Used Games v. Piracy

[sivlin]

I'll just copy-paste what I said earlier.
Someone who buys used isn't a direct customer, yes. But he can still buy DLC, merchandise and other related things.
And if he really liked a game, he is far more likely to buy the sequel or other games from that developer new.
He becomes a new customer next time, a customer the publisher wouldn't have acquired without used games.

Also, you kinda forgot about the guy who traded the game in. What will he do with the money/points he got from trading?
Buy a new game obviously, a game he couldn't afford without trading in his old games.
What people do these days is buy a game, play it, trade it in and get a new one, so in the end it all evens out.
There is no fucking disadvantage for publishers here. It's completely different from piracy where the developer doesn't see a single cent.

I firmly believe that used games don't hurt the industry, but that publishers massively benefit from it.
This "used games fiasco" is just a way to make extra cash, not compensate losses they made due to people buying used.

This is the exact same thing as piracy. Most people who pirate games do it with the mentality that if the game is awesome, they will be more likely to buy the sequels/other content from the manufacturer. The only difference in buying used games is that you are paying someone else to steal the content for you.

 

[targren]

I'm against this push that the game industry is making towards eliminating second-hand games.

Are you also equally against that push of the game industry towards eliminating software piracy ? Why ? It's practically the same thing. Feel free to explain the radical difference you believe exists between buying used and pirating.

The only way they are even remotely comparable is the end effect to the company's bottom line.

A pirated game = no money in ElectronicActivenix's pocket.
A used game = no money in ElectronicActivenix's pocket.

Guess what: tough shit for them. In spite of what the whiney execs say, and the unthinking fanboys brainlessly parrot, there is no moral imperative that says that they must be allowed to profit.

Especially when you consider this:

A stinking, horrible, CF of a game that no one buys because it sucks and half of it may or may not be missing = no money in ElectronicActivenix's pocket.

But the astroturfers won't make their quotas if they allow people to think that it might be anything other than OMG TEH EBIL PIRAT3S!

 

[Skratt]

Simple solution is simple. Used games give a cut back to the publisher up to say, one year after the original release date.

Not too tough to figure out is it?

That would set a horrible precedent. Next used car you buy may be 10% more because they have to give money to GM. You know that cost will be passed on to the consumer, Gamestop/car dealerships/pawn shops/etc won't eat the cost.

Cars & Tangibles do not equal Software & Methods (the basis of IP). That being said, I understand what you mean, and after careful consideration, rescind my previous statement.

My initial thought was that if Game Stop buys a game back from you for $35 and sells it for $45, why shouldn't the publisher get a $1? Then I realized I must have bumped my head. Publishers want the used game industry to die, regardless of the validity of the argument that used game sales affect new game sales and there is nothing we can do to stop them, so why make it easy? My bad.

 

[faefrost]

Here's a fun fact: People who buy games, even used, buy DLC more then people who pirated the game.

Mainly because it's far easier to buy DLCs (or in some cases, at all possible) when you have an used copy of the game rather than a pirated copy.

Secondly, Gamestop bought over a billion dollars worth of used games last year. $750 Million of that by consumers went towards purchasing new games. That's right. So that money went towards publishers pockets directly.

That says a lot more about the bad pricing practices for games rather than the benefits of used game resale. You only need to look at Steam special offer statistics to see what I mean.
Used game sales don't tap into a magical fairytale land of money-a-plenty, they tap into the "subprime" funding of gamers, something that can be done without used game reselling.

What makes games so special that they deserve an exemption from the First Sale Doctrine?

You'd have to ask the USA courts, which are still debating exactly that.
Also, it should be quite obvious that the law outside of the USA does not work like inside the USA, with quite a few places where resale of a purchased copyrighted work entitles the copyright holder to a share of the proceeds of the resale, which does not happen in the USA when games are resold.


The solution is however quite obvious, and we're slowly but surely getting there.
We will end up in a place where game companies will no longer "sell" any games at all, but will instead sell subscriptions to their games (and all possible addons), with key parts of the game's logic computed server-side, never actually delivered to the end user, and an "always on" Internet connection will be mandatory to play, because the game will be a mostly dumb terminal.
Basically, all games will work pretty much like a MMO, even single player games.
Then, there will be no more legal disputes at all - you won't be ABLE to "buy used" at all in the first place.

