Barack Lesnar
Banned
The problem with this logic is that it's so easy to pirate games, especially on PC, that it makes the whole process a joke and gives less incentive to pay for them.
So why does piracy and used games NOT hurt devs?
- Thread starter sn00zer
- Start date
The problem with this logic is that it's so easy to pirate games, especially on PC, that it makes the whole process a joke and gives less incentive to pay for them.
Isn't having good games, pro-consumer? If you don't care about developers going out of business, laying off staff... then I'm not sure I what to say...
guggnichso
Banned
Suggesting these two are the same thing makes you either look like an ass or an industry shill.
rockmanjoe
Member
Eh... more like if they can't pirate something they will just move on to something else that can be pirated.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
Im going to break it down like this :- Day one purchases, Piracy, Used game sales and sales at reduced price point at their heart all have the same driving thought process.
Perception of Value.
The reason piracy and used games may hurt a game is because they present a value propersition that is greater than buying day 1 or at a reduced price point.
Now some may argue you cant compete with cheap or free but if that was the case, we would all shop at charity shops and use hand me down items. People, even the most filthy pirate, Buys the majoirty of the things they own brand new.
So yes piracy and used games do hurt developers, but developers allow this buy not adding value to their games above and beyond used and pirated copies.
Every game should have a significant day 1 incentive. What we typically consider to be DLC should be be day one content, for no extra price. By buying the game and directly supporting the developers you should be treated to extra support.
To combat trading in, games should be designed around replayabilty sharing and keeping the game. Acheivements should be both time and action based. Multiplayer should be both intelligent and dynamic.
etc etc.
Perception of Value.
The reason piracy and used games may hurt a game is because they present a value propersition that is greater than buying day 1 or at a reduced price point.
Now some may argue you cant compete with cheap or free but if that was the case, we would all shop at charity shops and use hand me down items. People, even the most filthy pirate, Buys the majoirty of the things they own brand new.
So yes piracy and used games do hurt developers, but developers allow this buy not adding value to their games above and beyond used and pirated copies.
Every game should have a significant day 1 incentive. What we typically consider to be DLC should be be day one content, for no extra price. By buying the game and directly supporting the developers you should be treated to extra support.
To combat trading in, games should be designed around replayabilty sharing and keeping the game. Acheivements should be both time and action based. Multiplayer should be both intelligent and dynamic.
etc etc.
I personally equate these anti used game policies with piracy. The only moral difference is that piracy is illegal but anti used sale restrictions are sanctioned by the government. Laws against piracy are anti capitalism, they do not allow the laisez faire distribution of information. On the other hand though businesses are able to fully leverage their capitalistic privileges by restricting things through drm with no government regulation. Pretty one sided.
Dave Meltzer
Banned
Or they wouldn't sell nearly as many because people wouldn't be able to afford them without trading in their old games.
This discussion going in circles I think.
Well that's the issue that's going to be determined over the coming years. But they have said they'll allow trade ins of some sort, so my expectation is you can gain credit by "selling back" a game to GameStop, but nobody buys a game at a second hand price and instead all software is treated as first hand. The issue then is how well they structure price drops on games over time.
Disposal income is allocated in a variety of ways. A new entry in the CoD series that costs $60 is probably more likely to be pirated than a bundle of indie games that can end up costing 25 cents each.
H_Prestige
Banned
No
I don't agree with this. It may be true for some, but I don't believe that if piracy were somehow, magically, 100% eliminated, that anyone pirating games today would just never play another game.
I also don't believe the counter-argument, though, that everybody pirating a game would just buy it if they couldn't pirate it. That seems like such an absurd argument.
I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, and I do think there is in impact to developers - but I don't have anything to back this up, it is just my opinion.
TheBaldEmperor
Member
Yeah, these are two separate issues.
If I can't sell my used games then I will end up buying less new games. Very simple on how no used games would impact my spending.
Exactly by getting rid of used games it basically doubles the price of a game. It also pushes anyone out of the hobbie who does not have a boat load of money. Incomes in the US have stagnated and now they want to double the price of games. Good luck convincing parents to shell out 59.99 for every game. That won't push them to buy kids 199.99 tablets and 99 cent games.
