Really? I don't have X360 (I assume you're not talking about OG)? But heard about people rather buying new consoles and mod them after ban rather than starting buying games.
So why does piracy and used games NOT hurt devs?
- Thread starter sn00zer
- Start date
Really? I don't have X360 (I assume you're not talking about OG)? But heard about people rather buying new consoles and mod them after ban rather than starting buying games.
scar tissue
Banned
I can't believe anybody who's not a corporate shill would argue against this. If you buy a game on a physical disc, you should be able to sell the disc. And the guy who buys it used from you should be able to use the disc.
Alligatorjandro
Banned
I dont know why stealing a game is compared to used games.With the used game it was new once so the developer got something from it.
KojiKnight
Member
Because there are lobbyists who are paid by these companies to try and change the laws and what people think about it... These companies want people to feel guilted into only purchasing new or DD or else they'll go bankrupt for reasons.
Piracy I feel has run rampant for a multitude of reasons-- but the major one I feel that is affecting gaming is price. Now there are those people out there who will still pirate a game even when it's taken down to a penny-- a god damn penny for crying out loud -- but those are the kinds of people who will never ever buy it or are just pretty damn greedy with their money. I think the issue is that there's so much entertainment to consume these days, that in order to buy all of the entertainment we want to consume- it would cost an arm and a leg.
But- if we choose what we feel comfortable in pirating, we can be of the norm. We can watch Iron Man 3 while it's in theaters but for free at home. We can play a $60 game when it comes out, but for free. And I just saved a ton of money that I didn't have in the first place without losing any entertainment value and being part of the norm.
Now, let's look at used games. Some of these people who don't have the money do not find it normal to pirate games- as it feels like stealing. So they say to themselves "OK self, I have played these 3 games to completion and I do not see any reason to keep them. But I need a way to buy this [new entertainment form]. I can sell these for money that I paid for, in order to buy something else I want."
Great idea self! So now instead of pirating anything, someone buys a new form of entertainment and creates a cycle of money. But say you take that money away from the consumer and make it harder for them to buy something new. That means you just took away people who would have bought in. This can lead to 2 scenarios: people will either buy less and continue the cycle or just start pirating.
People who start pirating see less and less value in the games, which continues the same nature.
So to answer the question: used games being gone could lead to more pirating which leads to less overall sales due to price and creating an idea of value among a consumer userbase. (The same can happen if a fee is implemented, or you get less per game trade at the stores).
But- if we choose what we feel comfortable in pirating, we can be of the norm. We can watch Iron Man 3 while it's in theaters but for free at home. We can play a $60 game when it comes out, but for free. And I just saved a ton of money that I didn't have in the first place without losing any entertainment value and being part of the norm.
Now, let's look at used games. Some of these people who don't have the money do not find it normal to pirate games- as it feels like stealing. So they say to themselves "OK self, I have played these 3 games to completion and I do not see any reason to keep them. But I need a way to buy this [new entertainment form]. I can sell these for money that I paid for, in order to buy something else I want."
Great idea self! So now instead of pirating anything, someone buys a new form of entertainment and creates a cycle of money. But say you take that money away from the consumer and make it harder for them to buy something new. That means you just took away people who would have bought in. This can lead to 2 scenarios: people will either buy less and continue the cycle or just start pirating.
People who start pirating see less and less value in the games, which continues the same nature.
So to answer the question: used games being gone could lead to more pirating which leads to less overall sales due to price and creating an idea of value among a consumer userbase. (The same can happen if a fee is implemented, or you get less per game trade at the stores).
They're not the same thing at all. One is legal, one isn't.
I'm not saying that anyone in this topic thinks such, but something about the entire used games issue has been bothering me for awhile, and perhaps someone in this topic can sum up the best argument.
What makes the video game industry so unique that they should be able to profit off of the second market (or cannot function with the second market), despite how almost every market across the world will not, cannot, or does not need to?
What makes the video game industry so unique that they should be able to profit off of the second market (or cannot function with the second market), despite how almost every market across the world will not, cannot, or does not need to?
FranXico
Member
How about possession?
Let's look at it this way: I, a consumer, purchase a game in a disc. This disc is the medium which contains the piece of software (the game). In reality, what I paid for was the license to execute the software.
If I own a license to use that software, I have the right to resell that license.
Up to now, I could either go to a retail store and negotiate the price at which I resell that license (usually to the store's advantage, of course), or negotiate a direct exchange with a friend instead. My option.
