So why does piracy and used games NOT hurt devs?

sn00zer

Member
Could someone explain why piracy and used games do no hurt devs? When people can continuously get games without paying devs, how does that not hurt devs?

EDIT: Since this topic has been garnering a ton of attention.... I am not comparing used game sales to piracy in any way except that they are the main reasons devs point to as loss of sales...DRM has been put in place to curb both of these in one fell swoop and I believe it is a good idea to talk about them in the same breath when discussing DRM
 
184947_700b.jpg

To answer the question: most people who pirate a game wouldn't have bought the game in the first place.

Usually.
 
Who's to say those pirates and people who buy used games, would have ever bought the game at full price, or at all anyway?
 
Could someone explain why piracy and used games do no hurt devs? When people can continuously get games without paying devs, how does that not hurt devs?

Oh no, piracy / used games most definitely impact developer revenues and hurt publishers. Regardless, the most common arguments for them are:



1. Used game sales help fund future *NEW* purchases of the consumer

2. Piracy can be used to "demo" a game before purchasing it

3. As consumers, we shouldn't care about the developers but rather, we should always vouch for pro-consumer policies

4. As consumers, we have a right to buy and sell our purchased product as many times / to as many people as we want
 
Lots of ways.

Lots of people can afford a new game. Those people sell it for $40 to people who can't afford full price. They then funnel that $40 forward to the next game.

Lots of people won't risk their $60 on a new IP but will drop $30 to try it out, building the possibility that person will buy the sequel at launch.

Etc.
 
Short version: Most used game sales are eventually used to buy new games. Also, who seriously gives a shit if used games hurt devs? There are fundamental issues that are slowly leading the industry towards a crash and blocking used games is an artificial measure that just guarantees that a buch of suits will have a golden parachute ready for them when things innevitable fall apart. How many months EA waited before gutting Danger Close after the release of MoH? 4. How many after gutting Visceral after releasing Army of Bro 3? 1 month...before the game was out.

Long version:


But Gamestop would never accept that original trade if person 2 wasn't going to buy the used game. Why shouldn't Gamestop benefit? They are the middleman. You just want them to give people free money and throw the discs away?

No, here's the problem. Tomb Raider sold 3.4m units in the space of a month and it's a "failure" because it will fail to recoup its budget.

THREE POINT FOUR MILLION FUCKING UNITS FOR WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A B-TIER FRANCHISE AND THAT'S STILL NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE ANY MONEY.

And killing used games would have solved this how? Would it have made the execs at Squenix who thought throwing $100m budget at a franchise that's been irrelevant since the turn of the century suddenly get a clue?

Oh, but no, they argue "GAMERS PUSH FOR HIGHER AND HIGHER BUDGETS AND WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT! THEIR ENTITLEMENT COMPLEX CAN'T BE SATIATED! WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO LET BUDGETS SPIRAL OUT OF CONTROL!" and that's lovely, but since when did they ever give a fuck about what we actually thought?

Are Microsoft going to turn around and backtrack on this DRM fiasco because "WE HAVE TO GIVE GAMERS WHAT THEY WANT!"? Are they fuck.

Are EA going to throw all their games up on Steam and patch Sim City to not need the stupid Origin authentication because "THAT'S WHAT THOSE ENTITLED GAMERS ARE SCREAMING FOR!"? Fuck no.

If you couldn't afford to give people what they wanted, then why didn't you just turn around and say no like you do with every other thing we complain about? Here's why; Every publisher big and small decided to get into a dick waving contest and it turns out that not everyone has a big dick. Squenix got its tiny little acorn cock out and went up against Mandingo Activision screaming "LOOK AT MY MASSIVE JUNK! YOU'LL WANT TO CARE FOR IT!" and everyone just turned around and shrugged and bought something else.

Not everyone has a big dick. Acting like you have a big dick when you don't have a big dick is going to make the reveal of your tiny little penis all the more humiliating. And that's what happened here. Squenix acted like Tomb Raider, a franchise that habitually sells less than 3m lifetime per entry was going to suddenly sell COD numbers just because they spent $100m on it and guess what happened? THE FUCKING INEVITABLE.

