penny arcade equates used games to piracy

[rembrandtqeinstein]

In other news it seems that PA has had more to say on the subject [http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/27/room-481/]:

It turns out that used games are a tremendously controversial issue. Part of the reason response to the comic and post has been so massive is that (aside from our inflammatory presentation) this conversation has been a long time coming. The thing for the commentariat to do about this issue typically is to carve out as populist a stance as possible, to cluck and tut tut about it so as to ingratiate themselves to you as much as possible, and then follow up by posting a picture of a belt buckle. That strikes me as a bit precious.
Because this is the Internet, every argument was spun in a centrifuge instantly and reduced down into two wholly enraged, radically incompatible contingents, as opposed to the natural gradient which human beings actually occupy.
People who buy used games are not pirates, by definition. Used games (used everything, really) are and will continue to be a legal and protected form of commerce. Other industries have done what they can to co-opt, destroy, or harvest those markets, but their existence is settled law. What I have said is that the end result of that purchase from a developer perspective must be indistinguishable. Isn't it? That is the question I couldn't answer. I still can't answer it. And because I couldn't, I had to change the way I invested my leisure dollar.
People want to talk about used cars, or libraries, or any other thing really, but I'm not talking about the universe in general - I'm talking about the tiny part of it I have any control over. That bit up there is the part I can't resolve: the moral dimension contained within the purchase. Yes, I'm giving somebody money when I buy used. Is that sufficient? What is the end result, and what systems am I sustaining by doing so?
I'd rather not think about things like this, believe me. I'd rather be Mr. Perpetual Good Times, but I'm not built that way. On the whole, I'd say thinking has been a tremendous inconvenience.

The bolded part is important. He is saying that from the perspective of the developers, there is no functional difference between a used copy and a pirate copy. So far nobody has disputed that claim. They dance around it by talking legal and illegal, and saying the original owner can't enjoy the game but we aren't talking about that. We are just looking from the perspective of the developer/publisher.

So from that perspective, how are used games different from piracy?

 

[Irridium]

If I buy a used game, why should the publisher/developer get the money? They already got payed when someone bought the game new, then that person was done with it and sold it/traded it in to get some of their investment back.

They already got paid for the game. At this point they're just whining like children.

 

[silversun101]

Also, the penny arcade guys are just pandering to the corporations. They are cowards who are too afraid to stand up and say screw you.

Obviously you haven't followed PA for all that long.

How is agreeing with a video game company that they would like to make money off the games they have created pandering to corporations? The PA guys are standing up for the artists and programmers and creative minds behind these projects who are being cheated out of the money they deserve for the product they've labored on. This sense of entitlement, especially to a piece of media, makes me sick. I'll say it straight: You do not deserve to own that product unless you have paid for the right to do so. This condemns pirates right out of the gate, but there is a vast grey area where used games are concerned. The problem being addressed is once you've made your purchase, that particular copy is now your property for you to do with as you see fit (within the confines of the law, of course), including selling it so someone else.

 

[Macgyvercas]

If new games were cheaper, I wouldn't buy them used. I'm a fucking college student! I have very little spending money. You want me to buy new, developers, lower the damn prices! Your move, games industry.

/rant

Also,

Alright, time for me to come clean here. This entire used games debate is stupid. I think both sides are overreacting and exaggerating the truth by quite a bit. Yes it's true that not a single dime spent on a used game makes it back to the developer, and all in all I agree with the idea of having to pay for something like a new license to pay online, or giving new purchases exclusive content that used copies don't get. And I always recommend buying new, but if someone doesn't want to spend full price on a game, then who am I to tell them what to do with their hard-earned cash?

But a surprising number of people seem to want to make it downright illegal to sell used games, or at least make it just as looked down upon as piracy. I mean come on now, really? I don't know how much money retailers make supplying and selling new games, but would they make enough to stay afloat? Would people visit game retailers as often if you couldn't get used games at discount prices? And what about older games that you can only buy used? Should it become impossible for people to experience older classics that might never see the light of day on download services?

Personally, I think things are pretty much working fine the way they are. Developers make money off of new purchases when people buy them at stores, stores make money and stay in business by selling the games that get traded in. And another thing, what about all this speculation that games might one day only become available through download? Apparently, Gamestop has tried to come up with a way to remain relevant if that happens, and it already looks like they would be screwed. [http://www.destructoid.com/this-is-how-gamestop-will-tackle-digital-distribution-182276.phtml] (Seriously, would YOU still go there?) Obviously, Gamestop won't last long one way or another if this happens, but couldn't we at least still go there to get the older games for those retro Xbox 360 games that aren't showing up for online resale? Or will we have to resort to buying over-priced rare copies of old games off of eBay just to play them? (Assuming no one bitches about that, too)

And where did this sudden hatred of used games come from, anyways? I don't remember people debating this a year ago.

