Slippery slope fallacy my friend, after all, if we allow interracial marriage, soon marriage to chairs will be legal!Tibike77 said:So, what's next ?AdumbroDeus said:
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 ?
Used Games v. Piracy
- Thread starter numbersix1979
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In a way, I can admit it's at least similar, but then again, I'm pro-piracy. Not anti-buying, pro-"piracy".
Neither one directly gives the publishers and developers money, and yet both allow a consumer the product without doing that. The main difference is that buying used keeps scarcity.
I personally am a person who does both, if that's okay to admit here. Or rather, all three, really. And under this logic, I support all three. I do think that people should buy media, but I also think that strictly following copyrights is silly. I pirate games, mostly with the help of emulation, because I desire to consume more media than anyone who isn't a millionaire can't afford. As with most of the internet. Most of us want to and do consume more media than we can afford to pay off in our lifetime, so we pirate. It's not that we don't want to buy, we just realize that for our habits in the modern age, buying everything we consume would mean putting our grandchildren in debt. I also buy used for the same reasoning. Some things you just can't pirate easily. And for that, there's buying used. Like with pirating, I would rather get a bunch of games now, used, and pay full price later if I like them, than pay full price for a game I don't even like and not have the money to afford more.
Unlike what many people think, people want to buy media regardless. Just like they want to vote. They are however, living in an age where they don't have to buy something before they like it. And that's a good thing.
Neither one directly gives the publishers and developers money, and yet both allow a consumer the product without doing that. The main difference is that buying used keeps scarcity.
I personally am a person who does both, if that's okay to admit here. Or rather, all three, really. And under this logic, I support all three. I do think that people should buy media, but I also think that strictly following copyrights is silly. I pirate games, mostly with the help of emulation, because I desire to consume more media than anyone who isn't a millionaire can't afford. As with most of the internet. Most of us want to and do consume more media than we can afford to pay off in our lifetime, so we pirate. It's not that we don't want to buy, we just realize that for our habits in the modern age, buying everything we consume would mean putting our grandchildren in debt. I also buy used for the same reasoning. Some things you just can't pirate easily. And for that, there's buying used. Like with pirating, I would rather get a bunch of games now, used, and pay full price later if I like them, than pay full price for a game I don't even like and not have the money to afford more.
Unlike what many people think, people want to buy media regardless. Just like they want to vote. They are however, living in an age where they don't have to buy something before they like it. And that's a good thing.
And once the entire game industry starts functioning exactly like all of those other industries, maybe that's what will happen. For now, however, they are different and that's something a lot of people fail to recognize.CM156 said:
To be fair, you'd be hard pressed to argue that all industries that have to deal with the first sale doctrine are the same. Saying "But they're different" doesn't really hold water, does it?StriderShinryu said:
Given that the entire core of where profits come from in the game industry is different than the fairly similar multiple streams of revenues shared in large part by most/all other entertainment media I would say, yes, it does hold water.CM156 said:
Even if that did, that's an economic, not ethical argument. Also, the stigma against used games has really only appeared this generation, because of the ways they now have to fight it.StriderShinryu said:
An the "entire core"? Need I remind you how much merchandise these guys move? Hell, I'm wearing my Grey Warden T-Shirt right now. They sell books, T-Shirts, and even anime sereies. They've developed multiple streams
As I've said before, the problem is that some developers are making games they want to make, not games that will sell.
It's only a FALLACY if the steps DO NOT at least somewhat logically follow from one another, and there are either huge gaps in between the start and the claimed finish, or the number of steps is large (each with a certain non-100% probability of happening) and total probability of the chain of argumentation is very low.AdumbroDeus said:Slippery slope fallacy my friend, after all, if we allow interracial marriage, soon marriage to chairs will be legal!Tibike77 said:So, what's next ?AdumbroDeus said:
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 ?
Otherwise, it's just a series of events.
This is particularly true for the USofA legal system, where each ruling sets a precedent which future cases can build upon to have a noticeably higher chance of success.
So, in this case, while it is somewhat of a slippery slope, it's completely justified, and not just yet another fallacy.
The way I see it is that used games buyers are like floating voters (political term, those who aren't sure who to vote in an election, could go either way). They are obviously willing to put down hard earned cash for your stuff, but they don't like the company enough to buy new.DaJoW said:
The way to get these peole to buy new rather than used is to show them what an awesome company you are and what awesome games you make. The way to keep them buying used, or worse pirating or even worse, ignoring your game totally, is to flip them the middle finger and go, "Fine, fuck you guys."
Pirates are obviouslly not willing to pay for your games, therefore are much less likely to be swayed into buying new.
They come from the same root cause. People not willing to buy products at price X but instead buys it at price Y.