From now on, another party is going to dictate under which terms, and to who I can resell the license to run that software. What's more, whoever I sell the software to is going to have to pay a fee to the original owner in addition to the price I sell it at. All I am selling is my own license to run the software, but they receive a tax on it?
It isn't just a matter of opinion, it's about setting a legal precedent. A very, very dangerous legal precedent.
FranXico
Member
Exactly. Publishers want the precent to be set, so the same model can be applied to all other consumer markets. There is more evil to this than most of us imagine.
GoofsterStud
Member
Piracy is actually pretty low in the console gaming business.
The Xbox360 was more pirated than the PS3, but in the long run that didn't account to much.
The Xbox360 was more pirated than the PS3, but in the long run that didn't account to much.
PastorOfMuppets
Banned
It's not even about being unique. What makes it so special that they feel entitled to being given money for every single time a physical copy of a game is sold?
There we go. A sudden uprising when piracy didn't really sharply increase or decrease, and thus no correlation. Game companies start losing more money than they expected and out of the blue we get blamed. This issue could have been an uproar ten years ago and just now they're getting around to it? Either the pirates multiplied by 100 fold or there's internal rot with those companies.
When devs and publishers have gone to the point of trampling on long-established rights via a whim, it reeks of desperation.
Tallshortman
Member
It does "hurt" them however no one is defending piracy. Regarding used games devs should not be treated like precious children we the consumers have to coddle. They should be catering to the consumer, not the other way around.
Wickerbasket
Member
I think it becomes even more clear when you phrase it like "why should they get money when I sell something I own?"
They already got their money the first time I bought the game, it's my property now.
Can you imagine if TV manufacturers tried to get a cut of your used TV sale? Any other industry would laugh it into the ground.
Because it's a unique situation. It's an exception to the rule. They just, you know, don't have anything proving that assertion.
Personally I liked blind faith more when it was a band.
Any form of used game trade or piracy hurts devs.
If you buy a game used, it hurts them.
If you lend a game to a friend, it hurts them
If you borrow a game, it hurts them.
If you pirate a game, it hurts them.
Because if you're doing any of the above, or all, then you're not buying the game new, which means they "theoretically" don't see a cent of it. Although this isn't entirely true because most of them still see the money when the retailer buys the game. But some publishers/distributors give retailers an out, and allow them to return unsold stock.
But then at the same time, even I'd devs/pubs get the money when the retailer buys, if the game isn't selling, they won't order more copies will they? So you're still back at square one.
I'm going to assume all this is why devs and publishers might have put some pressure on Microsoft and Sony to put some measures in place to combat all these things.
If you buy a game used, it hurts them.
If you lend a game to a friend, it hurts them
If you borrow a game, it hurts them.
If you pirate a game, it hurts them.
Because if you're doing any of the above, or all, then you're not buying the game new, which means they "theoretically" don't see a cent of it. Although this isn't entirely true because most of them still see the money when the retailer buys the game. But some publishers/distributors give retailers an out, and allow them to return unsold stock.
But then at the same time, even I'd devs/pubs get the money when the retailer buys, if the game isn't selling, they won't order more copies will they? So you're still back at square one.
I'm going to assume all this is why devs and publishers might have put some pressure on Microsoft and Sony to put some measures in place to combat all these things.
I dont think Devs profit off of either, if you pirate a game its distributed world wide, whereas used games the store gets that profit and not the devs, so this gives people to believe devs doesn't get supported so there should be a means for them to still get money from their used games and have an iron fist on piracy.
I guess from the publisher/developer perspective they might argue that a piece of software isn't a buy one and done situation? Its an ongoing relationship between service provider and customer? For patches, online servers, content updates, technical support, etc...
Hahaha, no. I can't do it. I can't type this shit with a straight face!
Unless you are a consumer.
I guess the theory is, that if devs and publishers are getting all the revenue possible, then they can stay in business and keep making the games you love?
BRocknRolla
Member
I trade in old games to buy new games. If I didn't have that option, I wouldn't have the funds to buy nearly as many games as I do. Ergo, selling used games keeps me buying new titles.
Piracy is a fundamentally different argument, and I think conflating the two is exactly what the industry wants people to do. If I pirate a game, no one gets any money, and I'm not going to be trading it in to purchase a new game. I see no place for piracy.
An economy can rotate through new and old stock without the original creator always getting a piece of the profit. It's been this way in most industries for a very long time. The notion that the industry can't survive used games is based on faulty logic. If prices go up and people's options for purchasing games at a cheaper price disappear, people will play fewer games, and the profits will drop even further than they have from the used games market. I want to keep buying and playing new games, but I'll have to greatly reduce this practice if I have no sell-back options.