There is nothing wrong with the first sale doctrine. Nor is there anything that the game publishers are doing come anywhere close to interfering with it. Yes you can buy products new or used. But it behooves a manufacturer to put an advantage or reason for you to buy new so that they get paid. When you buy a car used you don't get the full manufacturers warranty or service. In this case when you buy it directly new, you get something extra (warranties not being something that is really an element of video games). Some extra content, be it more levels or online play or whatever. And even if you choose to buy used, but want these features there generally is a path to purchase them from the publisher. They are incentivizing you to buy new. Nothing directly wrong with that. (Now some of the programs with which they do this are a bit wrong headed, such as EA's much derided $10 plan, but that's another discussion. The root principle is reasonable).

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Simple solution is simple. Used games give a cut back to the publisher up to say, one year after the original release date.

Not too tough to figure out is it?

That would set a horrible precedent. Next used car you buy may be 10% more because they have to give money to GM. You know that cost will be passed on to the consumer, Gamestop/car dealerships/pawn shops/etc won't eat the cost.

Cars & Tangibles do not equal Software & Methods (the basis of IP). That being said, I understand what you mean, and after careful consideration, rescind my previous statement.

My initial thought was that if Game Stop buys a game back from you for $35 and sells it for $45, why shouldn't the publisher get a $1? Then I realized I must have bumped my head. Publishers want the used game industry to die, regardless of the validity of the argument that used game sales affect new game sales and there is nothing we can do to stop them, so why make it easy? My bad.

It's cool, bro. I used to think like that.

I bet you anything: No matter how much they are given back on a used sale if they were in the first place, it won't be enough. If they got $5, they would demand $10. If given $10, they would demand $15.

 

[Epona]

Simple solution is simple. Used games give a cut back to the publisher up to say, one year after the original release date.

Not too tough to figure out is it?

That would set a horrible precedent. Next used car you buy may be 10% more because they have to give money to GM. You know that cost will be passed on to the consumer, Gamestop/car dealerships/pawn shops/etc won't eat the cost.

Cars & Tangibles do not equal Software & Methods (the basis of IP). That being said, I understand what you mean, and after careful consideration, rescind my previous statement.

My initial thought was that if Game Stop buys a game back from you for $35 and sells it for $45, why shouldn't the publisher get a $1? Then I realized I must have bumped my head. Publishers want the used game industry to die, regardless of the validity of the argument that used game sales affect new game sales and there is nothing we can do to stop them, so why make it easy? My bad.

I don't see a difference between cars and software where the First Sale Doctrine is concerned but that's another topic.

Publishers want to force you to buy as many new copies of a game as they can. All this always on DRM and lack of LAN ensures that you can't play a game with or against your own family members in the same household unless each has their own copy. That's the PC game industry I am talking about but the PC is a test ground for what is coming to consoles. PC games no longer have a used industry and that is exactly what publishers want for console games. I suggest gamers stop trying to help the publishers destroy any concept of game ownership and ownership rights we have left because the publishers aren't going to return the favor.

 

[MorphingDragon]

As long as it is legal to buy used games in New Zealand I will ***** and moan to our consumers authority about the anti-consumer practices.

You release a product in a country, DEAL WITH THE LAWS.

 

[Savagezion]

Publishers want to force you to buy as many new copies of a game as they can. All this always on DRM and lack of LAN ensures that you can't play a game with or against your own family members in the same household unless each has their own copy. That's the PC game industry I am talking about but the PC is a test ground for what is coming to consoles. PC games no longer have a used industry and that is exactly what publishers want for console games. I suggest gamers stop trying to help the publishers destroy any concept of game ownership and ownership rights we have left because the publishers aren't going to return the favor.

I agree with you but just wanted to quote you because I always find it funny when this is mentioned because publishers constantly berate PC gamers for such high piracy rates. I guarantee if you take away the used game market on consoles, its piracy rates will at least double. It really isn't hard to figure out how to pirate on a console if you want to know how. This is the information age after all.

The industry is actually leading itself into a different problem. What will they do if used games were illegal and even casual gamers know how to pirate games for their consoles? That market of casuals that the industry just found this generation would much rather pay $0 than $40+ per game. All it will take is knowing how to do it become common knowledge and putting a nix on the used game market will inspire that to become much more of a reality.

