Support NeoGAF

[missile]

... Used games are less harmful than pirated games but yeah. Still dont like the draconian DRM for Xbone but lets analyze the situation better.

DRM and copy-protection are perhaps two of the best ads ever.

Spoiler

Seriously.

What's important for Microsoft is getting all the fuzz/publicity while
throwing DRM & Co at people. It rises the attention for the new console.
Headline: "Xbone comes with DRM am cry!" ... STOP ... "Xbone, no
used games!" ... STOP.... 'Oh, no! Really? I'm going to tell my friend
about.'

GAF is full of this DRM & Used Games crap. And so the machinery spins, in
favor for Microsoft for their new console. Good job! You will see, DRM and
copy-protection will get broken one way or another. Don't think Microsoft
won't knew it. Many other games companies use the same tick to get a
good portion of attention.

 

[NIN90]

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.

If the industry needs to bend consumer rights just to get back in shape, then I say good riddance to this industry..

 

[Mudkips]

The number of people here minimizing or outright denying the negative impact of piracy is depressing.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

If the industry needs to bend consumer rights just to get back in shape, then I say good riddance to this industry..

I'd say the industry's inability to branch out beyond the core supporters (i.e. catering to them too strongly) is what got it in that position in the first place. They're trying to get out of that cul-de-sac now, but of course, that doesn't fly well with conservative/reactionary core gamers.

 

[Hypron]

The number of people here minimizing or outright denying the negative impact of piracy is depressing.

This. Lots of people just say "1 pirated copy != 1 lost sale" and leave it at that, as if it told the whole story. I know people that used to buy games until they were introduced to illegal download, at which point they started downloading everything. Because why should they spend money when they can "get it for free". I've seen this rhetoric used heaps of times as well on video game boards that didn't have a no-piracy policy like neogaf. These people exist so we can't just sweep this issue under the rug because "1 pirated copy != 1 lost sale".

 

[quest]

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...

I don't see how 59.99 dollar long term digital rentals helps the industry at all. It only hurts it in the long run. When you price yourself that high kids and teens will no longer console game. Then guess what they won't be gamers when they get real jobs and can support the industry. I think 90% are gamers because of used/trading/lending/selling/renting games. With out that only people who have a lot of money can games. Maybe they see some money now but when those gamers in their 20's retire and no one is there to replace them because kids/teens of today went to tablets/phones it is over. Even cliffy b admited to trading games as a kid. The reason used games are such a issue is games are to damn expensive in todays world. And MS/EA/Activisions solution make gaming more expensive by removing value of a game once bought and installed. Once this fails to generate the money needed for 100 million dollar b level franchises who are they going to blame next?

 

[Tellaerin]

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?

Pure economics, for one thing. Someone potentially has enough free cash for one game in their budget, but they pirate ten. Publishers would look at that and say that they just lost ten sales. If the publishers were somehow able to block piracy with 100% effectiveness, that guy might buy one of those ten games he would have pirated. But he's not suddenly going to be able to pull money he never had out of his ass in order to buy the other nine. So how many potential sales are really "lost" in that scenario?

I won't say that piracy has zero effect on publishers' bottom line. I will say it's become a convenient scapegoat for underperforming titles, since shaking their fists at the pirates and promising ever more secure DRM that will really thwart them this time is a song and dance that appeases the shareholders and makes it look like they're actually doing something. Meanwhile, the real problems - out-of-control development budgets, disposable triple-A titles with a life expectancy of a week, price points out of tune with customer perceptions of value - continue to go unaddressed.

 

[CaptainGyro]

Pure economics, for one thing. Someone potentially has enough free cash for one game in their budget, but they pirate ten. Publishers would look at that and say that they just lost ten sales. If the publishers were somehow able to block piracy with 100% effectiveness, that guy might buy one of those ten games he would have pirated. But he's not suddenly going to be able to pull money he never had out of his ass in order to buy the other nine. So how many potential sales are really "lost" in that scenario?