And the people who can't afford new games get to stop playing games.
Piracy is a fundamentally different argument, and I think conflating the two is exactly what the industry wants people to do. If I pirate a game, no one gets any money, and I'm not going to be trading it in to purchase a new game. I see no place for piracy.
An economy can rotate through new and old stock without the original creator always getting a piece of the profit. It's been this way in most industries for a very long time. The notion that the industry can't survive used games is based on faulty logic. If prices go up and people's options for purchasing games at a cheaper price disappear, people will play fewer games, and the profits will drop even further than they have from the used games market. I want to keep buying and playing new games, but I'll have to greatly reduce this practice if I have no sell-back options.
And the people who can't afford new games get to stop playing games.
Sanctuary
Member
Because it is in regards to publishers seeing any profit from either.
I've been gaming for 30+ years, and probably 95% of the games that I've played (on consoles anyway) were rentals, borrowed or used. It was only a money issue up until being an adult. But then even when I could afford them, I refused to flat out buy a game that I thought *might* be interesting for full price simply because of how many games could be finished in a day or two. Many of the current gen games that supposedly have "replay value" or some vaunted playing time are typically just filled with a bunch of generic fedex filler.
Careful. It's one of the best things that can happen to a specific model of this industry, which many people would argue is unsustainable. Does it make it sustainable? That's a hard call to make.
This is not the way things have to be. I do, however, agree that blocking used games *is* necessary to preserve that model. That doesn't mean that I think it's the right thing to do. I think a good chunk of the media who are proclaiming this as a good thing are doing so *because* they are fond of that model, possibly to the extent that they cannot concieve of an alternative.
BlastProcessing
Member
Publishers have tapped many new revenue streams this gen. DLC and microtransactions have been a huge new revenue source. Remember when in game advertising was going to lower the price of games?
Even with this new revenue they are struggling. How is giving them used game revenue going to be any different? Their broken business model will absorb it, the same way it has consumed everything else. Then they will find a new whipping boy to blame their difficulties on.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Who says they are entitled to playing those games or even that they wouldn't if given no other option?
You know i've been reading some people comparing the movie industry and the video game industry but correct me if im wrong, dont movies have a lot more chance to make money? I mean first they release in theaters, then they release on DVD and streaming services, then even farther down they get deals to show the movies on television, isnt that all money going to the studios and producers and such?
once a video game gets released is there any of that?
once a video game gets released is there any of that?
Wickerbasket
Member
I would rather they go out of business if it means retaining my consumer rights.
If they can't stay in business without fucking me over then they shouldn't be in business.
A lot of vague and unsubstantiated components to everything we're all saying. The only truth in this debate is that the answer is much more difficult to find and pin down to an exact point. People want this to be black and white because that's convenient, we can't really do that and still be correct with piracy or used games. I've seen articles saying piracy helps because it acts as advertisement that's free (people try before buying, and actually follow through on buying), I've seen people say its effects are negligible, and I've seen people act like it will destroy every industry susceptible to it (piracy has existed for decades, yet entertainment industries have thrived at times regardless). Used games exist to help the consumer, not to bend over and facilitate the publisher's or developer's interests. That is a good thing imo. Even if the worst happens, and publishers get to ream their customers with all of this DRM, I suspect they probably will still struggle with other much more important issues.
The effort put forth to stop piracy and used games is telling to the state of the various industries crusading against it. A scapegoat is easier than finding an innovative way to survive changing markets and methods of delivering content, it's simple and straightforward. The very customers that should be protecting themselves think that patting large corporations on the back and saying "that's ok buddy, I'll forfeit rights I've had for centuries just to help you out!" is somehow reasonable. You have an easy scapegoat that can even win over consumers that benefit from it to your side.
Never once have I said "company xyz is my friend." We are going through a business transaction when they give me a game, a song, or a movie. The strangest thing to me is the certainty with which people speak about used games and piracy, as if there is no nuance. My only point I ever try to make about these topics is that their impacts are not certainties as of now. Then you realize they're simply fans just like most other people here. No inside information, not concrete, bulletproof study, nothing. We're just speculating because this is not something that is simple with some obvious answer. As someone who buys very cheap used games or very cheap games on sale, I already have the patience to wait things out. If consoles want to test that patience some more, they'll simply make me switch to PC full time and forfeit any chance they had to make money off of me. I've said it before in another thread, I'm not a slave to my hobby. I can simply let console gaming suffocate itself with its own mistakes, assuming there's enough people like myself willing to wait it out as well.
