Buying Used isn't Piracy

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

The content codes are complete B.S. Only a few months ago in all my years of owning an xbox 360 have I connected it to Xbox Live. Missing patches is one thing, missing game content of a game I bought is something else. Something evil. Something EA. I can also share my games (and sell them and run a renting service at my school where people pool games to rent to each other with a down payment of the price of the game in case the disk in rendered unusable with a percentage of each down payment going to me for organizing everything) with whoever I want. I'm not renting the content on the disk. I own it in it's entirety. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go rip some tags off of mattresses.

 

[Lilani]

The problem is publishers are still loathe to accept that used purchases not only have a right to exist, but are also here to stay. They take the rampant resale of their games as a sign they're being "cheated," rather than a sign their games might lack replay value IN SPITE of having multiplayer content. Almost all of the games I own and shall continue to own are single-player offline games. A few of them are even quite retro and hard to find, and worth a pretty penny on Amazon by now. But I don't sell them because I love being able to replay them. Replay value isn't always new content available to the player. It can be as simple as a game fun and engaging enough to play again and again, just as one would rewatch a favorite movie or reread a favorite book.

 

[Saxm13]

How to fix piracy:

1) Pirate everything
2) Donate directly to developers
3) ????
4) Profit?

=P

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh no, you are supposed to happily give up your consumer rights. Think of the poor publisher.

Won't someone PLEEEEEEEASE think of the publishers?

 

[octafish]

snip

...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.

Yes sir they are. I don't see why people don't get this, I really don't.

I suspect that next gen consoles will require an online connection to register games. Games will be tied to one account, much like Steam does. Seems like the perfect solution for developers, retail copies that can only be used once, digital distribution for those with the capability and no trading of games.

EDIT:

snip
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.

Are those PS3 copies? That's the (really) buggy, broken one isn't it?

 

[viranimus]

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.

Well they havent given up hope. They know that a certain percentage of theft is always unavoidable. Any actions they take are merely there to keep fear in people in order to keep piracy figures consistent.

Im not going to expand what I just said when the purpose of me saying it was to simplify it. Ill reduce it down more.

Used = we have to allow others to make profit off of us, and even though they built us up we dont want to share with them any more.



Also, your argument about BF3/MW3 vs Skyrim is based in specious reasoning. Just because you didnt see used copies does not mean they are not there. A game with a 5 hour campaign, and that is basically guaranteed to have a sequel next year is not going to be a lucrative buy for Gamestop so gamestop invariably will offer less for it. If they offer less to the point its well below 50% of what you bought it for, most people will say fuck it and either keep it, or find a different means of selling it.

 

[Joccaren]

The used game market has recently become a pariah for developers and publishers alike to blame for reduced gains or increased losses to their sales. Many equate used games to piracy, and find no value in its existence.

And they're full of shit.

Somewhat. In saying they are the exact same, they are full of shit. In saying that piracy and used sales affect them in the same way, they are not. Both result in no money going to the publisher, so to the publisher the effects of the two are the same thing. To the user, and to the stores that sell games, used games are preferable as they are legal and still earn someone money, but the publisher doesn't get any, and it ends up being the same as whether your shipment got stolen or lost. Either way it doesn't really matter, you won't actually get that shipment.

Used games are nothing like piracy: a used game is only one game. It can only be given or sold to one person and played by one (or two if there's split-screen) person at a time. The person who owns the copy of the game can do what they want with it. It is THEIRS. Piracy, is very different. It is the unauthorized use or REPRODUCTION of copyrighted material, meaning that this copy was stolen online, then the pirate made copies of it and distributed it to thousands. How are these concepts similar? They're not.

Why are developers and publishers pissing and moaning about used games? Simple. They want more money/ If I buy a used game, then the publisher sees none of that money. But, if I want to sell a game to a friend for cheaper than retail, then why can't I? It's my game, I'll do with it what I wish. Killing the used game market also kills some of our rights as consumers to do with our games what we wish. It's asinine.

They are similar in the fact that the game publisher earns no money. Only real way. Whilst yes, killing the used game market does kill consumer rights, buying only used games can hurt the industry. Games that don't sell well originally, but earn a lot of used sales, will not be remade by the publishers as it appears no-one is interested in it. Sometimes these games can be great and new and fun, but because the publishers get nothing, they won't create a sequel and will barely support the game any more. Its economy, and they're perfectly within their rights to do this. Now, I couldn't name any examples off the top of my head, but it isn't too hard to conceive some game with a cool new idea coming out, but lots of people going 'I don't know, might be crap, I'll get it used'. That sort of stuff asks for no sequel, and more CoD like games instead.