This wins.

 

[silversun101]

Whoa, that posted 3 times. My mistake.

 

[silversun101]

[ignore]

 

[silversun101]

Alright, time for me to come clean here. This entire used games debate is stupid. I think both sides are overreacting and exaggerating the truth by quite a bit. Yes it's true that not a single dime spent on a used game makes it back to the developer, and all in all I agree with the idea of having to pay for something like a new license to pay online, or giving new purchases exclusive content that used copies don't get. And I always recommend buying new, but if someone doesn't want to spend full price on a game, then who am I to tell them what to do with their hard-earned cash?

But a surprising number of people seem to want to make it downright illegal to sell used games, or at least make it just as looked down upon as piracy. I mean come on now, really? I don't know how much money retailers make supplying and selling new games, but would they make enough to stay afloat? Would people visit game retailers as often if you couldn't get used games at discount prices? And what about older games that you can only buy used? Should it become impossible for people to experience older classics that might never see the light of day on download services?

Personally, I think things are pretty much working fine the way they are. Developers make money off of new purchases when people buy them at stores, stores make money and stay in business by selling the games that get traded in. And another thing, what about all this speculation that games might one day only become available through download? Apparently, Gamestop has tried to come up with a way to remain relevant if that happens, and it already looks like they would be screwed. [http://www.destructoid.com/this-is-how-gamestop-will-tackle-digital-distribution-182276.phtml] (Seriously, would YOU still go there?) Obviously, Gamestop won't last long one way or another if this happens, but couldn't we at least still go there to get the older games for those retro Xbox 360 games that aren't showing up for online resale? Or will we have to resort to buying over-priced rare copies of old games off of eBay just to play them? (Assuming no one bitches about that, too)

And where did this sudden hatred of used games come from, anyways? I don't remember people debating this a year ago.

Actually they are already doing a trial run of this new awards system in select cities to very positive results. Yes, they are rewarding the regulars with accumulative points and promotional discounts, but more importantly they are creating buyer loyalty in new customers, soccer moms and the like, who would just as likely go to walmart to purchase their son's games. Now when Timmy wants The Adventures of Radical Guy 5, mom will say "Wait, I have that GameStop card. I can earn points if we buy it there."

 

[Naheal]

Calumon: ...Are we really arguing over a webcomic?

Penny Arcade tends to have a good point in these regards.

OT: I'll take a neutral stance in this. Both the publisher and the distributer need to make money in this market. When we see digital distribution, a la Steam or Impulse, no distributer sees a dime of it. However, when you go to buy a used game, the devs don't see a dime of it... also, you do need to listen to your wallet, so... I'm on the fence here.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Drop the price on all games to 49.99 and we will talk. Until then, I refuse to pay 60.00 for a game that will most likely turn out to be a big pile of steaming shit. I pay full price for a new copy of a game when i know it will be quality.

 

[Irridium]

Calumon: ...Are we really arguing over a webcomic?

Penny Arcade tends to have a good point in these regards.

OT: I'll take a neutral stance in this. Both the publisher and the distributer need to make money in this market. When we see digital distribution, a la Steam or Impulse, no distributer sees a dime of it. However, when you go to buy a used game, the devs don't see a dime of it... also, you do need to listen to your wallet, so... I'm on the fence here.

All those used games had to have been new. And if they're used, that means they were paid for, so the developer/publisher already got the money for those games. And the person who bought them didn't want them so they traded them in/sold them, recouping some of their investment.

Publishers/Developers lose nothing from used games, they're already been paid for those games.

 

[Gindil]

Calumon: ...Are we really arguing over a webcomic?

Penny Arcade tends to have a good point in these regards.

OT: I'll take a neutral stance in this. Both the publisher and the distributer need to make money in this market. When we see digital distribution, a la Steam or Impulse, no distributer sees a dime of it. However, when you go to buy a used game, the devs don't see a dime of it... also, you do need to listen to your wallet, so... I'm on the fence here.

I really think you should reconsider [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103008-Steam-Promotion-Saves-Introversion-From-Death] that position.

