Buying Used isn't Piracy

[Double A]

What tipped you off, the legality? Or the fact that every other industry is OK with the second-hand market? Or maybe that every publisher who is against piracy is also an asshole to PC gamers?

 

[D0WNT0WN]

Buying Used isn't Piracy

Did someone say it was?
Piracy: The unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work
Buying Used: The act of BUYING something that was sold by another

 

[AngryMongoose]

You're right, they aren't the same; Piracy isn't nearly as bad as buying Used Games. When you pirate, you get for free something someone provided for free; when you buy used, you're providing money to those people who perpetuated the used games industry, who spend the money on advertising to make the cycle continue. Pirating a game is a single crime; buying (or selling) used makes things progressively worse. Save the industry. Pirate instead of buying used; save your money for new games.

 

[Fappy]

I said this last (and recent) Used game thread, but how but in brief list form this time?


No, Used game is not the same thing as piracy. Anyone who says so is dumb
Yes, people should be able to buy/sell their used games as they want
Yes, used games are a cause for concern for developers/publishers

Gamestop gets to sell games for decent profit several times over due to generally little decrease in value per trade in, something most used markets have differently


Yes, they care about money. That's how business works. They should want to make money by making quality products though, not by ransoming content.


There, that sums up my feelings on this debate. I'd like to think that's a pretty solid stance.

Well said Boshi. That's pretty much how I feel about the matter as well. I don't condemn the developers/publishers for trying to improve profits, but I do feel that my role as a consumer is being taken for granted with things like "Project $10".

 

[OneCatch]

Buying a used game isn't piracy.
A game is a piece of media, the same as CDs DVD, video cassettes, books, etc. If anyone claimed that you couldn't resell them they would rightly be ridiculed. In all of these instances the used market cuts down on sales, but it's accepted because it's fair. Not everything that cuts down on profits is wrong!

When it comes to digital downloads it's a little more complex, purely because you can't resell WITHOUT unauthorised reproduction.
But with itunes for example, the albums are cheaper, so in my mind it kind of offsets it (and I know how much itunes is loathed). I still prefer to buy physical albums, but that's more out of habit (and I like the little booklets that come with them ) than dislike of the system itself.

Frankly I think that charging for DLC (the ones that are more like bug fixes anyway - I've got no problem with expansions, though they are overpriced) is outrageous, but if they start REMOVING parts of the original game and then charging for it, then that's pathetic. Games are expensive enough now anyways. If you'd told me in 2002 that games would be £40 on release, I'd have laughed at you.

It's just going to encourage more people to pirate (and I really don't like piracy, but in that case I'd kind of understand), which is a shame because then the games industry will go the way the music industry is going now.

EDIT: Spelling corrected

 

[Jumpingbean3]

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.

But we, as consumers, have every right to complain about it. Just because their actions are justifiable doesn't mean we shouldn't complain if we feel like we're being screwed Now I'm not against Day-1 DLC if it's like an extra map pack or costume because that feels more like a reward but if you make used buyers pay extra for multiplayer then it feels like punishment because games have made players come to expect multiplayer in the full game and the publisher brings any complaints on themselves.

 

[Pompey71]

ok. so we're going to ban used-cars, used-CD's and used-DVD's as well are we? why don't we just stop everyone doing everything hmm? it's ridiculous. want to stop piracy, lock down the torrent sites. get the government to man-up and admit that the torrent sites are ONLY used for piracy (don't pretend they aren't) and shut them down without question. then allow people to trade games as it's their right to. even if you get rid of the shops, we'll trade among one another, we're ALLOWED to!

 

[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.

But we, as consumers, have every right to complain about it. Just because their actions are justifiable doesn't mean we shouldn't complain if we feel like we're being screwed Now I'm not against Day-1 DLC if it's like an extra map pack or costume because that feels more like a reward but if you make used buyers pay extra for multiplayer then it feels like punishment because games have made players come to expect multiplayer in the full game and the publisher brings any complaints on themselves.

As consumers we can ***** and whine about whatever suits our fancy. And I continue to maintain that publishers are under ZERO obligation to do anything to benefit used game buyers, and in fact are free to do whatever they want to thwart them.

Because that's still what it comes down to. You, as a used buyer, are still expecting the publishers to meet YOUR demands, even though they don't see a dime of your money. How does that not sound patently absurd to everyone else?

Don't like the product you're getting used? Not their problem. Buy it new, or spend the $10, or be quiet.

 

[everythingbeeps]

ok. so we're going to ban used-cars, used-CD's and used-DVD's as well are we? why don't we just stop everyone doing everything hmm? it's ridiculous. want to stop piracy, lock down the torrent sites. get the government to man-up and admit that the torrent sites are ONLY used for piracy (don't pretend they aren't) and shut them down without question. then allow people to trade games as it's their right to. even if you get rid of the shops, we'll trade among one another, we're ALLOWED to!

Who's "banning" anything? Nobody's "banning" anything, and if that's the debate tactic you're going to use, save your breath and go post somewhere else.

All publishers are doing is trying to recoup a little bit of money on used sales they're otherwise shut out of. It's perfectly fair.

It's your right to trade in games.

It is NOT the publishers' obligation to facilitate that! Why don't you people learn the difference?