Publishers have taken EA's "Project Ten Dollars" and applied it to their games, meaning you buy a game new, and you get a code to access a part of the game that would otherwise be locked if you bought new. This isn't perfect, but it does encourage people to buy new. The annoyance is the constant menus. I can't just start a fucking game anymore; I have to go through mountains of menus to get to it. Or I have to download a damn patch. Game consoles are becoming more like PCs.

Yeah, sometimes that is done, sometimes its true DLC that is given, usually in GoTY editions, but some companies are nice enough to give it out properly. But there is nothing wrong with them doing this legally. They are giving you the product you paid for, just this extra (Or not) content is only available to those who give the publisher money, much like those in store bonuses that you will get for buying from some store in particular. If you don't want to shell out the extra money to pay for the publishers cut there, then you can pay it later. Its the same sort of idea behind people using used markets. Its Mine, I'll decide what I do with it, and I want to save money.
And Consoles are becoming more like PCs as PCs offer too many advantages over them for gamers and publishers alike. If you didn't have those menus or patches, things like that Skyrim PS3 bug would never be fixed, games would be far simpler as more time would have to be put into QA to make sure that they won't bug out on consoles, and that time, in the publisher's eyes, has to come out of some of the development time. Bonus content like legit DLC would be PC only, as consoles wouldn't be able to get it. It benefits everyone that consoles become a little more like PCs, whilst still retaining their niche in the great gaming world. If you don't want your consoles to become more like PCs, play on the PS2 and all its games. No new releases, but its less like a PC. There is a trade off that needs to be made.

 

[Kopikatsu]

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.

Well they havent given up hope. They know that a certain percentage of theft is always unavoidable. Any actions they take are merely there to keep fear in people in order to keep piracy figures consistent.

Im not going to expand what I just said when the purpose of me saying it was to simplify it. Ill reduce it down more.

Used = we have to allow others to make profit off of us, and even though they built us up we dont want to share with them any more.



Also, your argument about BF3/MW3 vs Skyrim is based in specious reasoning. Just because you didnt see used copies does not mean they are not there. A game with a 5 hour campaign, and that is basically guaranteed to have a sequel next year is not going to be a lucrative buy for Gamestop so gamestop invariably will offer less for it. If they offer less to the point its well below 50% of what you bought it for, most people will say fuck it and either keep it, or find a different means of selling it.

Gamestop's been running a promotion where you get $30 back on a new game you trade in before...I think it was the 20th of January? Since games in the US are pretty much always $59.99, they're giving you 50% back. That includes Skyrim, MW3, and BF3. Just thought it was worth mentioning.

 

[ZeZZZZevy]

No buy used isn't piracy. Does it have the same impact for the developers? Pretty much. Buying used isn't making the developers any money, and is the equivalent of advertising, much like downloading the game for free. The difference is that the store you sold your game to (Gamestop) is making a large profit on that used game, since they pay you next to nothing and then sell the game for $5 off the new price, with a guarantee of said game working like new.

Publishers complain because Gamestop can make repeated profit off of a single game copy, whereas the publishers only make profit once off of said copy. As a result, we see DLC and things like Project 10 Dollar.

 

[BreakfastMan]

B-But, aren't you supposed to prop up companies that fail when they can't compete with alternative markets or provide a product that people want to buy? Are you saying that companies are meant to serve the customer, not the customer serve the company? Are you somehow implying that companies who can't turn a profit without trying to shut down another market should *gasp* fail?!?! You are crazy. Everyone knows that when a company fails to turn a profit, it should be the goal, nay the DUTY, of a customer to make sure the company can get in the black next quarter!

 

[seraphy]

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.

Yes sir they are. I don't see why people don't get this, I really don't.

I suspect that next gen consoles will require an online connection to register games. Games will be tied to one account, much like Steam does. Seems like the perfect solution for developers, retail copies that can only be used once, digital distribution for those with the capability and no trading of games.

You have very weak crasp of laws, if I am reading you correctly.

Or are you actually saying that real piracy is also legal in a world where you live.

 

[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.

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.

Which is fine for DLC, but unless they have their own servers (instead of Microsoft or Sony) they shouldn't be charging for multiplayer. And they shouldn't take chunks out of the main game and try to sell it back to me (multiple times) just because other members of my household want to play the same game.

 

[Loonyyy]

And they're full of shit.

And that's where you're wrong. To the publisher, and the developer they support, they're identical in effect. +1 lost sale. Of course, used causes less of this, since more copies need to circulate, compared to the digital cloning of piracy, but in effect, it's a sale of their game that they get no money from.

This doesn't make it morally wrong. Buying used is a legitimate and legal, and perfectly reasonable thing to do. It's cheaper, and makes it easier to afford more games, but it doesn't help the publisher rest any easier.