Cave Johnson
Member
I pirate some games when I'm uncomfortable enough to purchase. Turns out midway of the game I uninstalled most of them saving me the effort of time and money. Had that been an original copy I would've been severely disappointed. This is why I prefer Steam, at least even waiting for the season sale, I don't feel as guilty as not properly compensating for their games.
RobbieNick
Junior Member
The fact that the topic bundles piracy and used games together makes it invalid.
Only overpriced relative to the price that a games store will pay as a trade in.
And that is only because as time goes by, more and more preowned copies become available which devalues them further.
I was talking about used games only.
Captain Tuttle
Member
I missed that, sorry.
legacyzero
Banned
I think even some developers don't mind piracy, and even open a dialogue with them. IE Notch.
I don't advocate for piracy, but some devs consider them gamers, too, if I understand it right.
Make a game worth buying, people buy it. There are those that pirate games on principle, for whatever reason, as well.
I don't advocate for piracy, but some devs consider them gamers, too, if I understand it right.
Make a game worth buying, people buy it. There are those that pirate games on principle, for whatever reason, as well.
flatearthpandas
Member
I don't think anyone has argued piracy doesn't hurt devs at all. People just tend to argue it doesn't hurt them as badly as they claim and it is impossible to prove how much it actually does hurt them because the damage is all hypothetical.
As for used games, that doesn't hurt developers any more than used books hurt book publishers or used cars hurt car manufacturers. They don't deserve those second-hand dollars any more than anyone else who creates a product that can be resold does. The software industry is extremely anti-consumer because they create a product that can be easily copied. In that respect, DRM can be understandable even if it turns people off of the product. But the problem is that the software industry crosses the line from protecting themselves into redefining their product until they aren't technically even selling you a product, just a license to use something that you have no rights over. In a digital model, this makes some sense, but it has the crazy effect of also creating a physical model in which you don't technically own the right to use the physical product that you've purchased (like with the Xbone).
And yet, somehow, people still feel sorry for the industries trying to create stuff like this.
As for used games, that doesn't hurt developers any more than used books hurt book publishers or used cars hurt car manufacturers. They don't deserve those second-hand dollars any more than anyone else who creates a product that can be resold does. The software industry is extremely anti-consumer because they create a product that can be easily copied. In that respect, DRM can be understandable even if it turns people off of the product. But the problem is that the software industry crosses the line from protecting themselves into redefining their product until they aren't technically even selling you a product, just a license to use something that you have no rights over. In a digital model, this makes some sense, but it has the crazy effect of also creating a physical model in which you don't technically own the right to use the physical product that you've purchased (like with the Xbone).
And yet, somehow, people still feel sorry for the industries trying to create stuff like this.
Piracy does hurt developers plain and simple. Anyone trying to argue otherwise is being delusional. The question is how much does it hurt them and is it enough to warrant some of these harsh DRM schemes? People will be arguing over those questions probably til the end of time as there is no reliable way to find out just how many pirates would buy if piracy was no longer an option.
As for used games well personally I think it is just another industry scape goat like piracy was. All I see is publisher decrying used games saying they are killing them as their sales go up. Quite frankly if selling millions of copies is not enough to be comfortably profitable then maybe they should be looking at their own practices and not blaming someone else.
As for used games well personally I think it is just another industry scape goat like piracy was. All I see is publisher decrying used games saying they are killing them as their sales go up. Quite frankly if selling millions of copies is not enough to be comfortably profitable then maybe they should be looking at their own practices and not blaming someone else.
Also, the attitude of "buying used games hurts devs" is such a dumb concept. I can sell my car, my shoes, my headphones, to anyone, anywhere. Consumers sell the products they bought all the time, why are we drawing the line with videogames?
Why should I feel guilty about a dev not getting paid when people that work in the car manufacturing process won't see a dime from used car sales?
Why should I feel guilty about a dev not getting paid when people that work in the car manufacturing process won't see a dime from used car sales?
KojiKnight
Member
The only thing that REALLY bothers me is when devs quote piracy numbers as lost sales before the game is even out.
For example, EA announced after the Sims 3 leaked early that they lost millions in sales because of it (because millions of people downloaded it so they could play it early)... but how many of those people were from people who also preordered the game and just wanted to try it out a few days early? How many of those people then bought the game day 1 anyways because they knew EA had a new neighborhood waiting for them?
There were millions of copies already sold before the game even came out, but they counted each early downloaded copy as a lost sale... which is ridiculous no matter how you look at it.