I don't know how that shows that somebody can generalize and say that " pirates wouldn't have bought the games anyways" All you did is some random hypothetical situation of a single pirate who wouldn't have bought every single game that he pirated. I already acknowledged that those types of pirates exist.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

I also love how that .gif acts like piracy had no negative connections before software.

 

[Satchel]

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.

You could just buy less games.

 

[Tellaerin]

I don't know how that shows that somebody can generalize and say that " pirates wouldn't have bought the games anyways" All you did is some random hypothetical situation of a single pirate who wouldn't have bought every single game that he pirated. I already acknowledged that those types of pirates exist.

So you genuinely believe that the vast majority of pirates limit themselves to pirating titles they would have bought if they couldn't obtain them otherwise?

You could just buy less games.

It'd be interesting to see what happens to the market when a big chunk of the userbase "just buys less games". I'm predicting a massive implosion, myself. Very curious to see who the publishers would try to pin the blame on in that scenario.

 

[Htown]

I firmly reject the notion that piracy and used games are in any way comparable, or should be grouped together in any way.

 

[muu]

The number of people here minimizing or outright denying the negative impact of piracy is depressing.

Studies concerning the impact of piracy is definitely something to consider, and worthy of discussion. I do find it disturbing that folks that should be biggest proponents of the medium are so open to something that potentially hurts the people providing them with new games. I can understand these people pirating movies and music. It might be just another pop band, just another movie to waste 2 hours with. If games are among your passions in life though, I'd hope that people consider things beyond the economics of it.

 

[Corsick]

I firmly reject the notion that piracy and used games are in any way comparable, or should be grouped together in any way.

It's a way to make honest people feel bad about using the cheapest alternative to buying a brand new game. It should make the industry trying to crap on their own customers look incredibly petty, instead it garners apologists and sympathizers.

 

[CaptainGyro]

So you genuinely believe that the vast majority of pirates limit themselves to pirating titles they would have bought if they couldn't obtain them otherwise?

Never mind man. You aren't reading what I'm saying. Nowhere did I mention the "vast majority" doing anything like you mentioned

 

[Mithos]

I firmly reject the notion that piracy and used games are in any way comparable, or should be grouped together in any way.

I'd go so far as any publisher/developer doing/saying this, need to close shop and GTFO.

 

[Tellaerin]

Never mind man. You aren't reading what I'm saying. Nowhere did I mention the "vast majority" doing anything like you mentioned

You're not getting me. The point is that if the vast majority of pirates do operate the way I described earlier (pirating substantially more than they would have bought), then it is a valid generalization to say, "They wouldn't have bought most of that stuff anyway".

 

[-CM-]

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?

A significant portion of those pirated/used copies would be sales. Especially pirated single player PC games.

 

[teh_pwn]

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?

Are you implying that used games and piracy are the same? False equivalency if so. "You wouldn't....sell a used car."

Even if you have a bunch of DRM to mitigate both, pirates will disable it all and have a better experience just like with Blu-rays.

 

[Thoraxes]

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.

Yeah. I would rather the industry become all kickstarter games than lose my consumer rights.

I see where you're coming from too (and yes, respect your opinion), but it's just not how I like to see things is all.

 

[Kingbrave]

Studies concerning the impact of piracy is definitely something to consider, and worthy of discussion. I do find it disturbing that folks that should be biggest proponents of the medium are so open to something that potentially hurts the people providing them with new games. I can understand these people pirating movies and music. It might be just another pop band, just another movie to waste 2 hours with. If games are among your passions in life though, I'd hope that people consider things beyond the economics of it.

Oh it's okay to pirate them? It shouldn't be okay to pirate music, movies or games.

Just like gaming is the special little thing it thinks it is and have physical media that can't be resold.

 

[Corsick]

A significant portion of those pirated/used copies would be sales. Especially pirated single player PC games.

Well, someone could say just the opposite, it's about as meaningful as your comment right now.

 

[Captain_Spanky]

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

Usually.