But it's the epitome of sound business sense on behalf of publishers to try to reduce it. How they try to reduce it is usually as stupid as how they try to stop piracy, but that doesn't make it a smart move. And you know what? They do want more money. They're entitled to want more money, especially off the product that they made. Their stance is more of a vilification of groups like GameStop, who actively promote buying the used copy over the new. If the business wasn't profitable, you'd have far less games, and no ability to makes hyperbolic statements on the internet.

My optimal solution for all this would be to make games cheaper. Game sales are increasing, the audience is expanding, and games are getting less and less content. Why are we still paying $100 AU for these things? They could cut that in half and still get an overwhelming profit, and by reducing the price of new games, they reduce the value and profit margin of used games. The best way for the games industry to stop these things, is to make their games cheaper, and squeeze Gamestop, and other stores out of the market.

 

[octafish]

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.

Yes sir they are. I don't see why people don't get this, I really don't.

I suspect that next gen consoles will require an online connection to register games. Games will be tied to one account, much like Steam does. Seems like the perfect solution for developers, retail copies that can only be used once, digital distribution for those with the capability and no trading of games.

You have very weak grasp of laws, if I am reading you correctly.

Or are you actually saying that real piracy is also legal in a world where you live.

I don't think you are reading me correctly. The publishers have every right to make their companies profitable, as long as they don't break the law of course. Project Ten Dollar is one way of doing this. I'l edit my original post for clarity.
EDIT: There I think it reads as I intended now.

 

[lacktheknack]

As a PC-only player, I am unaffected.

That said, I personally never saw the point in raising hell over ten dollars.

 

[viranimus]

except its not considering that you dont actually get 30$ back.. you get 22 + in store credit of 8$. Last I checked that is is dramatically less than 50% I know when I sold Skyrim back to gamestop I got 33 + 6$ in store credit. Huge difference.

Also. on a different point, The reason why people disagree with this argument of "the game makers have the right to do with their product what they will" is because these game makers are failing to understand that it ends at the point they sell their product.

Do you see Smith and Wesson mounting widespread campaigns to shut down pawn shops?

Creating something does not give you the inherent right to what youve sold once youve sold it. If I Build a dining room table and sell it. The guy who buys it is free to do with it what he wishes. If he decides to sell it and makes 5 times what I sold it to him for, Im not entitled to a cut of that money because I agreed to sell it for the original price. I know its people who think like this who are the root cause of why the economy is tanking, though I dont understand how anyone cant comprehend how commerce works on that rudimentary of a level.

 

[lacktheknack]

B-But, aren't you supposed to prop up companies that fail when they can't compete with alternative markets or provide a product that people want to buy? Are you saying that companies are meant to serve the customer, not the customer serve the company? Are you somehow implying that companies who can't turn a profit without trying to shut down another market should *gasp* fail?!?! You are crazy. Everyone knows that when a company fails to turn a profit, it should be the goal, nay the DUTY, of a customer to make sure the company can get in the black next quarter!

And then those who wanted said company to burn get unhappy when suddenly digital distribution (the alternate market) becomes the only option.

 

[TheDooD]

oh....this thread again.

 

[Wintermoot]

in a used game sale no money goes to the dev it,s understandable they are pissed about it.
if they want money they should do the same as Valve and re-release all their old games as digital downloads.

 

[Mystify]

I hate how people make this into a black/white issue. Its not.

Used sales may not be piracy, but they are much more likely to be a lost sale. I know there have been many times I went to a store with the intent to buy a specific game. If they had it used, I got it used, otherwise I bought it new. That was clearly a lost sale because of the existence of the used game, and hence they are receiving less income for their work. Every use game sale is not a lost sale, but a significant percentage of them are. The idea that the companies want to minimize lost sales should not be taken as a sign that they are evil. Theoretically, if they can make more money, they can spend it on making more/better games, which would benefit us as gamers.

One big difference between a video game and many products is the lifespan of use. A video game is something that you play through, complete, and you are done. Its remaining value to you is low- non-existant if you never pick it up to replay it. With a car, its value to you is continual. You will use a car pretty much everyday, and if you sell it, you are losing that value. If you have a shirt, you will wear it on a regular basis, and get continued value from it.

However, on the flip side, if you sell a used game, you are probably going to turn around and buy a new game with that money. A person selling a used game is probably a gamer, they are in a game store at the time, and they now have more money. The producer has gotten their cut of you buying that game, and now you are using part of the cost to buy a fresh game. Hence, the presence of the used game market also increases sales, so its net effect is much smaller than you may initially think.

However, regardless of the impact of the used game market on their bottom line, the fact remains that the publishers are damaging the value of the games in an effort to combat used games and piracy, and as their customers we are perfectly valid to be upset about it. If our ire cuts into their profits more than used games were, then they will stop. Unfortunately, they are most likely to pull these stunts on the AAA titles we have been waiting months/years for, and are loath to actually pass on playing the game because of it. Our desire to play these games means we will actually put up with a lot of BS, even though we may loudly complain about it.