have been a FREE form of maintenance for cying out loud!!

Please, correct me if my observations are wrong, and give me your opinions too (but politley. I prefer debates not arguements), but in conclusion to my slightly /rant post, the developers and publishers dont have a leg to stand on.

 

[Fernadette]

And then there is the matter of circulation and exposure. Let's say ten years from now, someone buys a used copy of RAGE on the cheap, near the end of the Xbox 9001's lifespan; they take it home, play it, and find that there are sections of the game which are made out clearly to be accessible, are not actually accessible. The person then finds out that they needed DLC from the now-dead Xbox 360 Marketplace in order to access the content. That content has now officially been killed. Nobody will ever be able to experience what was locked out, as most copies are now deep in the cycle of resales. Then, when this person finds out that RAGE 55 is coming out, will they be inclined to play it at all, when they know that the creators of the series willingly locked him out of content?

And then there is the case of "Give them an inch...". If this practice of locking-out content from people is accepted as valid now, where does it stop? Why not lock out portions of the game for people who don't buy the special edition? Why not, instead of making the content free DLC for new copies, make it cheaper DLC for new copies? This strategy of punishing used buyers instead of rewarding new buyers is another testing of the water. We've already seen people accept games being shipped broken, and seen that people are willing to pay for content that is already on the disc, so why not go even further? In a world where so much profiteering and "Ending is better than mending" philosophy is spread in business, people who let those who should be providing us, the consumer, with services instead punish us for performing completely legal transactions outside the parameters they want, is deeply disheartening.

This. I agree with this completely. Can I shake your hand?

 

[VladG]

When you buy a used car no money goes to the manufacturer either, but nobody seems to mind that.

I can understand why the gaming industry wants to change that, they are sort of losing some money on used game sales, but I wonder if they actually lose that much to make this such a big deal. I expect only people that have a fairly low interest in the game to begin with are willing to wait until they can get a used copy, and I'd imagine that those people wouldn't bother paying full price if they couldn't get it cheaper.

That being said, I'm not against what id is trying to do with RAGE either. It's their product, they are free to do with as they please, it's their problem if they can get people to accept it or not.

 

[VladG]

And then there is the matter of circulation and exposure. Let's say ten years from now, someone buys a used copy of RAGE on the cheap, near the end of the Xbox 9001's lifespan; they take it home, play it, and find that there are sections of the game which are made out clearly to be accessible, are not actually accessible. The person then finds out that they needed DLC from the now-dead Xbox 360 Marketplace in order to access the content. That content has now officially been killed. Nobody will ever be able to experience what was locked out, as most copies are now deep in the cycle of resales. Then, when this person finds out that RAGE 55 is coming out, will they be inclined to play it at all, when they know that the creators of the series willingly locked him out of content?

And then there is the case of "Give them an inch...". If this practice of locking-out content from people is accepted as valid now, where does it stop? Why not lock out portions of the game for people who don't buy the special edition? Why not, instead of making the content free DLC for new copies, make it cheaper DLC for new copies? This strategy of punishing used buyers instead of rewarding new buyers is another testing of the water. We've already seen people accept games being shipped broken, and seen that people are willing to pay for content that is already on the disc, so why not go even further? In a world where so much profiteering and "Ending is better than mending" philosophy is spread in business, people who let those who should be providing us, the consumer, with services instead punish us for performing completely legal transactions outside the parameters they want, is deeply disheartening.

Well, the only way to avoid the "Give them an inch" problem is for consumers to take a stand. I'm fairly certain that when a developer goes too far with such practices sales will tank and they will lose money, prompting them not to repeat the offence. We can only hope though that most consumers are mature enough to spot and respond to a potential problem in time.

I'm thinking that current technology can help avoid the problem of not being able to unlock the content after a long time has passed. Cloud computing seems to be the future and storage space is getting ever cheaper, so I'd think that in 10 years we will still have access to everything we do now, exactly because it avoids your proposed problem. There are already people starting to work in that direction (see Good old Games).

 

[iron codpiece]

I'm also old enough to remember that this 'used sales and rentals are killing us' nonsense is recent. The only reason they're bitching about it now is because of increased online play which helps them track better and they realize what they're not getting. Rather than realizing that has been the amount they're not getting since. I dunno the mid 80's? Yet they survived.

