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

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I've always wondered that if buying used games is as bad as piracy why isn't it illeagal?

I don't buy used games or trade (Heck I buy most of my games on Steam) but I think I agree with the view that used games just give a bit of revenue to the games shops. The developer has already sold the game anyway so why is it a problem. A simple solution would be that the game shop has to give a percentage to the publisher every time they resell a game.

 

[Atmos Duality]

snip

Well stated. It's good to see some folks around here pay attention to details rather than just ramble on and make up facts to make their argument seem more legitimate. I am filing your post away in my mental banks as a point of debate.

Aye? Thanks.
Legalese is an ugly business, it's just a shame that we need to include an increasing amount of it in video games.

 

[FalloutJack]

-Snip-

My views on the piracy issue...

First, I agree with Neil Gaiman in that it is akin to libraries and that it is like free advertising to a new fanbase, which is why he hasn't bothered halting any unbought viewing of his books. That's the first thing, a controversal argument which other companies should at least consider.

Secondly, I will address (once again) why these anti-piracy acts are failures. These are NOT opinions, but a recording of fact which you can find in history if you don't believe me. To whit, piracy is not something you rub out by force. The more you constrict a thing, the more people want to free it up. They deeper you dig to find the black market, the more it goes to ground and spreads out thin.

It's this semi-passive thing that devotes itself towards {A} getting the pirating across and {B} making sure it has the ability to do A. The only way to get rid of piracy is to remove the reasons for piracy. The always-on DRM, the locked-out Rage games, the brickable 3DS? Mere games. If you can't protect it, don't. Instead, find a way to use it.

 

[Brandon237]

Help me understand this:

The publisher of the game has sold X copies to Retailer Y for price Z. Retailer Y sells the games, and gets a certain amount of those traded back because they didn't like it or whatever. After that, they prop it up in the used games section for resale at a lesser price.

Retailer Y will get a little more money out of the purchase because they don't have to throw out a game. But the amount of X copies sold, and with that the Z Price, isn't changed is it? It's not that with every single purchase a little of that money has to be put into an envelope and sent to the publisher, right? So how does selling used games hurt the publisher like piracy does?

This is not me trolling or whatever, I'm just curious if my train of logic works or not.

THIS. DEAR GOD, THIS.

Once the game is on the store shelves, the devs and pubs have their moolah. The only reason used games piss developers off is because they don't get EVEN MOAR monies unless the distributor sells out and has to buy more. They see money that second hand games places are making and want it. Plain and simple.

Piracy, however, is just as immoral as the greed of some devs.

You have my undying, slightly sticky (don't think about it) respect for that post. And the guy you quoted, good to him too.

The games industry hates capitalism. They do their very best to avoid playing by the same rules as every other industry. Once their product is out of their grip, they have their cash, move on, make more copies and make the deal better. Don't try and scrape double money on every copy, because that is being a pig. You are NOT special gaming, get over it, learn to play like movies and music and even furniture, make the product good, affordable and entice more people to enter the field of gaming, as opposed to scaring them off with this bull.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Help me understand this:

The publisher of the game has sold X copies to Retailer Y for price Z. Retailer Y sells the games, and gets a certain amount of those traded back because they didn't like it or whatever. After that, they prop it up in the used games section for resale at a lesser price.

Retailer Y will get a little more money out of the purchase because they don't have to throw out a game. But the amount of X copies sold, and with that the Z Price, isn't changed is it? It's not that with every single purchase a little of that money has to be put into an envelope and sent to the publisher, right? So how does selling used games hurt the publisher like piracy does?

This is not me trolling or whatever, I'm just curious if my train of logic works or not.

because if 1/2X people trade their games in and another 1/2X don't buy new games because they know they can get it cheaper used the publisher only get's money for X copies sold despite the fact that 1,5X people bought the game. Now without used sales they would get 50% more money, with used sales gamestop get's more cash.

Where are you getting that completely random and baseless statistic from? Like, you literally pulled 50% out of your ass. You can't have 50% more of 100%. They made 100% of the money they were gonna make off that game. You're assuming the same number of people who bought the game new would buy it used, which isn't true. In fact it's more accurate to say, if I was going to default to such retarded logic, that they would have made 120% more money without the used sales. But that would imply I don't have even the most basic rudimentary knowledge of how economics work.

The idea being that if a single game is sold twice then the game shop has effectively got "2 stock" from "one stock" and therefor has less of a need to order new stock from the publisher when they get low.

For example lets say that when 5 copies of the game are left the shop will re order for more copies to keep up with demand. They have 20 copies and sell 16. However 4 give the game back. They now do not need to restock as often because a % of initial sales will come back to them as extra stock. This means replenishment from the publisher (where the moolah gets to them) is less frequent and as such the publisher makes less money. Initial release money though (what tends to send a game into pure bountiful profit) is uninhibited by this, as the initial stock is obviously sold directly from the publisher for the release day well in advance.