It's a false analogy though. Creative industries thrive on ideas and concepts and piracy diminishes the value of these. You're not removing a physical thing but in the eye of the consumer and public and pirate you are diminishing the value of something less tangible. It's not a simple issue and being reductive helps no one.

 

[CaptainGyro]

You're not getting me. The point is that if the vast majority of pirates do operate the way I described earlier (pirating substantially more than they would have bought), then it is a valid generalization to say, "They wouldn't have bought most of that stuff anyway".

no, you're not getting me.
I want to know how you know that the vast majority of pirates are like this. That's my whole point.

 

[Corsick]

no, you're not getting me.
I want to know how you know that the vast majority of pirates are like this. That's my whole point.

No one knows, it's why these conversations are fruitless. I wouldn't be surprised if piracy weren't simply all of the above in regards to people's thoughts/comments on it.

 

[saunderez]

It'd be interesting to see what happens to the market when a big chunk of the userbase "just buys less games". I'm predicting a massive implosion, myself. Very curious to see who the publishers would try to pin the blame on in that scenario.

It's going to happen if they force our hands, thats for sure. Then they'll blame us.

 

[AppleSmack]

To be honest I'm not really that onboard with the whole "allow used games" thing. Retailers like Gamestop actually push used games over new ones. They are actively hurting the people that are keeping them in business. When you try to buy a new game, Gamestop will try to sell you a used one instead that has no benefit to the developer whatsoever. One reason that PC has such great sales is the fact that developers know that the games they sell to PC gamers cannot be resold. They are guaranteed sales for every copy. On consoles, developer know there is the threat of used games so you will never get sales that are 75 or 80 % off. It just doesn't happen. I would take great sales over used games any day. Steam DRM has actually helped PC gaming thrive, not hurt it.

 

[CaptainGyro]

No one knows, it's why these conversations are fruitless. I wouldn't be surprised if piracy weren't simply all of the above in regards to people's thoughts/comments on it.

well yeah. It's just that commish just acted like Captain Tuttle was being kinda foolish for asking for a source with the "if you don't think this is true..well then never mind" reply as if there was indisputable evidence that it was true. I was just curious what he thought it was

 

[the_korben]

This is such a bullshit excuse.

Piracy is still theft because you took something without paying for it.

I understand where you are coming from, and I understand the negative impact that pirating potentially has on the sales of a digital "product". However, not paying for something does not equal theft. This is a completely shortsighted view of how people should and should not behave that is profoundly influenced by living in an almost completely commodified society.

For instance, there is free software, free art, free music, all of which is licensed to copy without any restrictions. Obviously, such a license would not lead to the association of copying and theft. There is also the question of which licenses should be deemed, by society as a whole but also by individuals, acceptable and which products and types of products should even be treated as a commodity. The answers are really not that clear-cut, in particular when it really concerns things that can be copied flawlessly without any effort at all or when there are ethical connotations (e.g., patents on vaccines). It depends a lot on the standards in your society, on ideology, and so on.

Don't get me wrong, my reply does not really relate to copying video games that currently cost a lot of money to produce. I just didn't want this statement ( not paying = theft) to be left without a comment.

 

[Joseph Merrick]

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.

Yep. Used games aren't harmful at all, piracy probably is.

 

[Pyronite]

The number of people here minimizing or outright denying the negative impact of piracy is depressing.

Yeah...

I firmly reject the notion that piracy and used games are in any way comparable, or should be grouped together in any way.

They have the same effect on the developer's bottom line — the original artist gets paid for neither copy. They are comparable in that sense.

 

[AppleSmack]

Yep. Used games aren't harmful at all, piracy probably is.

And why is that exactly? For a developer, used games are probably worse. If a person bought a used game, that guarantees they were willing to pay for the game. A pirated copy doesn't guarantee that. In both cases, the developer gets nothing.

 

[Tellaerin]

no, you're not getting me.
I want to know how you know that the vast majority of pirates are like this. That's my whole point.