 

[Vegosiux]

As consumers we can ***** and whine about whatever suits our fancy. And I continue to maintain that publishers are under ZERO obligation to do anything to benefit used game buyers, and in fact are free to do whatever they want to thwart them.

Because that's still what it comes down to. You, as a used buyer, are still expecting the publishers to meet YOUR demands, even though they don't see a dime of your money. How does that not sound patently absurd to everyone else?

Don't like the product you're getting used? Not their problem. Buy it new, or spend the $10, or be quiet.

And again, I'll say the publishers have no idea whether you bought new or used, so their best bet is to listen to everyone's complaints.

That is their best bet. Of course, people need to understand that the publishers are not obligated to listen to any complaint at all, be it from a new or from a used buyer. Whether or not they listen is at their discretion, and I think the new/used dilemma doesn't top the priority list when hearing complaints. Game-breaking/Not-game-breaking is likely on the top.

That said, if a game is bought "used" that means the previous owner obviously wasn't satisfied with it. And that is a complaint in and of itself - if people trade in their games, what does that tell you? Well, it'd tell me they're not happy with them, ergo, the trading in is their way of issuing their own complaints.

By the way:

Why do we need a middleman?

Developer -> Publisher -> Customer.

Why not Developer -> Customer?

Considering it's mostly the publishers that play the money card, not the developers! It's the publishers that complain about us refusing to give them all our money, not the developers!

 

[Luke Cartner]

wise up ofcourse it is

 

[everythingbeeps]

As consumers we can ***** and whine about whatever suits our fancy. And I continue to maintain that publishers are under ZERO obligation to do anything to benefit used game buyers, and in fact are free to do whatever they want to thwart them.

Because that's still what it comes down to. You, as a used buyer, are still expecting the publishers to meet YOUR demands, even though they don't see a dime of your money. How does that not sound patently absurd to everyone else?

Don't like the product you're getting used? Not their problem. Buy it new, or spend the $10, or be quiet.

And again, I'll say the publishers have no idea whether you bought new or used, so their best bet is to listen to everyone's complaints.

That is their best bet. Of course, people need to understand that the publishers are not obligated to listen to any complaint at all, be it from a new or from a used buyer. Whether or not they listen is at their discretion, and I think the new/used dilemma doesn't top the priority list when hearing complaints. Game-breaking/Not-game-breaking is likely on the top.

That said, if a game is bought "used" that means the previous owner obviously wasn't satisfied with it. And that is a complaint in and of itself - if people trade in their games, what does that tell you? Well, it'd tell me they're not happy with them, ergo, the trading in is their way of issuing their own complaints.

But only used buyers really HAVE those complaints! I buy new. I don't give a toss about day-1 DLC or online passes, because they don't affect me. I get that shit regardless. So they can reasonably assume that the people bitching about that stuff are either used-game buyers, or are insufferably self-righteous. Either way, those people can be ignored.

And no, it's silly to think that all games are traded in because of dissatisfaction. Sometimes people are just DONE with games. I couldn't play one second more of Singularity, but that game was fun as hell while I had it. You're suggesting that unless a game is fun enough to be played and owned forever, it's "not satisfying".

And if you buy a game and are dissatisfied with it, shame on YOU. That's your fault for not doing enough research before recklessly blowing your money.

 

[everythingbeeps]

By the way:

Why do we need a middleman?

Developer -> Publisher -> Customer.

Why not Developer -> Customer?

Considering it's mostly the publishers that play the money card, not the developers! It's the publishers that complain about us refusing to give them all our money, not the developers!

If the developers can afford to finance and produce their own games, they typically do. If they want or need a bigger budget, or want to maximize their earning potential from better marketing and such, a publisher enters the picture.

 

[Vegosiux]

See, the moment we enter the "marketing" area I have a problem.

But seriously, if you (you as in, "the reader") trade in a game because you're done with it then deride the one who bought the game that you traded in for being a cheapskate, I'm just going to roll my eyes and shake my head.

Another, slightly related, but independent point is also, as I said many times before: What research can a person do when they're buying a new release, a new release that has been hyped up, a new release that has been hyped up in a holiday time? Seriously?

Sure if the game has been out for half a year it's your fault if you bought it and didn't like it, but while the game is new, before the reviews, feedback and word of mouth had a chance to work their magic, that argument is non-existent. And considering how many games are released for example, about the Christmas time, in order to make people buy it as Christmas gifts to either themselves or others...well, what research can they do?

That's the problem I have. The moment marketing enters the picture, I say the publishers are deserving all the fire they get if their games are denounced.

If you hyped your game up that much you better damn well make sure it's good. In any other business, dissatisfaction with the service you provide ends up with stuff worse than "lost sales".

On a slightly related note, I'd be very interested in seeing a chart of how many games get traded back in depending on how long their owner had them. I've actually been trying to find information like that but have not been too successful.

 

[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.

Maybe the other members of your household should just man up and spend the ten bucks, which is still way less than the cost of buying the whole game.

Because paying over $100 for a game is ridiculous.

 

[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.

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.

Maybe the other members of your household should just man up and spend the ten bucks, which is still way less than the cost of buying the whole game.

Because paying over $100 for a game is ridiculous.

You're already five people sharing one game. Stop being so cheap.

 

[TPiddy]

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.

Sorry, but used car sales cut into dealer's profits and they don't have the right to restrict the speedometer unless I pay them an extra $100.... your argument is bullshit.