The effort put forth to stop piracy and used games is telling to the state of the various industries crusading against it. A scapegoat is easier than finding an innovative way to survive changing markets and methods of delivering content, it's simple and straightforward. The very customers that should be protecting themselves think that patting large corporations on the back and saying "that's ok buddy, I'll forfeit rights I've had for centuries just to help you out!" is somehow reasonable. You have an easy scapegoat that can even win over consumers that benefit from it to your side.
Never once have I said "company xyz is my friend." We are going through a business transaction when they give me a game, a song, or a movie. The strangest thing to me is the certainty with which people speak about used games and piracy, as if there is no nuance. My only point I ever try to make about these topics is that their impacts are not certainties as of now. Then you realize they're simply fans just like most other people here. No inside information, not concrete, bulletproof study, nothing. We're just speculating because this is not something that is simple with some obvious answer. As someone who buys very cheap used games or very cheap games on sale, I already have the patience to wait things out. If consoles want to test that patience some more, they'll simply make me switch to PC full time and forfeit any chance they had to make money off of me. I've said it before in another thread, I'm not a slave to my hobby. I can simply let console gaming suffocate itself with its own mistakes, assuming there's enough people like myself willing to wait it out as well.
Joel Was Right
Member
Nonsense
I d even say piracy has no effect on sales. People who pirate can also do so to try games. The negative effect of piracy is likely compensated by a positive effect of new sales. Most studies about music and movies suggest that the effect of piracy is positive even. Those who pirate buy more also...
Kill Your Masters
Member
I recently bought AC3 for around 20£ and I fucking regret it. This is supposed to be a AAA game. AAA development has become a rehash category where it seems that most of the money goes into marketing as I can't believe how shit AC3 is (just as an example of your typical AAA game and because it made me go nuts today). It's a mess.
They should just stop selling shit that requires millions of copies to break even.
Underlying problems wont get fixed and that is all the mediocrity being sold as AAA blockbuster entertainment.
Can't treat a gun wound (with a stuck bullet) with a band aid and pretend everything will be ok.
They should just stop selling shit that requires millions of copies to break even.
Underlying problems wont get fixed and that is all the mediocrity being sold as AAA blockbuster entertainment.
Can't treat a gun wound (with a stuck bullet) with a band aid and pretend everything will be ok.
Every video game pirate I've known just downloaded whatever new releases came out, more than half the time they didn't even play them. I can't see them buying all of those things they downloaded just because they can't pirate anymore, like has been said multiple times in this thread, it's not 1:1.
As far as used games go... I'll never, ever understand why no one thinks twice about us selling other things used but selling video games used is somehow a big thing.
As far as used games go... I'll never, ever understand why no one thinks twice about us selling other things used but selling video games used is somehow a big thing.
About the car example, its hardware not software. They can still have you money with gas, new tires, maintence(and in some countries you need to pay a tax by year for the gov)...game you sold it one time and thats, maybe some dlc and done. Used games can lead to sales of new games...if you dont trade in with other old game.
Used games are less harmful than pirated games but yeah. Still dont like the draconian DRM for Xbone but lets analyze the situation better.
Used games are less harmful than pirated games but yeah. Still dont like the draconian DRM for Xbone but lets analyze the situation better.
Dave Meltzer
Banned
Sure. So what they want to do is sell you a non transferable license. You don't have to like it. But the justification on their end is to they see second hand sales as non beneficial. Ultimately this isn't about what you or I want.
Dave Meltzer
Banned
Because you're not renting it. You're purchasing a digital license.
If later down the road you can no longer access your digital titles you've purchased, that's when you get suing and shit. Until then it's not a rental anymore so than anything else you purchase digitally.
Is there a reason they,don't try to come up with a way that is consumer friendly and helps them profit? What is wrong with attempting to go the PS+ route of revenue after having been released? If they attempted this, while supporting games after launch they might make a lot of money off of DLC and micro transactions. Or they can alienate a previously installed base of consumers in the expectation of the easy money.
Who buys gas from a car dealer? Or pays taxes to the company afterwards? Most of the items you described with a car are markets that support cars, not car companies. The same way Gamestop created a used game market that exists with the publisher new game market.
Used games is not a conversation that even has anything to do with hurting or not hurting devs.
Once a game is sold, the person who now owns the game should actually own their copy. They paid for it at retail, and the devs were compensated for their work. From that point onward, the devs have nothing to do with the conversation at all. Ownership of that copy of the game should lie with the person who paid for it.
Then they can do whatever they want with their own property. Devs are irrelevant. They can sell the game, lend it to others, they can even take it outside and burn it in their backyard. It's theirs.
