Buying Used isn't Piracy

[Justanothergamer300]

Project 10 dollar is kind of annoying. If I buy a game new I want to access the game and all the content; but the one code at a time thing kind of stops this. As much as I hate call of duty I will always love the fact that I can access all the game Single-player and Multiplayer on as many accounts as I want.

PS. Maybe if Publishers tried lower prices for new releases used games could take a hit because the main reason I buy used is for the lower prices

 

[everythingbeeps]

I wish game companies were more competitive with their post-first-week prices. I doubt they'd have same amount of problems with used sales if they offered it at more enticing price point. It's a little silly when over a year later the game still costs more then $40 new.

Of course they would. People would always ***** and whine. Lower the price of video games to $40 and after a year kids'll be bitching that they're too expensive and should be $30.

All these prices are arbitrary. Someone decided $60 was too much because they didn't feel like paying it. Any system you could devise to determine "value" is arbitrary and stupid. Games are $60 because they've ALWAYS been that much, relatively speaking. It's just that people have gotten cheaper and more entitled as time has passed.

 

[everythingbeeps]

Project 10 dollar is kind of annoying. If I buy a game new I want to access the game and all the content; but the one code at a time thing kind of stops this. As much as I hate call of duty I will always love the fact that I can access all the game Single-player and Multiplayer on as many accounts as I want.

PS. Maybe if Publishers tried lower prices for new releases used games could take a hit because the main reason I buy used is for the lower prices

I think the fact that you need to be able to access a game on multiple accounts is kind of your problem, not the publishers'.

 

[seraphy]

Project 10 dollar is kind of annoying. If I buy a game new I want to access the game and all the content; but the one code at a time thing kind of stops this. As much as I hate call of duty I will always love the fact that I can access all the game Single-player and Multiplayer on as many accounts as I want.

PS. Maybe if Publishers tried lower prices for new releases used games could take a hit because the main reason I buy used is for the lower prices

I think the fact that you need to be able to access a game on multiple accounts is kind of your problem, not the publishers'.

You sound like a corporate stooge.

It is publishers problem, if they treat customers like crap they will lose those customers.

 

[Epona]

Of course it's not piracy.

But it DOES cut into new game sales, and developers and publishers are perfectly justified in recouping those losses however they see fit, including online passes and day-1 DLC.

However they see fit is a little far. Surely you wouldn't condone publisher burning down used game stores or bricking consoles of those who buy used games?

I didn't think adding "within the confines of the law" would be necessary, but apparently people like you insist upon it.

It's just that I am not certain that interfering with the First Sale Doctrine is within the confines of the law.

Who's interfering? And how?

The publishers and with activation codes. Activation codes will destroy the used market for consoles like it did for PC. It just seems to me that it shouldn't be legal to find some technical back door to make a consumer right unusable.

1. It's not their responsibility nor obligation to give a shit about the used market. Nor was I aware that "buying used" was a universal consumer right. And I'm pretty damn sure that there are no consumer rights regarding how much you're entitled to get when you trade shit in. Certainly not where video games are concerned. If you try to compare them to cars, so help me god I'm going to fucking break something. Boy, you're gonna hate life once digital distribution comes along.

2. The publishers are perfectly within their right to deliver their product however they see fit. If this means 90% disc and 10% DLC, they can do that. Again, they are not obligated to make any effort to ensure that their product "retains its value".

Calm down.

I am just saying that some DRM steps on the toes of a law designed to protect a consumers right to resale. I am just waiting for this to go to court to see what happens, if it ever does.

About going digital, that will freeze the prices. Steam may have awesome sales but do Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo on their digital stores? It would create a monopoly. With no competition from the retail market, what motivation would the big three have to drop prices?

1. Feel like if you were right, it would have been resolved by now. But this argument's pointless anyway, because as I've implied, if not outright stated, I couldn't care less about your right to sell shit you've bought. Cars, sure. Video games? No. It's nice if you can do it, but I'm not gonna whine and moan if I can't get three extra dollars for my used copy of whatever.

2. What motivation will they have to drop prices? Same as with physical shit. When sales slow down, they'll lower the price. And I don't think "monopoly" means what you think it means. (And, yes, they have sales. A lot of them. Pretty much always something's on sale. Not sure about Wii, but X360 and PS3 ALWAYS have digital shit on sale.)

If you aren't sure about the consoles, then why are you even in this conversation. Why don't you educate yourself so you can learn how often the big three have sales or lower prices.

Do you know why physical copies get reduced in price? It's because of shelf space, digital copies doesn't have that problem.

 

[The Random One]

As far as publishers are concerned, as long as you are playing a game and you haven't given them any money you are screwing them over.

And that mentality is why the industry is going bankrupt.

 

[Hal10k]

Of course it's not piracy.