For example, EA announced after the Sims 3 leaked early that they lost millions in sales because of it (because millions of people downloaded it so they could play it early)... but how many of those people were from people who also preordered the game and just wanted to try it out a few days early? How many of those people then bought the game day 1 anyways because they knew EA had a new neighborhood waiting for them?
There were millions of copies already sold before the game even came out, but they counted each early downloaded copy as a lost sale... which is ridiculous no matter how you look at it.
staticneuron
Member
If it was spot on then it doesn't fully address why people are showing disdain for "what" and "how" the pubs put behind the games yet the game is still desirable enough to purchase second hand or to pirate.
So that argument sounds like..."Well, its not my fault you spent so much trying to make it desirable and appealing, you should have planned accordingly and expected the reaction you did"
The truth of the matter is that software used to need keys to install. They have changed slightly over the years. Some gets tied to accounts by name, some still receive digital version of keys which then gets associated to accounts.
But if we are to say boohoo, you shoulda.... then you can't complain when pubs make moves to pull crap like this. Why do you think they should feel pity? The idea that used game sales are paid forward is also lip service. In addition to that why would a pub care if you sell their game to get profit to purchase a game from another pub. Do you really think they will care?
Whenever you walk into these threads it is always self serving point of view, then with a rallying call try to get others to share that view. The very strong exception here is that not only are consumers "people", but so are Devs, pubs, board members, distributors, so on and so forth. So any argument you make about reducing this down to quality and choice, you must realize the only reason the used game market is thriving is because there are alot of quality choices out there.
If pubs try to charge for second hand sales or switch to a digital key system I easily see stronger lines being drawn and the relative success and failure of each franchise will be stronger.
Iirc it is only over a certain amount of time. If used games were held of for the first few months of the games release then you probably wouldn't hear anything about it.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
First off, lets differentiate. Piracy and Used games are NOT the same thing. Not even close.
Piracy is trying to play something without any compensation being made (not to the developers necessarily). It's wrong.
Used games are something totally different. When you buy a game it's yours, at least if you're buying a physical copy. Now with PC games, it's gotten away from this, but it can be argued that there's been compensation for the consumer with fast markdowns and crazy sales on steam.
Back to consoles though. What Microsoft (and possibly Sony) are trying to tell us is that we aren't buying games for their system. We're renting/leasing them. We paid them for it, but we don't own it. Developers have no right to expect compensation when games are resold used. They got their money for the game when the original buyer bought it. That's all they're entitled to.
If I want to go out and buy car, lets just say a simple Honda Civic. I have the choice to buy it new, therefore getting the perks of a new car (low miles, good warranty etc.), or the choice to buy it used. If I buy the used car, I'm buying it from whoever owns it. I owe Honda nothing.
If I have a classic toy or collectable of some type, lets say a LEGO set. It's mine. I own it, LEGO does not. If I sell it, I am under no obligation to give LEGO a cut. Likewise, whoever were to purchase it from me is under no obligation to send some money to LEGO to enjoy it.
Make no mistake, what is going on with the Xbox One has NOTHING to do with piracy. MS and other third party developers want a cut of that used game market. Gamestop does quite well for themselves. Because of their greed, they are trying to get a cut of something they have no right to. They got their money already. They made the game, they advertised it, they sold it. Gamestop (and of course, other stores in the used business, or even private sellers) rebuy those games, reship those game, resell those games. They're doing all the work at this pointThe game maker at this point has done NOTHING, and deserves no compensation for others working to continue to give that game value.
I suppose the used car market is viewed differently. The value of a car drops simply because you purchased it. A person who is going to buy a car new, and a person who is going to buy a car used, are usually independent. Cars probably stay in active circulation longer.
But yeah, the game industry is just learning how to fix it model.
Vicetrailia
Banned
After reading those mega posts i'm convinced, the industry fucks itself over far more than piracy does. They dun fucked themselves up regardless of piracy.
Garcia
Member
Amazing. Thank you very much for quoting that.
I'm sure there are multiple studies showing that the the most prominent pirates are also the group that spends the most on media products. How robust they are I do not know.
KojiKnight
Member
You know why it's a self serving attitude? It's because we paid MONEY to OWN things and publishers are fighting very hard to take OUR rights away.