But legally? No other business is even close to being as screwed up as the game's industry. The game developers and publishers dare say what you are allowed to do with the things you do. Resale'ing is a legal right in most countries. The car designer doesnt get pay'd for any second hand car sale. Sony doesnt get pay'd if you sell your ps3. Ikea doesnt get pay'd if you decide to sell your old sofa. And the list goes on. Used games should be able to be transferred in full and for free.
But legally? No other business is even close to being as screwed up as the game's industry. The game developers and publishers dare say what you are allowed to do with the things you do. Resale'ing is a legal right in most countries. The car designer doesnt get pay'd for any second hand car sale. Sony doesnt get pay'd if you sell your ps3. Ikea doesnt get pay'd if you decide to sell your old sofa. And the list goes on. Used games should be able to be transferred in full and for free.
When you rent a movie the first chapter isn't cut out and when you buy a used book the first few pages aren't ripped out I'm okay with adding bonuses like an extra gun or armour but not removing content.
Yeah but games are getting more and more expensive to develop and the economy and all thatorangeban said:
I don't know much about cars but movies are getting more expensive. I rarely go since I could care less about most things Hollywood but if I go with friends I'm still surprised every time and I can't buy popcorn if they all suddenly decide to see a movie in 3D. Oh and vending machines the cost 3.50 for everything except the 3.00 for water.
I don't know much about cars but movies are getting more expensive. I rarely go since I could care less about most things Hollywood but if I go with friends I'm still surprised every time and I can't buy popcorn if they all suddenly decide to see a movie in 3D. Oh and vending machines the cost 3.50 for everything except the 3.00 for water.orangeban said:
I don't see what the issue is with used games, the game has already been bought, the publisher has already gotten the money for it. If I buy a DVD and decide to sell it at some point then that's my business because it's my property. I may only own the medium that has the data on it but if they allow a game store to sell me that then I also will sell it to someone else if I decide to. Publishers are starting to treat their customers like dirt. If you don't want a game sold then don't sell it. Simple.
This bitching about used games and "gamestop is teh ebil because they sell used games!" is really grating on me. Why? because all it is doing is looking for a scapegoat. Let's look at their arguments in a rather cynical matter:
1. The "gamestop is teh ebil because they sell used games!" argument. Here's the problem with that; Outside of selling the game yourself on ebay or some such site, EVERY GODDAMN USED GAME STORE DOES THE SAME DAMN THING! Oh sure, there will be differences in pricing, but gamestop is nowhere near the worst deals. I've seen places knock $5 off for a minor scratch on the disk. So saying getting rid of gamestop will bring trust back is laughable at best, as it will simply create a void that will be filled bu other companies doing the same damn thing.
2. Here's a question I'd like to pose: Used game sales have been around almost as long as the home gaming market itself, so why is it such a big issue now? Because in the past, games were made that were worth keeping beyond the initial sale period. Top selling games were games people wanted to keep. Now you have top sellers being resold to used game places within days if not hours because there was crap gameplay and told the real game is in multiplayer, only to find out that is substandard or repetitive as well. So then the customer sells it to a used game store within a few hours of release and it cuts into the publisher's profits.
3. Referencing a little of the prior arguments, those used games do not magically come out of someone's ass and are placed on the shelf. Someone bought it, felt they got their worth out of it or felt it was a piece of crap, and sold it to the used game place to recoup a little of their money. $60+ dollars for a few hours worth of gameplay is the reason these games are on the used shelf within a few hours of release, and that's assuming it's a good game. Now consider that $50 million+ was spent on this, most of it marketing and graphics. And publishers wonder why used games are so popular?
To sum up, this whole issue of used games causing lost sales is the fault of the ones raging against it, but they don't want to admit it because then they can't go on fleecing the consumers like little sheep. So they blame gamestop and the like because it deflects the blame away from who's fault it really is: the developers, publishers, and consumers fueling the 4 hour twitch fest then bored game production cycle.
1. The "gamestop is teh ebil because they sell used games!" argument. Here's the problem with that; Outside of selling the game yourself on ebay or some such site, EVERY GODDAMN USED GAME STORE DOES THE SAME DAMN THING! Oh sure, there will be differences in pricing, but gamestop is nowhere near the worst deals. I've seen places knock $5 off for a minor scratch on the disk. So saying getting rid of gamestop will bring trust back is laughable at best, as it will simply create a void that will be filled bu other companies doing the same damn thing.
2. Here's a question I'd like to pose: Used game sales have been around almost as long as the home gaming market itself, so why is it such a big issue now? Because in the past, games were made that were worth keeping beyond the initial sale period. Top selling games were games people wanted to keep. Now you have top sellers being resold to used game places within days if not hours because there was crap gameplay and told the real game is in multiplayer, only to find out that is substandard or repetitive as well. So then the customer sells it to a used game store within a few hours of release and it cuts into the publisher's profits.