Piracy is an entirely different story, but the impact that it has can be debated. It definitely has some.
If they want to stop me trading it in, it has as much value as a rental for ten times the price. If I'm not renting it, then I can sell it when it suits me, entitled developers be damned.
PairOfFilthySocks
Member
Nobody said they don't. The problem, which has been expressed many, many times over the last week or so, is that legit consumers are the ones being violently reamed in the arse by MS's blatantly anti-consumer policies-to such an extent that one would be led to wonder if combating piracy is really the end goal here, or whether it is just being used as a scapegoat to allow dipshits like MS and EA to muscle their way into having greater control over the way we acquire and consume our gaming entertainment.
Dave Meltzer
Banned
That's not what a rental is.
Neff
Member
It doesn't. And anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, guilty as hell or both.
Piracy most likely does hurt devs, though not as much as the industry says it does (no way the 1 million pirates playing your game, watching your music or hearing your song would have bought it in the first place, something between 1 and 5% perhaps).
Used Games is even a more difficult argument for the industry.
Do you think that the car business would be better of without used car sales?
The problem is not so much on the buy side (which is similar to piracy, i.e. only a fraction of those would buy your game new) but also on the sell side. Gamers finance their new game purchases by getting rid of old games, and if they can't do that anymore, they also buy less new games. So the market might even be smaller without used games.
Used Games is even a more difficult argument for the industry.
Do you think that the car business would be better of without used car sales?
The problem is not so much on the buy side (which is similar to piracy, i.e. only a fraction of those would buy your game new) but also on the sell side. Gamers finance their new game purchases by getting rid of old games, and if they can't do that anymore, they also buy less new games. So the market might even be smaller without used games.
CaptainGyro
Banned
I really wish you would have finished your thought, because I also have a hard time believing what Bigevilturtle said. Obviously there are going to be pirates who wouldn't buy the game anyway, but can you just generalize and say something like "pirates wouldn't buy the game anyway?" as if wasn't true that a significant portion ( I dunno, say at least 30-40%of pirates) would pay for the game if they couldn't pirate it?
What are people basing this whole " they wouldn't pay for it anyway" thing on? Because a lot of pirates say so? How do people know they aren't just saying that to make it seem like piracy is less harmful than it actually is?
Anyways,what is it that you were going to start to say? The way you worded it's almost like you think there's overwhelming evidence that BigEvilTurtle was right, but you think that talking about it is a waste of time to anybody who doesn't believe it
If developers can attempt to redefine ownership, I'll define rentals how I see fit.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
This is such a bullshit excuse.
Piracy is still theft because you took something without paying for it.
Yeah. One is far more harmful than the other. And by far, I mean they are not comparable in the slightest. Doing so only trivializes the matter of piracy.
Because piracy wouldn't be an option.
You can't say A wouldn't be an issue if A didn't exist, so therefore A shouldn't be an issue.
That's rather ridiculous.
Basically, this. Too many people using the "piracy is a demo" excuse.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
What is good for the providing side of the industry is also good for the consuming side, in the long run. If you really love gaming, and not just playing video games, I'm sure you'll agree that keeping the industry healthy is more important and beneficial than consumers' short term gains. But if think your rights as a consumer should be above everything else, that's fine with me as well - it's a view I don't share, but I can respect it - I just take issue with so many people claiming Microsoft is ruining the industry with this initiative (and therefore we should unite in fighting it), when that couldn't possibly be further from the truth.
I agree that the current model is unsustainable, but I also believe that one of the main reasons why that is so is precisely the used games market as it exists today. Remove/reform it, and the sustainability improves greatly.
I also don't think that there is only one model present (or even strong) in the market today, but in any case, if you have any alternative model suggestions, I'd love to discuss them.
And by the way, I think it's primarily core gamers who are pining for the currently prevailing model (to be more precise, the pre-DLC variation of the model) to survive, they're the ones who are always pushing for more! bigger! better! more beautiful!, but are unwilling to pay the price. Oh, and free to play is not good for them either, even when it approaches traditional AAA products...
How does selling things you own equate to piracy.
Even if buying/selling used games did hurt publishers, that's just too bad. They have no right to that money. It's like saying not randomly mailing a envelope full of money to EAs head office hurts publishers, technically true but who cares.
If you buy something you have the right to sell it.
Even if buying/selling used games did hurt publishers, that's just too bad. They have no right to that money. It's like saying not randomly mailing a envelope full of money to EAs head office hurts publishers, technically true but who cares.
If you buy something you have the right to sell it.