The bolded part is important. He is saying that from the perspective of the developers, there is no functional difference between a used copy and a pirate copy. So far nobody has disputed that claim. They dance around it by talking legal and illegal, and saying the original owner can't enjoy the game but we aren't talking about that. We are just looking from the perspective of the developer/publisher.

So from that perspective, how are used games different from piracy?

My rebuttal is still pretty accurate.

Used markets have been around for a long time. None of it serves the publisher/developer directly. Trying to have Toyota limit what I can do to a car I bought from Nissan isn't going to fly very well. I'll agree that if developers give more incentive to first time buyers, then that's fine. So long as they give others a similar shot, then it's fine (even though I can't agree with every method of the $10 deal). What I do see from the particular example given, is that they've hurt licensing deals with Gamefly (where people rent), and also could cause a split in the used market against them. People may decide not to get the game at all for no server support. Another thing is that the $10 code in licensing deals makes Gamestop That. Much. Richer since that money allows them to hold the game and the code for later customers. And guess what? It's probably not a 50/50 split. In the end, the developer probably gets (max) $2.50 out of that sale. I don't even want to think about people renting Madden with the exact same scenario... 1 game disc, 5 people? It's like a license to print money.

See also: Shamus Young [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/8040-Experienced-Points-Bargains-Are-for-Cheaters]

 

[Naheal]

Calumon: ...Are we really arguing over a webcomic?

Penny Arcade tends to have a good point in these regards.

OT: I'll take a neutral stance in this. Both the publisher and the distributer need to make money in this market. When we see digital distribution, a la Steam or Impulse, no distributer sees a dime of it. However, when you go to buy a used game, the devs don't see a dime of it... also, you do need to listen to your wallet, so... I'm on the fence here.

I really think you should reconsider [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103008-Steam-Promotion-Saves-Introversion-From-Death] that position.

No. Introversion is a dev, not a distributer.

 

[Gindil]

I'm sure that benefited Steam to a good ideal. How is their helping the little guy not assisting them?

 

[Savagezion]

The problem here is alot of people see this as a 2 sided coin, when it fact is is more like a 6 sided die. So lets roll into this. First, I don't see 1 single publisher or devloper complaining about this. As such, this is a hypocritical arguement. How is it "ok" to sell a used anything by these standards? As well people are bitching about a 200% markup that Gamestop employs when selling a used copy. Are any of you aware of the price markup the publishers you are defending are giving you? It is well over 200%. That is why so many crap titles that do poorly are released a year. Kotick already stated that if he could charge more he would. That is business, it is how it works. We all know Kotick doesn't need the money because he is struggling to feed his kids.
The reason things are marked up alot of times is because going into business you have to understand that not all of your product is going to sale. You need to garauntee that 20% of your product will, by itself, pay for your cost. (roughly) So when you rush out to buy a new title, you are in effect paying for those who do not buy. You are assuring the company that there is demand.

I have been in sales for a while now and there are times where I could price drop to ensure the sale. I have had people complaining that it is "too expensive" as they are writing me the check. The key to that whole phrase is this "they are writing me the check". Obviously, it is not too expensive. I don't sell need merchandise, I sell luxury merchandise. The most common response I get on my job is "I don't need that". And my first response is "your right" followed by sales pitches, of course.
With this arguement you could also claim that people who wait for the price of a "new" game to drop are also robbing the company. I hate to say this but anyone with this kind of mentality are the people I love to see walk into my store. Someone with an obligation to buy is actually the person I would LOVE to give the cheaper price to but I can't afford to. It is the smart consumers and cheapskates who not only make me work for my money, but get the better deal. And I assure you nobody really "loses" money when they do. Because it was money that was never had in the first place. This quote:
"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it" is the key rule of sales.

The guy that feels obligated feels it is WORTH 120 (Arbitrary number) bucks today. The other guy feels it is WORTH 90. Both leave the store satisfied with their purchase. And the 120 dollar guy will stay satisfied unless he found out about the 90 guy I sold in the same day. I respect both equally, usually, because both usually did do what they could to match the price point. Some people out there just know how the game is played. Most act like they do, which is where the guy complaining about price as he writes the check falls in. He probably goes to a car lot and kicks tires.

So, to sum up, here we have a hypocritical arguement that games are the only merchandise that should be sold as new only. Video game publishers I assure you areaware of this taking place in the market and adjusted for it a looong time ago. Going into it, they mark up a game higher than a used game salesman. And there are plenty of other faucets we could go into. This ONLY touches the business aspect to it and even then only a small part of that.