 

[Andy Szidon]

Let me put an example of how buying used games makes people loose jobs.

Let's say a new gaming company takes out a loan of, like, $500,000 to pay for wages and development. As such, because their cash is -$600,000, they have to charge it for $50, and their royalty is, like, $10 or something. However, whatever their royalty fee is, people only buy, like, 10,000 copies, so the gaming company goes bankrupt and the, like, 25 workers all lose their jobs. Becuase job loss doesn't normally occur that much so there aren't that many openings, 5-20 people are still homeless.

Of course, those numbers may be inaccurate, but people they should convey the idea.

Developers are not (always) greedy and should not be treated as such unless they actually do something like scam people or bribe critics.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The idea being that if a single game is sold twice then the game shop has effectively got "2 stock" from "one stock" and therefor has less of a need to order new stock from the publisher when they get low.

Yup. This is actually why mathematically, Used Game Sales is not the same as piracy, and is strictly better than piracy.

This isn't to say that it's a GOOD thing for the Publisher (it's certainly less than their ideal) but piracy it aint.

If someone pirates a game, the publisher got nothing and the pirate has NO REASON AT ALL to buy a legitimate copy outside of moral obligation (and we can safely assume people are not always moral).

That Used Copy of say, Black Ops, that Gamestop has for 55 bucks still had a First Sale (I think we can assume Gamestop is not selling bootleg games), so no matter what, some of its original sale went to the Publisher at some point.

So when people equate Used Game Sales to Piracy, please know that they're either genuinely misinformed, or full of shit.

 

[Sig-ma]

The used car versus used game analogy is completely appropriate. The reason publishers are crying about used game sales is because they feel every time someone purchases a game used, they are losing revenue (a new sale). This assumption is unfounded since they statistically would not have made the sale anyway.

This is the equivalent of General Motors proclaiming every time someone buys a used GM car, they're losing out on a brand new sale. The only reason most people buy used in the first place is because they are only willing to spend so much money. They're not going to magically conjure up more money so they can buy it new. If forced to only have the option of buying new or not buying at all, most of the time people simply won't buy it if they have the choice. This is why the whole pirating and used game sales argument is invalid. Most people who pirate games pirate far and away more than they could ever afford. They wouldn't have purchased 90% of the games they pirated anyway and so, technically, the game publishers are not out anything in terms of revenue.

Cutting off content is wrong. The pirates will still crack it anyway and the only people out are legitimate customers who want to play Rage years from now when the content is no longer available for whatever reason.

Again, as I said before, independent studies have shown that piracy only really costs game companies about 1% of their revenue. They probably lose far more than that to deter piracy. In a sense, they're hurting themselves more than the pirates do... especially with bad public relations, like id Software with locked content, Blizzard with "always-on" or whatever DRM like Starforce or SecuRom.

 

[robert01]

Actually the discs will not be in the same condition as when new since every time they are used they will be slightly scratched. Add to that the fact that the data will deteroriate over time it is only fair that used are sold cheaper, just like any other used goods.

The data on these disc if left in good condition will out life all the players, and even some of the companies that make the game. The rate at which data loses it's integrity on a disc is extremely slow. DVDs(not any recordable kind), are expected to hold full integrity for 30-100 years. That's right these disc will outlive some of the companies that make them. The only thing that they are doing with all of this is killing the market for these games after they stopped being pressed.

OT: Developers need to stop complaining about this shit, start making quality products that people would want to buy new, and keep around for replay value. Unlike the retail, automotive, and other similar markets people get rid of the their old games because they don't want them any more, not because the need something bigger, or it was just time to upgrade ya know? I'm sure everyone has games they keep because they hold them dear, even if they don't replay them, the like it. Just like a favorite book, or album.

The publishers say it costs 30-40 million to make a AAA game, I want to know where all the money is spent broken down into categories. I bet a lot of the money is spent on useless advertising and promotions. I think the publishers spend more money trying to overhype games instead of letting the internet and it's community do it for them.

 

[lordofthenight]

Other industries have used markets - True, but, in the UK at least, there is a very clear distinction between the shops selling new and those selling used. For DVD's its mainly ex-rental or pawn shops, books are normally specialist 2nd hand stores or charity shops and for cars its normally independents or dealers linked with the car makers themselves. With games, both new and used are sold by the same shop often with used games being given more floor space and sold more agressivly meaning they are in direct competition. If someone opened a speciality 2nd hand games shop and the likes of Game were banned from/stopped the practice, I would guess more people would buy new.

Well, I know a couple of shops in England that do deal solely in pre-owned games and films, so it's not a completely unheard of idea.