Yes, developers and publishers have their own wants, needs, and desires but they can't trample on OUR rights just because they feel they have a right to second hand sales (no other industry does).
Publishers/devs would still complain. Probably to the extent of used games hurt initial sales and long term sales.
Well, actually, overprice compared to what everyone is selling it for including random people on ebay, craigslist, and amazon. And I don't know if I totally agree with that. Most PSN psOne games are $6 on the online store but if you buy a used physical copy of one of those games it'll run you a little more. Those games are priced to compete with used games and I would argue they sell relatively well.
staticneuron
Member
It's gotten away from this? It has been that way since the start regarding PC games. PC games always had keys. So it wasn't the physical disc that mattered. They key was the most important aspect. Software and games, their value doesn't lie on the physical item they reside on but the content itself. That is the main difference between them and every other item you mentioned which worth lies in its physical state.
Kelegacy
XBOX - RECORD ME LOVING DOWN MY WOMAN GOOD
Doesn't matter if used games affect them or not--they have no right to anything after the original sale. It is yours to sell or trade or throw away as you see fit.
They are greedy and want to change all that. They want to control what you do with your purchase even after the original sale because there is never "enough" for them. They want to reduce modern console gaming to a license you cannot trade or sell or give away without a share going to them.
They have no right to any further revenue after the first sale, but they are going to push for it anyway.
They are greedy and want to change all that. They want to control what you do with your purchase even after the original sale because there is never "enough" for them. They want to reduce modern console gaming to a license you cannot trade or sell or give away without a share going to them.
They have no right to any further revenue after the first sale, but they are going to push for it anyway.
bigdaddygamebot
Member
As someone who rarely if ever buys a used game, the second hand market in a lot of ways increases the demand for new games, and only in cases where there is an abundance of that particular used game, does the second-hand market negatively impact a new game. Even when the second hand sale does negatively impact new game copies, it isnt on a dollar-for-dollar basis, the extent of its effects is largely based on the value of the original product, before reaching second hand. This reminds me a lot of when people were freaking out over used book sales through amazon. You know what happened as a result? The market adjusted and start selling e-books at a cheaper rate then physical books because the transaction costs were reduced.
What the game industry is currently trying to do is have its cake and eat the whole thing, too. It wants to push out the second hand market, focus on the perks of not needing the physical package, and rely on the internet to help alleviate the costs, while not adjusting their prices accordingly. They essentially want to be e-books, but without any adjustment to cost. This has a chance of completely biting them in the ass in the long run, and because of this we actually may see a very real decline in new game purchases because of this aggressive idea.
As someone who is not a huge fan of the second hand market, because I like knowing who I am essentially giving my "demand" to, I'm not blind enough not to see the intrinsic value in allowing for a second hand market to exist. This is the equivalent of Latin America putting ridicules tariffs on used cars to force people to buy new. It will backfire, and the economic health of the game industry will be the response. The second-hand market grows if transaction costs decrease or if product lifetime increases. The growth of the secondhand market reduces demand for new goods if there are used goods that can be brought into the market(essentially the product has low value of owning or high sell value). But if there is not a ready supply of used goods, growth of the second-hand market can increase demand for new goods, thereby increasing material consumption. Moreover, even when second-hand sales reduce demand for new goods, it is typically not on a one-for-one basis. The extent to which the purchase of used goods replaces the purchase of new goods is shown to be an explicit function of the relative value provided by used versus new goods.
There is a very good reason that we dont have a lot of detailed numbers, that compare the value of a second hand market for new goods; the obfuscation this brings is a desire from companies so they can adjust a consumers expectation and their personal wealth, while also attempting to keep them in the dark.
I'm not sure why you think there is a need to show an indirect benefit of a second hand market to this particular industry. Seriously, do you think a second hand market, specifically, is detrimental to the overall economy/demand?
The game industry is trying to eliminate a market, without properly adjusting their business model or adjusting the costs on the consumer. This will not work the way they think it will if this is truly what they are doing. Steam has the right idea of how to handle this, but they are more of a distributor. Developers and publishers(most anyways) dont have the ability to do what steam does to increase the viability of a lack of a second hand market. If developers and publishers don't adjust accordingly, THQ will be a footnote in what is to come.