I would go one step further and say used games are WORSE than piracy. Because with used games you are extracting money from the games market. A used game buyer has money in their pocket, and has shown a willingness to spend it on a game. A pirate doesn't necessarily have money or if they do is not willing to spend it.

In my opinion used game shops (and to a lesser extent rental places) are parasites leeching off of the creativity and risktaking of developers and publishers. You could claim that because someone knows they can resell a game they are more willing to pay the new price but I would argue that the amount is negligible compared to the amount a publisher doesn't get when someone purchases used instead of new.

Using Gamestop here, Gamestop has purchased X amount of the game and have a license to sale the game at whatever price they want. When you buy your new copy, the publisher has already been paid. You are now paying Gamestop for buying that game ahead of time. There is some crediting that goes on, no doubt, but Gamestop doesn't make commision from 2k based on how many 2k games they sale. Your money is more like a reimbursement for Gamestop's troubles of getting the game for you the day it came out.

At least Gamestop are actually supporting the business. To claim that they are no better than pirates is ludicrous. The fact that there are so many legitamly SOLD copies of the game in circulation shows how many people DID pay the publisher. EVERY LEGITAMATE COPY of the game out there the publishers made their money off of period. Do not compare this to piracy, it makes no sense.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

At least Gamestop are actually supporting the business. To claim that they are no better than pirates is ludicrous. The fact that there are so many legitamly SOLD copies of the game in circulation shows how many people DID pay the publisher. EVERY LEGITAMATE COPY of the game out there the publishers made their money off of period. Do not compare this to piracy, it makes no sense.

I guess I should clarify the position a bit. Gamestop and every other retailer do take risk when they stock a game. The risk is that the game won't sell and their shelf space will not go to a game that would have sold.

My main problem is both the aggressive way Gamestop pushes used games and their whole incentive system to keep money away from the publishers. They give more money for trade ins if you agree to spend it on used games. That completely negates the argument that used game sales support the new game market.

Most gamers have a limited amount of time and money to spend on games. Once you recognize those limits you see that Gamestop is playing a zero sum game against the publishers for those game budgets. If Gamestop buys games used, marks them up 300% then of course they will market that aggressively to maximize profits. They contribute nothing to investing in or creating games but they extract value from the market that those creative works generate.

The problem occurs because Gamestop is the de-facto game specialty game store monopoly. The non-specialized options are Best Buy, Walmart and maybe Target but their selection is made by throwing darts at a game list. So instead of going back to publishers to invest in more games money goes to Gamestop stockholders.

If there was an option to buy direct from publishers that would be great but publishers have agreements not to compete with their retail distribution partners. I wish some big publishers would just say screw it and take the hit of cutting off Gamestop and selling games directly.

I think the final solution will end up being something like Steam for consoles. If Sony is smart they will allow full integration with Steam. If they do then they will totally shoot ahead of MS.

 

[Gunner 51]

My thoughts on this are...

Publishers are nothing more than wholesalers, they aren't entitled to a second share of the profits IMO.

A Game Retailer orders 500 games from a publisher who represents (I used that term in the loosest possible sense) a developer. The retailer pays the publisher and all is fair and above board. This is where the publishers should bow out of the market, they have sold their products and have their money from the retailers.

The retailer then sells it's stock to the gamer on with a mark-up to make profit. (Minus staff salaries, overheads, rental, utilities etc.)

Gamer is out of pocket and has completed the game after a few days and wishes to try something new. But he's a bit short on cash and wants to try the next game, so the retailer offers a convenient way to make up the difference. (By offering to buy the old game there and then - albeit though nickel and diming.)

But this is where things get silly - the retailer who has bought the game off the gamer, has resold it on for near enough full-price. This is not a matter for the publisher, but a matter for government / trading standards or some form of financial ombudsman.

The only people getting hurt by the retailers are not the publishers. They had their money when they sold 500 games to the retailer.

The publishers have no right to dictate who the gamer should sell their games to.

 

[Eternalsun]

Why do you care?

 

[Shilkanni]

You realize this debate is completely pointless, right? The only people defending used games are the people who actually buy used. They run off on tangents and quibble in semantics but never actually address the core of the issue. That, as far as a publisher/developer is concerned, they are not buying a game.

You really don't get it.

Firstly - I don't buy 2nd hand games and I haven't sold or traded in a game in the past 10 years. I'm only arguing about it because I don't like it when people are tricked into thinking something is bad when there is nothing wrong with it. Nothing wrong with it morally, nothing wrong with it legally. Of course you are giving the gaming industry less of your money, just like when you buy a game on sale... no-one is arguing this. If it's all giving the gaming industry more money you can buy multiple copies or something, or shop around for the highest price.