3. Referencing a little of the prior arguments, those used games do not magically come out of someone's ass and are placed on the shelf. Someone bought it, felt they got their worth out of it or felt it was a piece of crap, and sold it to the used game place to recoup a little of their money. $60+ dollars for a few hours worth of gameplay is the reason these games are on the used shelf within a few hours of release, and that's assuming it's a good game. Now consider that $50 million+ was spent on this, most of it marketing and graphics. And publishers wonder why used games are so popular?
To sum up, this whole issue of used games causing lost sales is the fault of the ones raging against it, but they don't want to admit it because then they can't go on fleecing the consumers like little sheep. So they blame gamestop and the like because it deflects the blame away from who's fault it really is: the developers, publishers, and consumers fueling the 4 hour twitch fest then bored game production cycle.
If you make something, you have every right to tell people how they are allowed to use it. The concept is known as licensing and it differs completely from property ownership. Not everything someone makes and sells is yours to keep. Get over it.Larva said:
On another note, I've already retracted that previous statement about the buy and buy again. I don't believe that used sales have anything to do with the problems that publishers have selling new games and I think the publishers can go fuck themselves. If the devs want more money, they need to stop giving away all of their rights to the publishers. If people want lower prices, they need to stop pre-ordering games.
Did I miss anything?
Incorrect.Tibike77 said:It's only a FALLACY if the steps DO NOT at least somewhat logically follow from one another, and there are either huge gaps in between the start and the claimed finish, or the number of steps is large (each with a certain non-100% probability of happening) and total probability of the chain of argumentation is very low.AdumbroDeus said:Slippery slope fallacy my friend, after all, if we allow interracial marriage, soon marriage to chairs will be legal!Tibike77 said:So, what's next ?AdumbroDeus said:
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 ?
Otherwise, it's just a series of events.
This is particularly true for the USofA legal system, where each ruling sets a precedent which future cases can build upon to have a noticeably higher chance of success.
So, in this case, while it is somewhat of a slippery slope, it's completely justified, and not just yet another fallacy.
Reductio Ad Absurdium is not a fallacy.
If you can show the same logic when applied to other things reaches that result, or illustrate that the other events will occur because of the initial event, then it's Reductio Ad Absurdium.
Your misrepresentation of Stare Decisis is painful, it's the court's attempt to apply the same logic to different situations. The idea is to "let the decision stand", so the rule of law is consistent and predictable. So, for example they have a situation where "seperate but equal" is being argued, Brown v board of ed established as a standard demonstrationible harm for this to be unconstitutional. Harm is demonstrated in court. A similar ruling would not be taking the logic further as is the case of slippery slope, instead it's a matter of applying the same logic as before.
Obviously this is an idealized view of SCOTUS' decisions, obviously judges have their own idealogies. This is certainly not a case of taking the logic of previous decisions further.
Nobody said anything about nor against "reduction to the absurd", or at least, I'm not aware of anything like that being said.AdumbroDeus said:
For the precedent thing, yes, the connection might be somewhat contrived, but it's certainly not "nothing", and a smart lawyer could probably use it at least as a slight leverage, if nothing else.
I am not a lawyer, let alone an USofA lawyer, and obviously, my horribly simplified views of the US justice system comes from inaccurate movies and a few things picked up over the internet, so I won't claim I know EXACTLY what I am saying.
Still, one can try to concoct even a strained line of argumentation which you never know who could latch onto and do what with it.
The first issue would be game ownership, or better said, defining WHAT constitutes a game, and defining exactly what a Steam-like service really is.
For starters, if you get banned from Steam, you lose access to a lot of games. Since I doubt anybody sued Steam for stealing their paid-for games, one can only conclude that either they were afraid of the EULA too much, or they didn't really consider THOSE particular games "theirs".
A MMO can usually get away with banning you because they claim THEY still own everything "you have" in-game, including the characters, so all they "really" do is cut your access to a service, similar to canceling any other subscription.
But can Steam claim the same thing ?
So the question is, what is Steam exactly ? Practically, Steam is more of a game rental service rather than a game retailer, or at least closer to the former rather than the latter, or else you could at least sue to never have your Steam account banned, just denied purchase of additional games and maybe denied access to multiplayer mode.
To rule that Steam must allow you to sell forward access to parts of their service would be extremely similar to arguing that games that happen mostly online should also allow their users to sell forward access to their services, namely ingame goods, currency or even characters.
Or something to that extent.
To the limits of my extremely reduced knowledge, anyway.