As much as many people don't like to admit it, anti-piracy actually encourages piracy. But anti-consumer (us vs. them) encourages it even more.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

But let's say you personally think used games and piracy are radically different.
Please, DO TELL, how exactly is an used game buyer any different from a pirated copy anyway ?
The fact that he pays some cash ? Well, buying a bootleg version is pretty much the same too (from a user perspective, awareness of bootleg status not being all that relevant), and I doubt you'd be endorsing that.
So what makes used games so special that they deserve an exemption ?

Heh?


Before you spout stuff like this, learn some law, the first purchaser of a product ALWAYS has the right to resell. Similar to how you can resell a physical item, you are legally permitted to resell you license to any intellectual property or give it away if you wish.


Let me put this in context, are you saying that we shouldn't be allowed to give video games as gifts?

Because what you're arguing against is anybody obtaining the product without personally and directly paying for it.

If you're not allowed to transfer the license, it is legally impossible for us to give them at gifts.

Cars & Tangibles do not equal Software & Methods (the basis of IP).

No, you did not just buy an "unwritten limited-use license to play" your new Lady Gaga CD... you fucking bought the disk. It's yours. You own it. If you want to sell it or wear it as a hat that's your business, not the company's.

Digital downloads for music and games have different rules, but if I have a f'cking box in my hand with a disk in it, it's tangible.

The disk is a tangible, but the information contained within is intellectual property.

You can wear the disk as a hat, but copying the cd for all your friends? That's illegal.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Ok, you people.

When you buy a used game from your local retailer, it's not like they send part of that money to the game publisher.


When you buy a NEW copy, it's not like they send part of your money to the company EITHER.

Secondary markets exist for almost all products in the world, not one other secondary market has to kowtow to the primary market. Games should be no different.

 

[Tibike77]

But let's say you personally think used games and piracy are radically different.
Please, DO TELL, how exactly is an used game buyer any different from a pirated copy anyway ?
The fact that he pays some cash ? Well, buying a bootleg version is pretty much the same too (from a user perspective, awareness of bootleg status not being all that relevant), and I doubt you'd be endorsing that.
So what makes used games so special that they deserve an exemption ?

Heh?
Before you spout stuff like this, learn some law, the first purchaser of a product ALWAYS has the right to resell. Similar to how you can resell a physical item, you are legally permitted to resell you license to any intellectual property or give it away if you wish.
Let me put this in context, are you saying that we shouldn't be allowed to give video games as gifts?
Because what you're arguing against is anybody obtaining the product without personally and directly paying for it.
If you're not allowed to transfer the license, it is legally impossible for us to give them at gifts.

I wasn't talking about the LEGALITY of it, I was talking about the FINANCES//utility involved, from a publisher//developer's standpoint.
Look at how Steam does it, for instance - it's as if games are food or game time codes or something like that : you can transfer ownership as much as you like IF YOU DON'T USE IT, but there can only be one actual user.

The only reason you can't enforce that with physical games (or books, or any other physical substrate) is that there's no way to reliably track it.
But with games that "talk to the mothership" when in use, that IS enforceable.
And in the future, we'll see more and more games that ONLY work that way, and more and more games that will LACK a physical support (or if it will still exist, it will be for convenience - less to download - or for extra goodies ; you'll still need to "enter" the game into the system - again, look at the Steam example).
And there will no longer be any way to play those games without "registration", and so no way to ever sell them used.

Ok, you people.
When you buy a used game from your local retailer, it's not like they send part of that money to the game publisher.
When you buy a NEW copy, it's not like they send part of your money to the company EITHER.
Secondary markets exist for almost all products in the world, not one other secondary market has to kowtow to the primary market. Games should be no different.

When you buy a new copy, they ALREADY PAID the company to stock the product, so in essence, yes, they do send a part of your money to the company - they just do it before you give them the money.
And let's look at several other secondary markets that basically don't really exist (or if they do, it's wrong//gross): used food, used drinks, used medicine, used game time cards, used movie/concert/other event tickets, used condoms, used single-use medical equipment and so on and so forth.
Why shouldn't games be more like those instead of like books ?

 

[subfield]

There's nothing wrong with buying used.

Buying used games is just as OK as buying used books. Buying used books is fine because when you buy something, you become the owner of that thing and so can do what you will with it.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Well, someone called in the Necromancer. I'm bored, so why not shoot for a bit.