In fact the first time i bought a brand new game was when I was 16 because the area I lived in didn't have somewhere to buy games and this was pre-internet. The only place we could buy them was used at a rental store. In fact, I'm certain it's STILL like that there. (it's tricky to get internet on a reservation)

Perhaps rather than constantly attacking their consumers maybe they should change business policies, adapt, and please the consumer. Like, I don't know, EVER OTHER INDUSTRY EVERYWHERE!?

No, because it's legal.

What the games industry needs to focus on is tracking and working on property laws like say USED CARS have where they still get a cut of the profits when it's sold used from a licensed dealer.

Rather than fighting it like it's some form of piracy. You know what that does? It makes me not buy the game at all.

Invalid analogy. You can OWN a car. You cannot OWN a game... you merely buy the rights to the use license. Games are a unique beast because of this little aspect.

Anyways, I feel like a broken record repeating this so many times. Despite the legally of either activity, both have the same impact on the developer and publisher of the game. A used game results in a developer and publisher not seeing a single CENT of profit from someone playing their game-- JUST like piracy. THIS is why you are seeing developers fighting against the used game market: since it cuts into their profits just as much, if not more, than piracy.

I think that was more a suggestion on how to do business rather than a direct analogy.
Obviously, you've never bought a used car. Seems appropriate to me.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

I snipped myself!

This. I agree with this completely. Can I shake your hand?

Only if you let me into Aperture Science.

 

[KAPTAINmORGANnWo4life]

And then there is the matter of circulation and exposure. Let's say ten years from now, someone buys a used copy of RAGE on the cheap, near the end of the Xbox 9001's lifespan; they take it home, play it, and find that there are sections of the game which are made out clearly to be accessible, are not actually accessible. The person then finds out that they needed DLC from the now-dead Xbox 360 Marketplace in order to access the content. That content has now officially been killed. Nobody will ever be able to experience what was locked out, as most copies are now deep in the cycle of resales. Then, when this person finds out that RAGE 55 is coming out, will they be inclined to play it at all, when they know that the creators of the series willingly locked him out of content?

And then there is the case of "Give them an inch...". If this practice of locking-out content from people is accepted as valid now, where does it stop? Why not lock out portions of the game for people who don't buy the special edition? Why not, instead of making the content free DLC for new copies, make it cheaper DLC for new copies? This strategy of punishing used buyers instead of rewarding new buyers is another testing of the water. We've already seen people accept games being shipped broken, and seen that people are willing to pay for content that is already on the disc, so why not go even further? In a world where so much profiteering and "Ending is better than mending" philosophy is spread in business, people who let those who should be providing us, the consumer, with services instead punish us for performing completely legal transactions outside the parameters they want, is deeply disheartening.

Well, the only way to avoid the "Give them an inch" problem is for consumers to take a stand. I'm fairly certain that when a developer goes too far with such practices sales will tank and they will lose money, prompting them not to repeat the offence. We can only hope though that most consumers are mature enough to spot and respond to a potential problem in time.

I'm thinking that current technology can help avoid the problem of not being able to unlock the content after a long time has passed. Cloud computing seems to be the future and storage space is getting ever cheaper, so I'd think that in 10 years we will still have access to everything we do now, exactly because it avoids your proposed problem. There are already people starting to work in that direction (see Good old Games).

But we've seen in other industries that people are willing to pay to be fucked. Have you ever heard of "Planned Obsolescence"? There was a day where you could, with occasional maintenance, have a device for decades upon decades, where nowadays most dogs can even outlive a washing machine or a fridge.

It's the same over-arching problem that leads Americans to support the Republican Party's economic policy: Under the guise of "Freedom" and "Justice", you can manipulate people into believing anything, even that corporations have more right to control what you do than the government does.

 

[Fernadette]

-snip-

snip.