The ability to SELL a game (or any product) makes it worth more to the buyer.

If I know I can sell something for $50 I might be more likely to buy it for $100.
If I know I can buy it used a little after release I might wait and buy it used.

By this method two cheapskates who never were going to buy the game for $100 might end up resulting in 1 sale.

If a game sells a total of one million units, but every copy is sold used an average of four times, thats equal to an 80% piracy rate. 80% of the people who played the game didn't pay a dime to anyone who mattered.

It's only equivalent to an 80% piracy rate in a bizarro-world where there's something wrong with selling something you're not using... or buying 2nd hand products.

I'd also suggest that any game where the average copy is resold four times after the initial purchase it might just be a terrible game that no-one wants to keep, and they're lucky they sold a million units.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

No they only saw the money ONCE for TWO sales of the game, cutting the profit they WOULD have made in half. Thats like one person buying and one person pirating. Half possible profit.

Since pretty much forever, ownership has implied equity. Your money doesn't disappear when you put it into a thing. It's still there, in "thing" form. As a consumer, you have a long-established legal right to salvage a portion of your ownership equity through resale of assets. This applies to everything - clothes, cars, homes, books, movies, and video games.

Publishers hate the idea of resale because it diminishes their profits, but that's sort of how consumer rights function. They exist to protect us from purely profit-driven entities with no moral or ethical compunctions. Despite what the PR lackeys might tell you, theoretical profit loss does not mean someone's committing a crime. Yes, they'd make more money if pre-owned sales were illegal. They'd also make more money if competition were illegal. Or negative reviews. Or rentals.

The publishers should be active participants in the resale market. They should facilitate the trade-ins, which would give them some measure of control over (and ownership of) the process. Instead, we have an enormous disconnect between them and us, and Gamestop has filled that chasm with disgusting profiteering. Now the game makers are utilizing Gamestop's greed as ammo in their assault on a consumer right that is probably a few minutes younger than the very concept of "the consumer". It's transparent and offensive.

I still stand by the fact that pircay is ok if its a game you would never ever ever buy ever. I pirated a rom of pokemon mystery dungion. I wouldnt buy that game even at gunpoint. I would pay a penny for it ever. No potential sale is lost, i was never a customer. If the option of piracy wasnt there i wouldnt buy the game to make up for it.
That way you dont take away a potential sale.

In this case the guy has money, and wants the game but buys it second hand and so gets a game sale for NO money to the publisher when he could have got it new. Piracy is much much better if you stand by my rule of "If you want it buy it, if its a passing interest or for a cousin (my case) pirate it, you were never going to buy it anyway"

This is just the worst argument.

If something is free to anyone, it's free to everyone. Why should anyone pay for games if you don't?

If your disinterest justifies your theft, how can you prove that disinterest - especially when pirating the game objectively proves an interest level greater than zero/aversion?

What happens to the industry when everyone is suddenly (and conveniently) disinterested in everything?

Why are the most pirated (and apparently least interesting) games also the best-selling (and most interesting) ones?

I could spend all day shooting holes in this argument, but all that matters is this: if everyone treated the industry the way you do, we wouldn't have an industry. A system's rules must necessarily promote, first and foremost, the continued existence of the system. Violating these rules is a willfully destructive act, and it is rightly condemned by anyone who enjoys the products of the system.

You're a leech. At least have the fortitude to own it.

 

[Signa]

Personally, I agree with the OP 100%. If I'm going to buy a game, it's because I like it and want to see more of it. If I buy used, then the people who I need to make the game for me are not going to get any money. I may as well as just pirate the game at that point because it makes fuck-all the difference in the end. At least if I pirate something I still have my money. The real folly of used games is it makes you feel like you've done your job as a consumer because you have bought the game and you own it. It might be legal, and it might be fair, but it did nothing to help the people you should be trying to support with your purchase. With piracy as the alternative, there is no sense of ownership, and I'd still be encouraged morally to buy the game I liked.

I'm also sick of all the AWFUL analogies in this thread. Used games are not at all like used cars, or any other used product. Games are information, and you can't equate the same principles to a tangible product that you can to information.

Lastly, publishers need to stop bitching. They are going to complain every time they don't get the money they think they've earned, and the only difference between this complaint and their one about piracy is that no one is agreeing with them this time.