It's human nature for people to pick up free things because they're free, regardless of whether or not they actually need them, or have any intention of using them. If it catches their fancy, they'll take one. No reason to assume that this behavior's any less true when we're talking about pirated games instead of useless tsotchkes.

Without a budget to constrain them, pirates aren't forced to be selective, either. Your average consumer's going to say, "I have enough cash to buy either A or B," weigh the pros and cons, then pick one. In that same scenario, the pirate will probably just end up downloading A and B (and C, and D...) because there's nothing forcing them to choose one over the other. Meanwhile, publishers are counting every one of those downloads as a "lost sale".

Taking all that into account, it'd be more of a surprise if the majority of pirates didn't download more games than they ever would (or could) have bought legitimately. I don't have a study I can point at and say, 'Here! Proof!', no. But I think it's a pretty valid assumption.

 

[Joseph Merrick]

And why is that exactly? For a developer, used games are probably worse. If a person bought a used game, that guarantees they were willing to pay for the game. A pirated copy doesn't guarantee that. In both cases, the developer gets nothing.

The developer has absolutely no claim to any money from the used game. Why should they get money for it exactly?

 

[plagiarize]

Yep. Used games aren't harmful at all, piracy probably is.

it depends on how we define 'harmful'. obviously it would help devs if they got a cut of used games sales, so you could argue that it harms them that it doesn't, but then I could argue that it harms me that everyone on GAF doesn't pay me a dollar.

i'm not entitled to a dollar from everyone on GAF and no matter what developers may wish was true, they are not entitled to a penny from secondary market sales.

piracy, while obviously not representing as many lost sales as pirated copies, quite possibly (POSSIBLY) accounts for a number of new sales that devs would see money for if it wasn't possible. it probably hurts the secondary markets more, as pirates are looking for the cheapest way of getting the game, so would probably buy used anyway for the most part.

of course it's impossible to estimate how many new sales piracy prevents (and to offset that with the number of new sales that piracy actually encourages, which is at least a small number)... but I think it's most likely that piracy does 'hurt' devs by taking money away from them that would otherwise get...

but used games do not, unless we include 'harm' to mean devs getting money they aren't entitled to.

 

[AppleSmack]

The developer has absolutely no claim to any money from the used game. Why should they get money for it exactly?

Because they developed the game? Either way, I am not following your logic on how piracy is worse for developers.

 

[Zukuu]

Most used games money flowes right back into new games.

Just like used book/movie/car/whatever market doesn't destroy the book/movie/car market. Games aren't a fancy exception. You paid for the product in full already. Everything further is just double dipping.

 

[AppleSmack]

Most used games money flowes right back into new games.

Just like used book/movie/car/whatever market doesn't destroy the book/movie/car market. Games aren't a fancy exception. You paid for the product in full already. Everything further is just double dipping.

Isn't it common knowledge that Gamestop actively discourages the sale of new games and always tries to sell used games instead of new ones?

 

[plagiarize]

Because they developed the game? Either way, I am not following your logic on how piracy is worse for developers.

no one gets money for secondary sales. not book publishers, not record companies, not car companies, not furniture manufacturers, etc etc etc.

not getting money you aren't entitled to isn't 'harm'. piracy hurts them more because it probably takes dollars away they are entitled to. used games don't do that. thus they don't harm developers.

Isn't it common knowledge that Gamestop actively discourages the sale of new games and always tries to sell used games instead of new ones?

no. and even if they did do that, it doesn't change anything, because Gamestop aren't breaking the law and whether they try to sell the used game over the new game or not, they are completely entitled to.

 

[AppleSmack]

no one gets money for secondary sales. not book publishers, not record companies, not car companies, not furniture manufacturers, etc etc etc.

not getting money you aren't entitled to isn't 'harm'. piracy hurts them more because it probably takes dollars away they are entitled to. used games don't do that. thus they don't harm developers.

If they aren't entitled to used games money why should they be entitled to money from a pirate?