In terms of the franchise post-Core, the game is going to do really well, probably double what you'd expect from a Tomb Raider game post-PSone but it cost far, far too much.

But no, it's all used games that did this. Used games made Capcom make some horrible design decisions on DmC and piss off the entire fanbase. Used games made Activision and EA flood the market with guitar games and accessories long after people stopped caring. Used games made Microsoft make a fourth Gears of War game that nobody asked for from a developer nobody cares about. Used games made Sony pump out another God of War game after they spent the past few years flooding the market with HD remasters. Used games made Sony make a Smash Bros clone with no appealing characters to help sell it. Used games made Bizarre Creations make James Bond and racing games no-one wanted. Used games make publishers shutter studios the moment the game they were working on goes gold, before they've even had a chance to sell a single new copy, let alone a used one.

I could go on. And on. And on. You could write a book about every single executive level screw-up this gen and yet these same people with their million dollar salaries and their shill puppets still try to insult our intelligence and blame used games and awful, entitled consumers for companies shutting and talented people losing their jobs.

So please forgive our cynicism when we don't want to buy into the bullshit you're spouting.
 
Piracy is marginal and a lot of people who pirate things still pay what they can for things they like.

Used games enable more people to buy at release since they know they will be able to resell the games and most of the trade-in money goes towards new games.
 
The assumption that a game being pirated or a game being bought used is a lost sale of a full priced retail title. That assumption is false.

Why would someone pirate something? Because he/she wants it for free not for money.

Why does someone buy a used game? Because it costs less than the new one.

So if both of those possibilities didn't exist neither of these consumers would buy your 60 Dollar product anyway.
 
Neither piracy nor used games hurts devs. They help if anything.

Pirates most likely wouldn't buy the game anyway. So really they're just providing free advertising for the game.
 
Could someone explain why piracy and used games do no hurt devs? When people can continuously get games without paying devs, how does that not hurt devs?



Nobody gets any games without paying developers when a used game is sold. They sell a game. What is done beyond there is irrelevant, and they have no right to claim anything beyond that sale. In addition, the person buying new games and selling them (either to a store or directly to an individual) is likely counting on that income when they consider the purchase. Without that possibility of a sale, there may be no original purchase, and nobody buys a copy instead of one person buying a copy that two use.

Piracy does harm them. It's nowhere near as much as publishers would have you believe, but it's also not a non-factor like people defending piracy would say.
 
Piracy doesn't hurt, until the game use some external resources like servers, used games just hurt if they don't plan adequately the long run services.
 
Piracy represents in most cases lost sales
That's a tall claim. In my opinion, it seems far more likely that piracy does in most cases not represent lost sales, although it does in some. Or do people really believe that e.g. Crysis 1 would have sold 12 million copies if piracy did not exist?
 
Publishers only seem to look at used games from the standpoint of those buying them, while seemingly ignoring the people that traded in those games

GameStop takes a more reasonable tack in negotiating this emotional minefield. Company president Paul Raines draws the stats from his holster, saying that 70 percent of income that gets handed over to consumers for traded goods is immediately spent on new games. That's a $1.8 billion injection into the games industry.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/175305/
 
Could someone explain why piracy and used games do no hurt devs? When people can continuously get games without paying devs, how does that not hurt devs?

I think what people say is that the effect it has is unquantifiable, but the way games succeed and fail in the market tells us that blaming only, or mostly piracy and second hand sales is very misleading.

Plus second hand sales keep money in circulation inside the industry. People trade in old games to get new ones. It is nothing like piracy.

For piracy, 1 pirated game =/= 1 lost sale, but it does have an effect on sales. How big, tho? who knows.
 
Used games can help out devs in a way.

Someone can pick up a game from the used games bin, fall in love with it, then proceeded to buy its sequel etc..
 
It probably does, but it's not nearly enough to affect the big studios as much as they like to think it does.
 