What really seems to be the problem is, that the developers want additional profits from used games, without putting in any extra work. Surely the obvious solution, but one that they would never agree to, is that the developers should offering the same service as the retailers. If, as they claim, they're losing so much money from it, and that the greedy retailers are the ones profitting unfairly (retailers who, without which, they'd have problems selling their games in the first place), then they should be offering the same service that costs them so much. Logistically it would be a problem at the moment, because obviously they don't have the easily available stores to do it from, but surely it would be the only 'sensible' outcome.

On a...somewhat similar note, I know this route has started being used in sports. Touting tickets is often seen as a big problem (selling off tickets that you own for matches that you won't be able to attend). When you buy a season ticket, you're buying your ticket for each match, even those you won't be able to attend. But you're not supposed to sell it on, even if you can't go. Nowadays, some clubs are actually offering refunds (at 10% off), and then selling on the tickets to those in the waiting list instead.

While games still generally need a physical copy at the moment, as they move on more to digital downloads, is there any reason a developer couldn't allow the consume to 'return' their download? If you bought a game for £45, and don't find it worth it, why shouldn't you be allowed to return it and complain, same as any other 'experience', as that's all we're apparently buying.

 

[Kevlar Eater]

Sure, I'll buy the cheaper, pirated version of it. Sounds good?

If you enjoy breaking laws and generally being a criminal. That means: No. Unless, of course, you get arrested afterwards, but sadly enough that doesn't happen.

Sometimes I wish I was a mother. And I wish that child was the age of all these entitled children pirating games. All his friends would pirate things and he would try to follow suit, but he would meet my wrath somewhere down the line and regret he was ever born.

Maybe that would make me feel better.

Publishers/developers treat PC gamers like criminals and have fallen in hate with people who buy used games, so why not? These guys are trying to make pirates out of legitimate consumers by inconveniencing them as much as they can get away with whilst using legalese to chip away one consumer right after another. Then the publishers would continue to use piracy as an excuse for their "low sales". It's a cycle.

 

[Silas13013]

snip

Thank you for that extraordinary well explained counter argument. It appears I was mistaken in my knowledge of that case. Thank you for correcting me.

Silas

 

[StriderShinryu]

The used car versus used game analogy is completely appropriate.

...

This is the equivalent of General Motors proclaiming every time someone buys a used GM car, they're losing out on a brand new sale. The only reason most people buy used in the first place is because they are only willing to spend so much money.

First off, the two industries behind the sales are completely different, so the analogy doesn't work even on a basic level. Second, if you examine details like the ones you stated above, the analogy, well, still doesn't work. A used game of the type that videogame creators really have issue with is going to cost only $5 or $10 less than a new copy. This is well within the range where an actual new copy sale is likely lost. A used car, on the other hand and as you state yourself above, actually has a real price difference from it's new variant. If used cars sold for, say, only $1000 less than new cars your argument might be a little closer to working.

 

[Matt Dellar]

Didn't want to read through all 7 pages. Here's my 2 cents:

A. My job won't pay for my first year of college as it is (minimum wage). If I have a choice, I'll buy the cheaper product. That product was already returned by someone who already bought it and, since he returned it, he can no longer play it and I can. The publisher isn't losing any money.

B. Sometimes, the game isn't available new or I don't want to buy it new because I dislike waiting for a download or waiting for a delivery (bad Internet; constantly interrupted; and I live in the middle of a forest 20 miles from civilization). Therefore, I'll head into Gamestop or Goodwill and find what I want. Used. Such games include Civ IV, Planescape, and .hack (which didn't work because I didn't buy the right PS3 for it).

 

[mitchell271]

You know what I never understand? Buying it used saves you $5 and you have a chance of getting a disk that doesn't work and then the online pass (or whatever) costs $10. So you leave losing $5 and chances are you have an inferior copy of the game. What's the point?

 

[magnuslion]

buying a used game =/= piracy. that is a logical fallacy, and one that publishers would love you to believe. If you buy a bed, and then you stop using it because you upgraded or downgraded, have you defrauded the bed company? No, the bed is your freaking property. what they are essentially saying is that they would like you to buy their game and play it, but they do not want it to be your property. This is why digital downloads are insane. see below.

http://youtu.be/_VEQ78WS5UE

 

[Tommeh Brownleh]

Here's a NOVEL idea! Instead of punishing the people who buy the game used, reward those who buy it new! Halo Reach did this with the bonus recon helmet I think, but I'm not certain. In an RPG like Fallout, a way to do this is to give people who bought it new a way to boost a skill up by 5 points. 5 points isn't much (at least in Fallout) and likely won't give you the ability to do much more. You'll just breeze through the content slightly faster. It's not game breaking, and it rewards people who buy it new, rather than punish those who buy it used. Both customers have access to the full game this way, but the people who buy it new just have a small extra.

 

[coolkirb]

Fist Sale Doctrine

bassically used game are fine and the selling of them is protected by law, game companies are just trying to get a cut of second sales

 

[The Human Torch]

Is stealing a car the same as buying it used?

When you steal a car, you steal the physical thing, when pirating a game, you are cloning said game.