 

[VillageBC]

Because they developed the game? Either way, I am not following your logic on how piracy is worse for developers.

Used Books
Used Cars
Used Furniture
Used Movies
Used Art

Somehow, software has some special place and should be charged for multiple times. The only thing that shouldn't have a used market is condoms and underwear.

 

[Joseph Merrick]

Because they developed the game? Either way, I am not following your logic on how piracy is worse for developers.

They already got money from that copy, why should they get money again?

I don't know if piracy is bad for developers, but the difference between piracy and used games is that one definitely does not hurt developers while the other might.

If they aren't entitled to used games money why should they be entitled to money from a pirate?

Hehe, what? Piracy is forcefully making a copy, there is no choice of getting money for pirated copies.

 

[quest]

And why is that exactly? For a developer, used games are probably worse. If a person bought a used game, that guarantees they were willing to pay for the game. A pirated copy doesn't guarantee that. In both cases, the developer gets nothing.

That is like saying because someone bought a 5000 dollar used car that GM is pissed because they lost out on a new car sale. You can't assume someone would instead of paying 30 dollars for a used game pay 60 for that game. They either did not think it was worth 60 or they could not afford that much. Someone bought that game new and probably used the money they got for it to get another game. It all comes back to most games are way over priced at 59.99. Publishers would do themselves a huge favor with more flexible pricing. There are so many cheap entertainment/gaming options these days and console publishers have not adjusted to this. Look around 59.99 is way up there for cost of entertainment. That is what 6 months or more of netflix unlimited streaming.

 

[AppleSmack]

They already got money from that copy, why should they get money again?

I don't know if piracy is bad for developers, but the difference between piracy and used games is that one definitely does not hurt developers while the other might.

You keep repeating the same nonsense and not explaining yourself. The difference between piracy and used games is one person was a guaranteed lost sale to the developer and one (the pirate) isn't. In terms of profit, there is no other difference.

 

[plagiarize]

If they aren't entitled to used games money why should they be entitled to money from a pirate?

how many ways do you want me to explain the same thing? piracy clearly negates some new sales. so it harms developers by taking away dollars they are entitled to. simple. piracy also harms Gamestop and other places that sell new and used games. again, probably more than it harms devs.

 

[Joseph Merrick]

You keep repeating the same nonsense and not explaining yourself. The difference between piracy and used games is one person was a guaranteed lost sale to the developer and one (the pirate) isn't. In terms of profit, there is no other difference.

Profit doesn't matter. The used game was paid for.

 

[AppleSmack]

That is like saying because someone bought a 5000 dollar used car that GM is pissed because they lost out on a new car sale. Someone bought that game new and probably used the money they got for it to get another game. It all comes back to most games are way over priced at 59.99. Publishers would do themselves a huge favor with more flexible pricing. There are so many cheap entertainment/gaming options these days and console publishers have not adjusted to this. Look around 59.99 is way up there for cost of entertainment. That is what 6 months or more of netflix unlimited streaming.

You can also say that a pirate saved himself much more money by not buying that game and instead using it for another new game later on....

 

[Coffee Dog]

Why should we believe that piracy significantly harms developers without any evidence of that happening?

Can anyone provide any evidence of piracy impacting sales?

 

[Coffee Dog]

how many ways do you want me to explain the same thing? piracy clearly negates some new sales. so it harms developers by taking away dollars they are entitled to. simple. piracy also harms Gamestop and other places that sell new and used games. again, probably more than it harms devs.

Prove it.

Edit: dp. Sorry!

 

[AppleSmack]

how many ways do you want me to explain the same thing? piracy clearly negates some new sales. so it harms developers by taking away dollars they are entitled to. simple. piracy also harms Gamestop and other places that sell new and used games. again, probably more than it harms devs.

Why are they entitled to it? When you pirate a game, you pirate it from an external source. When you buy a used game, you are getting it from an external source. I'm seriously not seeing the difference here outside of the fact that in one situation money has changed hands.