I'll confess I used to pirate some games that I should have paid for. I haven't done it for years though because simply it's not right. So yeah, I was one of the people who was causing devs to lose money. As I said though I don't do it anymore nor do I plan on doing it again.
 
Used games is not a potential source of revenue.

Used games cannot be a negative number against the publisher's total profit because it was never there to begin with.
 
It's quite cute how you're comparing piracy and used games as if they were in any way the same thing.
Watch, in a few decades we'll all be watching our grandchildren's surprised reactions at hearing that we used to commit crimes against corporations like share their products with each other.
 
It does hurt, people who say otherwise are silly.

The problem people have with companies trying to stop piracy is that their methods of doing so hurt the legitimate consumer.
 
Because people are allowed to trade in their used games towards the purchase of new games that they might not otherwise be able to afford. Or take the risk of buying a game at full price that they aren't sure they would enjoy when they can trade in and get it for 20$ instead.

Used trades drive new purchases.
 
Could someone explain why piracy and used games do no hurt devs? When people can continuously get games without paying devs, how does that not hurt devs?

Used games - in the main - helps developers, because it encourages a healthy ecosystem, where people can trade their old games in towards new games. It also encourages people to take the plunge on a game they might be uncertain about, knowing that they can always sell it later. Without that system, we'd see a lot of people think twice before plunging £40-50 on a game, me included.

The only possible situation in which piracy may help a developer, is if it's an indie developer looking to make a name for him/herself rather than the money. We've seen numerous indie devs say 'pirate my game', even going as far as uploading to The Pirate Bay. In reality though, I don't see anything good coming from piracy.
 
Who's to say those pirates and people who buy used games, would have ever bought the game at full price, or at all anyway?

The fact that so many used games are only a few dollars off the price of a new version, and GameStop pushes them every time someone brings a new game to the counter ("Hey, want to buy it used and save a whole dollar?") it's pretty safe to assume that a good number of people who buy used would buy new otherwise.

And once again, the problem with used games isn't all used games, it's GameStop. When people sell each other games for a price that's actually significantly lower than the price of a new game, it's very likely not taking a significant number of sales away from new games.
 
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=59545309&postcount=1361

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.
 
Piracy represents in most cases lost sales. Used games sales do not.

I think it's the other way around.

People who actually pay for a used game would probably still pay a bit more for a new game if there was no alternative. Otherwise just wait a bit longer until the price has dropped.

Someone pirating a game is probably a cheap fuck who wouldn't ever buy the game anyway.
 
Could someone explain why piracy and used games do no hurt devs? When people can continuously get games without paying devs, how does that not hurt devs?

They do hurt devs. But how much? It's not very clear.

The bigger issue is how do you deal with it? Draconian DRM(see Sim City) tends to inconvenience your paying customers more than it frustrates the efforts of pirates. And it can have the effect of driving people to piracy.

The people who succeed the most in the face of piracy are the ones who treat pirate distributors as competition and not criminals. And the way you deal with competition is by offering more. Games are a commodity. Copies are free and easy to make. Just offering a copy isn't a good way to compete.
 
Badly worded question.

I think used games are essential for allowing people to get into series they otherwise never would have.

Either way, both are indications of a weird, self-fulfilling cycle in the games (and other entertainment) industry. Games are too expensive so people by used/pirate, so game makers put in more DRM/games get more expensive, etc.

Ultimately, the reason people are against DRM blocking used and privacy is not because they necessarily agree with those things. The problem is with how publishers tackling the issue. They're looking at it from a standpoint of "oh, well the consumers are wrong, let's hurt everyone to stop a minority", when they can start looking at it from "The way people consume media is changing, how can we change to reflect that in our budgeting, pricing, and distribution?"

Unfortunately, it's so much easier to do the first one than the second one in the short term, while the second one is going to bring you profits in the long term. Do I wish everyone just paid a fair amount to the people who put a lot of time and effort into making great products? Yeah, I do. But that's not going to happen anytime soon, so I think we can find smart ways around it that help content creators get what they deserve while also not waging an assault on consumers (which always backfires, might I add.)
 
Top Bottom