Digital downloads for music and games have different rules, but if I have a f'cking box in my hand with a disk in it, it's tangible.

If you took that argument to court, you would lose.
The data on that disc (or hard drive, or thumb drive, or even vinyl record if you're feeling sassy) is protected by copyright law.

The physical medium is barely considered; pertaining almost entirely to warranty and contract-compliance enforcement. You bought the license for that music, you are expected at LEAST be able to listen to it once, by law.

That's because by economic definition, data-centric goods (books, music, movies, etc) are Non-Rival, Excludable goods. They need special rules in order to retain *any* market value.
It just so happens that breaking those rules is pathetically easy.

 

[KILGAZOR]

Selling used games = legalized piracy. The creators of the game receive no money for either.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

But let's say you personally think used games and piracy are radically different.
Please, DO TELL, how exactly is an used game buyer any different from a pirated copy anyway ?
The fact that he pays some cash ? Well, buying a bootleg version is pretty much the same too (from a user perspective, awareness of bootleg status not being all that relevant), and I doubt you'd be endorsing that.
So what makes used games so special that they deserve an exemption ?

Heh?
Before you spout stuff like this, learn some law, the first purchaser of a product ALWAYS has the right to resell. Similar to how you can resell a physical item, you are legally permitted to resell you license to any intellectual property or give it away if you wish.
Let me put this in context, are you saying that we shouldn't be allowed to give video games as gifts?
Because what you're arguing against is anybody obtaining the product without personally and directly paying for it.
If you're not allowed to transfer the license, it is legally impossible for us to give them at gifts.

I wasn't talking about the LEGALITY of it, I was talking about the FINANCES//utility involved, from a publisher//developer's standpoint.
Look at how Steam does it, for instance - it's as if games are food or game time codes or something like that : you can transfer ownership as much as you like IF YOU DON'T USE IT, but there can only be one actual user.

The only reason you can't enforce that with physical games (or books, or any other physical substrate) is that there's no way to reliably track it.
But with games that "talk to the mothership" when in use, that IS enforceable.
And in the future, we'll see more and more games that ONLY work that way, and more and more games that will LACK a physical support (or if it will still exist, it will be for convenience - less to download - or for extra goodies ; you'll still need to "enter" the game into the system - again, look at the Steam example).
And there will no longer be any way to play those games without "registration", and so no way to ever sell them used.

Are they? It's not like people who buy used don't use DLC, and it isn't like the company didn't get paid.

Though, frankly I'm wondering if the fact that you can't transfer steam games stands up to the first sale doctrine. It probably deserves a test in court.

Selling used games = legalized piracy. The creators of the game receive no money for either.

Well, since piracy in reference to games/movies/music using a game that you don't have a license to, that's a complete contradiction in terms.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

The fact that I occasionally trade in games and buy used makes me the bane of the video game industry. Who knew.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Selling used games = legalized piracy. The creators of the game receive no money for either.

I'm sorry, but you can't call something a "legalized" illegality. It's a contradiction in terms.

Else taxes are "Legalized theft", and they are no different then being robbed. Oh wait, that's stupid

Ok, you people.

When you buy a used game from your local retailer, it's not like they send part of that money to the game publisher.


When you buy a NEW copy, it's not like they send part of your money to the company EITHER.

Secondary markets exist for almost all products in the world, not one other secondary market has to kowtow to the primary market. Games should be no different.

What he said.

 

[Tibike77]

frankly I'm wondering if the fact that you can't transfer steam games stands up to the first sale doctrine. It probably deserves a test in court

I'd love to see anybody TRY it.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

frankly I'm wondering if the fact that you can't transfer steam games stands up to the first sale doctrine. It probably deserves a test in court

I'd love to see anybody TRY it.

So would I.

The fact that the licence for IP can't be transferred strikes me as very odd as far as nobody suing them on it yet.

 

[Tibike77]

frankly I'm wondering if the fact that you can't transfer steam games stands up to the first sale doctrine. It probably deserves a test in court

I'd love to see anybody TRY it.

So would I. The fact that the licence for IP can't be transferred strikes me as very odd as far as nobody suing them on it yet.

So, what's next ?
Suing Blizzard because they banned the buyer of a WoW account ?
And after that, suing the owners of an elite club for not allowing you entry after you purchased a membership from a (now former) member ?