But it DOES cut into new game sales, and developers and publishers are perfectly justified in recouping those losses however they see fit, including online passes and day-1 DLC.

However they see fit is a little far. Surely you wouldn't condone publisher burning down used game stores or bricking consoles of those who buy used games?

I didn't think adding "within the confines of the law" would be necessary, but apparently people like you insist upon it.

It's just that I am not certain that interfering with the First Sale Doctrine is within the confines of the law.

Who's interfering? And how?

They are intentionally devaluing a product after the first owner.

They intentionally devalue it because games undergo significantly less economic degradation than other products that are typically sold used. Used games are usually on the shelf the day after release, and stores like Gamestop are more than happy to replace them if the disc is damaged. This means that there is very little loss of utility between the new product and its used counterpart. Consequently, the developers intentionally reduce the utility of the used product to bring the used game market in line with other used markets.

Whether or not it's the right decision from a moral standpoint is obviously questionable, but it certainly makes sense from an economic standpoint.

 

[loch belthadd]

I think the fact that you need to be able to access a game on multiple accounts is kind of your problem, not the publishers'.

Having multiple people on one console who want to play the same game shouldn't require each person to pay extra. When you buy a disk it is bought, not licensed, no matter how much the publisher whines.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I wish game companies were more competitive with their post-first-week prices. I doubt they'd have same amount of problems with used sales if they offered it at more enticing price point. It's a little silly when over a year later the game still costs more then $40 new.

Of course they would. People would always ***** and whine. Lower the price of video games to $40 and after a year kids'll be bitching that they're too expensive and should be $30.

All these prices are arbitrary. Someone decided $60 was too much because they didn't feel like paying it. Any system you could devise to determine "value" is arbitrary and stupid. Games are $60 because they've ALWAYS been that much, relatively speaking. It's just that people have gotten cheaper and more entitled as time has passed.

I just want to point out that you're using entitled wrong. If they were entitled to something, that means they have a right to it. I would like to say that the word you're looking for is 'over-entitled' but apparently that isn't a real word. Well, fuck it, it's a real word now. I WILL MAKE THIS WORD HAPPEN.

As far as publishers are concerned, as long as you are playing a game and you haven't given them any money you are screwing them over.

And that mentality is why the industry is going bankrupt.

Modern Warfare 3 broke every sales record known to man and apparently Skyrim is a close second.

The video game industry is probably one of the only companies to experience growth during the global-ish recession thing we had going on a little while ago (And is kind of sill going on. I think. Haven't heard about it in a while).

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the industry is failing. It's doing better than ever.

Edit: I would also like to point out that a ridiculous amount of consoles/video games were sold this black friday. A. Fucking. Ridiculous. Amount.

 

[chadachada123]

I have a movie ticket, which entitles me to one seat in the theater. I go in and watch half of the movie, then walk out, and I then sell this ticket to someone else. This person goes in and sits in my now-vacant seat.

It costs the developers (theater) nothing extra except for some heating and wear-and-tear on the seats.

Used games != a problem

Solution: cheaper goddamn games, publishers >.>

 

[Kopikatsu]

I have a movie ticket, which entitles me to one seat in the theater. I go in and watch half of the movie, then walk out, and I then sell this ticket to someone else. This person goes in and sits in my now-vacant seat.

It costs the developers (theater) nothing extra except for some heating and wear-and-tear on the seats.

Used games != a problem

Solution: cheaper goddamn games, publishers >.>

I hate analogies. I cannot stand them. Just wanted to throw that out there.

That being said, this is probably the most accurate analogy I've seen on the subject. It's still wrong, but it's better than, say, the car analogy which I cannot fucking stand. A used game can be passed around as many times as necessary. Your analogy doesn't match. That person you gave the ticket to can only see the second half of that movie. If they walk out halfway and sell the ticket to someone else, then that third person only gets to see a quarter of the movie. And so on.

The ticket you sold to the second person doesn't have the same value as the ticket you bought, even though it's the same ticket, because that second person only gets half the movie at most. For a video game, it doesn't degrade. It'll be the same game for everyone.

Used game sales are technically worse than piracy. A common excuse for piracy is 'They wouldn't have bought it anyway'. Used game sales...they did buy it. Even if they had to wait a month or so for the price to drop to used game-levels, they still would have bought it.

That being said, there is a fine line between used sales and letting a friend borrow the game. At what point does it stop being 'okay'? Digital distribution means that you can't let people borrow the game, nor can you resell the game. So...! It looks like digital distribution is the future of gaming. Woo.