The simple realization is, if they get rid of the second hand market, then they better do something major to help adjust the demand for a specific title(2nd hand market is a billion+ dollar industry). You cant be ignorant to a average persons disposable income, in relation to the second hand market; and then try and eliminate that market without realizing you might be alienating a lot of people who essentially lived in that market, without some serious adjustment to they way you do business. Your opinion or POV is a non sequitur. This POV is the assumption that by getting rid of the second hand market, that they are helping their bottom line... I'm not sure what example they are using where trying to bypass the second hand market helped an industry make more money.
There is a finite amount of used games, and the ability to purchase those used games comes from people purchasing new games. The only way for the used game sales to grow, is by the new game itself growing. The onluy real way it is a negative(proof positive) is if the majority of the product has been put in the "used" category, that would mean there is a viewed lack of value with a particular game, which has no basis in believing that the used games is actual forgone growth.
Essentially, you cant ignore the intricacies of supply and demand, and at the same time complain you are not seeing the profits that you want. The idea that getting rid of that market share will result in more disposable income for new games is nonsense.
The only way the second hand markets can depress a good is if the value of the item goes into the negative in terms of the availability of a new good vs used and only then does it become a depression of demand when the value of the product is considered lower then the original value. In every other case that I have ever seen there is an increase in demand from second hand markets, for new product.
When the second-hand price is zero, equations show that increasing the product lifetime always increases the second-hand demand and decreases the demand for new goods. When the second-hand price is positive, however, increasing product lifetime results in increased sales in the primary market. In other words, as long as the market value for a used good is in the positive, and product is still in circulation, demand is increased due to second hand sales.
With digital goods there is no excuse why MS/Sony don't routinely, already, have deep discounts similar to Steam, even with the 2nd hand market. We have been shown nothing that indicates that the big 3 are anything close to being able to handle a market where there is no 2nd hand market.
There is absolutely nothing that shows that the 2nd hand market of video games acts in anyway different then the other industry. There is definitely nothing that even hints that the 2nd hand market is forgone growth of new games. The idea is for the ignorant or purposely manipulative(publicly traded companies).
So if someone believes that the 2nd hand market in this industry is actually forgone growth, then they need to show the numbers to prove why the game industry is a special snowflake. As for piracy, if you look at the introduction of napster, you can see about a 10% decline in music, because of P2P, movies pare probably a bit lower then this, and then PC games are a bit lower then this. As far as console games, I'm not sure there is any data that shows what the average is at, because the console industry doesnt really have economic norms, yet.
Manmademan
Member
For PC games this is true, but historically not the case for consoles. The last console that had "easily" copied game content was the dreamcast, and that was an anomaly. Playstation consoles in particular have always been VERY difficult to crack for the average consumer, and the PS3 was all but immune due to no one having a blu ray burner.
The argument that "easily copied software" is an excuse for anti consumer DRM *on consoles* is flat out false.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
It's incredibly easy. All you do is download the ISO then replace a file in the install folder with a cracked file. Saves aren't an issue, either. I've done this for a game I bought on Steam and didn't want to use Steam, not a pirate. You also have unlimited downloads, well you have the direct ISO file which is even better.
ricardo_sousa11
Member
I dont think Piracy is as strong these days as it used to be, so I see absolutely no reason to do tricky DRM on consoles.
Back in the PS2/Ps1 days, almost all my friends played pirated games, because the games were all SP and there was no online features.
Nowadays, to hack a Ps3 you need so much effort, and you lose online features not only on games, but on the console itself, so in the end, its not even worth the hassle.
I think Piracy is a good thing, because most people nowadays want the online features, and use piracy as a "demo" for the game. Most of the games I've pirated, I bought within a week (refering to PC piracy of course).
For example, when Minecraft came out, I wasnt sure what it was all about, so I pirated it, played with friends for about a month, and then we all bought the game. If there was no piracy, I would have just forgot about the game.
I think developers should think twice before trying to "end" piracy, because it will hurt their sells.
Used games go hand in hand with what I just said, when I sell one of my games, I use the money I get from it, to purchase another game. Not only that but when you let a friend borrow your game, if he likes it, he will buy it.
I tend to neglect games that come from companys that use online passes.
I think this goes in hand not only in the gaming industry but all entertainment industries. Im a musician, and I prefer people to listen to what I do for free (being pirated or borrowed) than not listen to it at all.