Okay, let's turn this around.
I bought a disc. Which just so happens to have a game on it. Now that game I didn't purchase, I purchased a license to the game, correct? What about the physical disc in and of itself? That is mine. I can do whatever I want to that disc. I can use it as a frisbee, a coaster, I can cut it apart to make a pretty picture, and no one will tell me I can't do so. Because I own that physical copy of that disc. Maybe not the software, as you like to claim, but the actual tangible object is mine. Since it is owned by me, if I so choose to sell that disc to Gamestop, I am within my rights as an owner of that disc. If software just so happens to be on it. So be it. The disc was what I purchased.

 

[WaruTaru]

You dont seem to get that the retailers are doing something to earn being paid again, they have to BUY those used copies from people rather than just whinging that they deserve more money for not doing anything more.

Vernor v autodesk is one case that springs to mind (the case is still on-going with appeals) & microsoft v someone (though sadly microsoft basically fold like a house of cards when actually challeneg, probably because they knew that loss would be much worse than public humilation) .

To be blunt if triple a titles where actually worth the stupid prices they charged you wouldn't see 8 or 9 fucking copies of them 5 days after release, so please dont give me that shit about how triple-a games keep you entertained longer because if they did....there wouldn't be this issue about the 2nd hand market, no?

Cant have a 2nd hand market without the first hand buyers getting rid of their games.

Yes, they have to buy those used games. So what? Knowing that they can buy used games means they do not need to order as much new games to meet the demand. Less demand of new games = less profit for developer/publishers.

The first case has decided on the main point (I have no idea what Microsoft case you are talking about as they are just shitloads of them). Courts say "No, you are a licensee, not owner, of the software you wish to resell. Oh, and you might be infringing copyrights by reselling it. Good day to you."

[...We hold that because CTA is a licensee, not an owner, the ?sale? of its Release 14 copies to Vernor did not convey ownership. Vernor is accordingly not entitled to invoke the first sale doctrine or the essential step defense, on behalf of his customers...]

(Source: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cacheQtvCG1SJasJ:www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf+vernor+v+autodesk&hl=en&gl=my&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESinBPWM8C6TU8wsSEOJcXp93LpeLJ-oPLD-w2D65TNr9wz2sUADzU__91bZ1Cp1_2S2QMRmAKzPVjadrRNETOWmaRXkJhwR7s37i5NM0EDBn4Sw2L9XuGgdDFUqOWmhzHtRf4Ck&sig=AHIEtbRAX9nztgoO1h-TWhHT3WA5IEYBSg)

A second-hand copy floating around 5 days after release means the player was entertained for 5 days. That is a lot longer than a 2-hour movie, or a 5-minute song, or a reasonably thick book.

 

[Silas13013]

-edit- content removed

 

[Atmos Duality]

Then you're an idiot. No used books are not the same, no it's not a good analogy, no you are wrong.

Also socially acceptable things can be fucking retarded.

Ok, how are games inherently different from any other good upon the face of the earth??

And as such deserving of special treatment from the rest of everything else, to the point where their specialness trumps consumers rights and law in most western nations?

They aren't different.
By economic definition, all digital goods (no matter the distribution) fall under "Natural Monopoly" because they are Non-Rival and Excludable.
Books also fall into the same category.

 

[Silas13013]

-snip-

Pardon the bluntness, but you are a spectacular moron. I mean a FUCKING spectacular moron. You twisted my words and used a horrible, HORRIBLE distortion of a concept to try to make a point.

Listen. You don't OWN a video game. That disc ISN'T THE GAME. The physical media has NOTHING to do with ownership. It is unimportant here. What is important is that data in the disc. You don't own that data. You are licensed to be able to use it. If you owned it, then why couldn't you make copies of it? If you owned it, why couldn't you distribute it? If you could OWN video games, then piracy would be LEGAL BECAUSE OF THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF OWNERSHIP. That is why you don't own games. You just are licensed to be able to use them. That disc you are holding IS NOT THE GAME. It is the CONTENT OF THE DISC THAT IS THE GAME. You do NOT OWN that content... you are merely allowed to use it.

Your analogy is crap for that exact reason: cars are physical property, but video games are intellectual property. The analogy is null and void here.

The people on this site are so dense sometimes.

(This only relates to the US)
The Supreme Court of the United States says you are wrong.


-edit-
I have been corrected on this matter, please disregard this post.