Edit: I forgot to mention something. Video game consoles are EXTREMELY cheap nowadays. Adjusted for inflation, early video game consoles were many times more expensive than the consoles we have today. (Like the Halcyon would cost $5,000 today)

More examples. Super Mario Bros for the SNES cost $49.99 on release. Skyrim cost $59.99. Super Mario Bros was released in 1985. In over twenty years, the price went up $10. Adjusted for inflation, VIDEO GAMES HAVE NEVER BEEN CHEAPER. EVER. EVEREVER. And modern AAA games take hundreds of staff and take millions to produce. AND THEY'RE CHEAPER THAN GAMES MADE BY TEAMS OF 10 PEOPLE FOR A FEW THOUSAND. GET OVER IT PEOPLE. JESUS CHRIST. FMEWCIV3EPFM,3Q

/heavy breathing

Edit: I should point out that at the end there when I started to rage, I'm talking about the games 20 years ago. Not little indie devs of today.

Edit 2: I'm talking about prices in America. I know the EU has like 40 pounds for a new game, but I don't know how much old-old games were there.

Edit 3: If anyone is wondering why I rage so hard, it's because I always hear 'Well, I would buy new if they made it cheaper.' They did. It's extremely cheap compared to before, especially if you were to compare content. Everyone who says they'd buy it if the games are cheaper are dirty liars. They'd still look for a way to get it even cheaper than that.

Don't take this as an insult, but I feel like everyone who complains about the price of video games is like...15 or under and their parents buy them most of their games anyway. I hate to be an old man shaking my cane here, but back in the day, we really did have to fuckin' work for games. I'm extremely grateful that video games are as cheap as they are.

Edit 4: People in Australia/other parts of the world can ignore most of this post. I don't know how much old-old games were there, either. If it was more than it is now, then my point stands. If not, ignore it.

If you really, truly do not have the money to buy new games and can only afford used games...I think you have more issues than not being able to get the game you want. You know, like buying food. That's important.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

How about you do what Skyrim did and make a game you don't want to give away?

I'm just sayin.

 

[isometry]

It's a moot discussion, games on the next generation of consoles will probably require always-on DRM, or at least a one-time internet connection to register, like PC games do. That will kill the used games market and cut down on console piracy.

"No, they would never get away with that!"

Think again, consumers lost this battle a long time ago. PC games have been requiring internet registration ever since shortly after Microsoft proved that consumers would tolerate the idea with Windows XP.

It's going to happen, you can't beat it. Just hope your digital distribution options are as good as Steam.

 

[Kopikatsu]

How about you do what Skyrim did and make a game you don't want to give away?

I'm just sayin.

The Gamestop by my house has about 30 used copies of Skyrim laid out, but didn't have a single used copy of Modern Warfare 3.

I just want you to think about that for a second.

And no, 'The majority of the community just has poor taste in games' is not a proper response.

Edit: It's also worth mentioning that the second closest Gamestop by my house (Which is in a mall) doesn't have any used copies of MW3 either, according to the sales rep at the one by my house. He didn't know about Skyrim though.

Edit 2: I thought back and I realized it was more like 12. Still...

 

[viranimus]

Let us simplify these wall of texts.

No, Used is not the same thing as Piracy.

Developers are trying to villainize the used market and portray it as such.

They are focused more on the used markets because they ARE legal, and thus harder to legally get rid of. Once developers do away with the used market, Piracy will be the drop in the bucket it always has been because its much easier to buy a lobbist to get the government to pass a SOPA, Acta, Stop IP, etc sort of legislation than to undo legal rights of ownership.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Let us simplify these wall of texts.

No, Used is not the same thing as Piracy.

Developers are trying to villainize the used market and portray it as such.

They are focused more on the used markets because they ARE legal, and thus harder to legally get rid of. Once developers do away with the used market, Piracy will be the drop in the bucket it always has been because its much easier to buy a lobbist to get the government to pass a SOPA, Acta, Stop IP, etc sort of legislation than to undo legal rights of ownership.

They focus on the used markets because they can actually accomplish something there. More DRM paradoxically leads to more piracy. They can't do anything about piracy, so despite continuing to develop stronger DRM, they've obviously given up hope.

 

[DeltaEdge]

On topic, buying used is not piracy. In way of where the thread is actually going, I'd like to say this. I don't really care if a used game becomes devalued. Since when do we expect our evil heartless corporation to have, well, hearts? Frankly, I believe that they've been itching to do something like this ever since retail stores started selling used video games. I tend to buy my games primarily used. This usually occurs when I'm getting a cheaper game or games. Say I have 40 dollars. There are two 25 dollar games. I could get 1 new game, or 2 used games. I think we both know which option I would opt for in that case. When it comes to newer, more expensive games however, I am not as worried about getting it new or used. I mean seriously, if a game costs 60 dollars, do I really want to get an old and possibly worn-down damaged copy for 55 dollars when I can get a shiny new copy of the game in the original casing guaranteed and the instruction manual for 5 dollars more? I certainly cannot get a game for 5 dollars unless the game is really shitty. If this becomes a real problem, then I doubt I will have much of a problem buying the games new, but it will hurt my ability to buy more games used. When digital downloads take over the market, it looks like I will be getting slightly less games. Oh well.