Back in the PS2/Ps1 days, almost all my friends played pirated games, because the games were all SP and there was no online features.
Nowadays, to hack a Ps3 you need so much effort, and you lose online features not only on games, but on the console itself, so in the end, its not even worth the hassle.
I think Piracy is a good thing, because most people nowadays want the online features, and use piracy as a "demo" for the game. Most of the games I've pirated, I bought within a week (refering to PC piracy of course).
For example, when Minecraft came out, I wasnt sure what it was all about, so I pirated it, played with friends for about a month, and then we all bought the game. If there was no piracy, I would have just forgot about the game.
I think developers should think twice before trying to "end" piracy, because it will hurt their sells.
Used games go hand in hand with what I just said, when I sell one of my games, I use the money I get from it, to purchase another game. Not only that but when you let a friend borrow your game, if he likes it, he will buy it.
I tend to neglect games that come from companys that use online passes.
I think this goes in hand not only in the gaming industry but all entertainment industries. Im a musician, and I prefer people to listen to what I do for free (being pirated or borrowed) than not listen to it at all.
90TilInfinity
Member
It's a simple concept that people in the industry have already stated as fact.
- Ubisoft's EMEA Executive Director
- EA's CFO
Combine this with Gamestop's repeated comment that 70% of trade-ins go towards new game purchases, and you have a critical source of liquidity in the market. With no used games you simply remove a way people are able pay for games, thus overall sales will be less.
That said, this scenario isn't necessarily bad for the likes of EA, as when consumers are forced to make less purchases, they're more likely to settle with the FIFA/Battlefield than the quirky action-adventure game by a mid-tier publisher. I'd imagine this is the thinking among EA's top dogs, as their CFO clearly understands the current system has it's benefits for the market at large.
Also, not totally on topic, but related: the notion that game prices would drop in this scenario is really misguided. Assuming a game sold 3m new at $60, but also 500k used, that would still make more money for a publisher than 3.5m being sold new at $45. So anyone who supports this system (and there seem to be alot) with the assumption of cheaper prices should take this into account.
B-but demos cost money to make. And aren't really needed. Wouldn't you like perhaps to check out some of our promotional materials instead?
They would just play free to play games, though that's mostly in countries not suported by game companies (some on latin-america, like my own)
Also the problem is when a Dev/Publisher claims that a X amount of copies are pirated and that equals to X lost sales. NO IT DOESN'T! They are basically claiming each pirated copy equals to 1 lost sale which is untrue.
And how much are they going to give you for a trade in. If the rumors are true and retailers only get 10% of the sell then how much are they going to give you for a game. If gamestop sells a used game for $50 but only makes $5 then they'll give you $2 or $3 which means most people are going to just keep their games. You could look at that as a good thing for the industry I guess, but used games got me into several franchises that I bought sequels for on day one. I was also able to try out some older classics which turned me on to some devs that I wouldn't have known of otherwise. Personally I think the benefits outweigh the costs in the long run.
Piracy and used game sales hurt developers, publishers and paying customers. There are so many variables to consider when it comes to explaining why, though.
The majority of arguments in favor of piracy are complete bullshit. There are plenty of opportunists out there. They'll take what they can get at no cost, regardless of whether or not it's right, as long as they can get it without getting into trouble and as long as it requires little effort. You can't just assume that someone who pirates a game wouldn't have purchased it, anyway. The price isn't always the issue; sometimes, the VALUE of a game is more important. If a game's perceived value outweighs the effort of pirating said game, then most people who can afford a game will buy it. If piracy was actually difficult, then it wouldn't be as much of a problem.
As a bit of aside, does anyone else feel that games held more value to them when they were more difficult to obtain or keep? I remember being blown away more consistently by games when I didn't have any cash flow as a kid. I'd rent games most of the time, so the short time that I had with many of them just felt so much more rewarding. When I'd get a game for my birthday or for Christmas, I'd play that game so much longer than I'd play most games now. I don't even feel that it speaks of the quality of games back then versus what they are now. It's just that it's so easy to get games now, even if you're paying for them. I just have so many games in my Steam account that I haven't even played, and games that I *do* play probably don't always get the same amount of enjoyment out of me as they probably would've when I couldn't afford them. Also, I almost feel that people who pirate games tend to be less appreciative of them.