 

[Chaos Inverse]

Ok, so I've been thinking about this. It's true that used games aren't piracy but they do cut into profits of the publishers/creators. Here's my way of thinking on it:

The reason most pub/devs have started hating on used games so much is because of gamestop(no this is not gamestop hate). Think about it, the biggest American videogame retailer, with no one even close to catching up, is gamestop. Yes Amazon, best buy, walmart. All these places sell video games, but they aren't EXCLUSIVELY video games. Gamestop brought out almost every major game store and became the biggest. Everyone in America knows what a gamestop is. So when the biggest seller of videogames decides to focus on selling used over new, what happens? Money is lost for the makers of the games and gamestop gets more.

Now while I'm not an economist, can anyone say this isn't logical? I agree that dev's aren't making a fuss because they're looking out for gamers, but I can agree that they deserve to be paid for their product, and when your major distributor starts screwing you over, you try to find a way to fix it.

 

[everythingbeeps]

Of course it's not piracy.

But it DOES cut into new game sales, and developers and publishers are perfectly justified in recouping those losses however they see fit, including online passes and day-1 DLC.

However they see fit is a little far. Surely you wouldn't condone publisher burning down used game stores or bricking consoles of those who buy used games?

I didn't think adding "within the confines of the law" would be necessary, but apparently people like you insist upon it.

It's just that I am not certain that interfering with the First Sale Doctrine is within the confines of the law.

Who's interfering? And how?

The publishers and with activation codes. Activation codes will destroy the used market for consoles like it did for PC. It just seems to me that it shouldn't be legal to find some technical back door to make a consumer right unusable.

1. It's not their responsibility nor obligation to give a shit about the used market. Nor was I aware that "buying used" was a universal consumer right. And I'm pretty damn sure that there are no consumer rights regarding how much you're entitled to get when you trade shit in. Certainly not where video games are concerned. If you try to compare them to cars, so help me god I'm going to fucking break something. Boy, you're gonna hate life once digital distribution comes along.

2. The publishers are perfectly within their right to deliver their product however they see fit. If this means 90% disc and 10% DLC, they can do that. Again, they are not obligated to make any effort to ensure that their product "retains its value".

Calm down.

I am just saying that some DRM steps on the toes of a law designed to protect a consumers right to resale. I am just waiting for this to go to court to see what happens, if it ever does.

About going digital, that will freeze the prices. Steam may have awesome sales but do Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo on their digital stores? It would create a monopoly. With no competition from the retail market, what motivation would the big three have to drop prices?

1. Feel like if you were right, it would have been resolved by now. But this argument's pointless anyway, because as I've implied, if not outright stated, I couldn't care less about your right to sell shit you've bought. Cars, sure. Video games? No. It's nice if you can do it, but I'm not gonna whine and moan if I can't get three extra dollars for my used copy of whatever.

2. What motivation will they have to drop prices? Same as with physical shit. When sales slow down, they'll lower the price. And I don't think "monopoly" means what you think it means. (And, yes, they have sales. A lot of them. Pretty much always something's on sale. Not sure about Wii, but X360 and PS3 ALWAYS have digital shit on sale.)

If you aren't sure about the consoles, then why are you even in this conversation. Why don't you educate yourself so you can learn how often the big three have sales or lower prices.

Do you know why physical copies get reduced in price? It's because of shelf space, digital copies doesn't have that problem.

I am sure about the consoles. Two of them anyway. Are you deliberately misrepresenting me, or are you just that incapable of comprehending? And it's funny that you tell ME to "educate myself" when YOU'RE the one who had NO FUCKING IDEA that they had those sales.

And no. You're pretty much wrong on your second point as well.

Stores may lower the price on their current stock to get rid of it, but we're not talking about that and you fucking KNOW it. We're talking about when the RETAIL price of these games goes down. And the reason for THAT is because sales have slowed, and they still want to push product. They want to reach the people who didn't want to buy the game at $60 but may want it at $30. Because $30 is still better than $0.

People who are as woefully uninformed as you are exhausting to talk to. I need a fucking nap.

 

[everythingbeeps]

I think the fact that you need to be able to access a game on multiple accounts is kind of your problem, not the publishers'.

Having multiple people on one console who want to play the same game shouldn't require each person to pay extra. When you buy a disk it is bought, not licensed, no matter how much the publisher whines.

And that shit's changing thanks to the cheapskates.

Now, you're effectively buying the single-player game on the disc and licensing the online material and DLC. They're basically different products now.