People bitch about the price of new games, yet people forget that there was a time when the average price of games fell. Why? Because Sony made it a point to pass the manufacturing cost savings onto consumers more or less at the height of PlayStation's (PlayStation 1, mind you) popularity. The cost of games fell because development costs hadn't increased dramatically in any meaningful way, and piracy was probably more of a niche thing. It wasn't as easy to pirate games for consoles at that point. (PC games were another story, of course.)
If there were fewer opportunists out there, then the price of new games probably could fall, because it's better for companies to sell more copies at a reduced cost than it is for them to hold out at higher price points for sales that'll inevitably slow to a crawl over time. (Steam is proof of this.)
The problem with used games is that they're more or less doing what launching at a lower price point would've accomplished. They're competing with the new product, and the new product needs to have additional value incorporated into its cost to account for piracy and used game sales. Even if you reduce the cost of new games to what you typically pay for those same games used, used copies can still be offered at a lower cost, and people who currently buy used games WILL still purchase those used copies. It has nothing to do with the new games being within the price range that they consider to be affordable; it has everything to do with the fact that the used copy is less-expensive.
And yes, I realize that a lot of trade-in credit goes toward new games, but it'd still be better for developers, publishers and paying customers if everyone just purchased new copies (assuming that publishers could set lower price points at launch and have said price points not fuck them over).
There's a lot to say about this, and I probably left something out, but that's how I feel about piracy and used games.
The majority of arguments in favor of piracy are complete bullshit. There are plenty of opportunists out there. They'll take what they can get at no cost, regardless of whether or not it's right, as long as they can get it without getting into trouble and as long as it requires little effort. You can't just assume that someone who pirates a game wouldn't have purchased it, anyway. The price isn't always the issue; sometimes, the VALUE of a game is more important. If a game's perceived value outweighs the effort of pirating said game, then most people who can afford a game will buy it. If piracy was actually difficult, then it wouldn't be as much of a problem.
As a bit of aside, does anyone else feel that games held more value to them when they were more difficult to obtain or keep? I remember being blown away more consistently by games when I didn't have any cash flow as a kid. I'd rent games most of the time, so the short time that I had with many of them just felt so much more rewarding. When I'd get a game for my birthday or for Christmas, I'd play that game so much longer than I'd play most games now. I don't even feel that it speaks of the quality of games back then versus what they are now. It's just that it's so easy to get games now, even if you're paying for them. I just have so many games in my Steam account that I haven't even played, and games that I *do* play probably don't always get the same amount of enjoyment out of me as they probably would've when I couldn't afford them. Also, I almost feel that people who pirate games tend to be less appreciative of them.
People bitch about the price of new games, yet people forget that there was a time when the average price of games fell. Why? Because Sony made it a point to pass the manufacturing cost savings onto consumers more or less at the height of PlayStation's (PlayStation 1, mind you) popularity. The cost of games fell because development costs hadn't increased dramatically in any meaningful way, and piracy was probably more of a niche thing. It wasn't as easy to pirate games for consoles at that point. (PC games were another story, of course.)
If there were fewer opportunists out there, then the price of new games probably could fall, because it's better for companies to sell more copies at a reduced cost than it is for them to hold out at higher price points for sales that'll inevitably slow to a crawl over time. (Steam is proof of this.)
The problem with used games is that they're more or less doing what launching at a lower price point would've accomplished. They're competing with the new product, and the new product needs to have additional value incorporated into its cost to account for piracy and used game sales. Even if you reduce the cost of new games to what you typically pay for those same games used, used copies can still be offered at a lower cost, and people who currently buy used games WILL still purchase those used copies. It has nothing to do with the new games being within the price range that they consider to be affordable; it has everything to do with the fact that the used copy is less-expensive.
And yes, I realize that a lot of trade-in credit goes toward new games, but it'd still be better for developers, publishers and paying customers if everyone just purchased new copies (assuming that publishers could set lower price points at launch and have said price points not fuck them over).
There's a lot to say about this, and I probably left something out, but that's how I feel about piracy and used games.
staticneuron
Member
CPP were never created to protect the physical item, just the content on the physical item. The content is where the value is contained.
Money was spent to create these products. IP laws protect the contents creators right to distribute their product. As always, when software is sold to you you never OWN the content on the disc. That is not a new concept.
That is guessing and I doubt any devs would complain at that point in time.