dreamcastmaster
Banned
Publishers don't want this unless they can sell regular DLC. The want you to buy new games, just not sell your old ones.
So why does piracy and used games NOT hurt devs?
- Thread starter sn00zer
- Start date
Publishers don't want this unless they can sell regular DLC. The want you to buy new games, just not sell your old ones.
Kelegacy
XBOX - RECORD ME LOVING DOWN MY WOMAN GOOD
That's been the argument for many years now for the reason digital prices are as high or higher than retail. It's bull. The funny thing is, people actually believe it.
If retail disappeared tomorrow, those prices wouldn't drop. That's the reality people don't want to believe.
Exr
Member
This is a crazy line of thought to me. Why are developers suddenly exempt from consumer rights? Why should we change this entire thing for devs? Why are they making huge games with insane budgets and not making profits despite selling games in the millions? Why are you guys not asking this first rather than "oh man those poor devs we all love videogames lets help them out guys"?
What do you value more? The financial well-being of developers, or the rights of consumers to own the things that they purchase? Because the two are becoming increasingly at odds.
OccamsBlender
Member
If it's a Free to Play game and you're just spreading the client around, you're giving the dev free publicity. Free to play was started in Asia where no one can make money selling software unless they have enough die hard fans willing to pay.
Why would anyone believe that? Less liquidity on the consumer side with less disposable income wouldn't equate to more money to the publishers/developers. The market will probably contract heavily and quickly if they get rid of used games, the industry already is feeling a contraction.
AppleSmack
Banned
Well that is the entire issue. Video games are not cheap to make at all. People demand incredible performance with great graphics and power and all that has a cost running in the millions of dollars. If everyone is cheaping out the business model isn't very sustainable resulting in yearly franchise factories like call of duty to help guarantee profit. Honestly, why should gamers be allowed to be self entitled and not publishers? If a company like Microsoft wants to block used games on their system you have the choice not to buy the system if you don't like it. Thing is though, there are many active business models currently functioning in the world that do not offer resale rights and many are doing fantastic. I know I sound like a corporate shill, but I think that the game industry would be better off if it wasn't such a hostile cut throat place for developers.
Who are the "they" you mention? (The ones not making profits despite selling millions.) Every developer? 1/3rd of them? 1/10th of them?
There's not even a link in your argument to the used game process - none of those people have claimed to have gone under due to "used games". Why the change of argument? Why do gamers cherry pick things like this to get actively upset at developers in order to justify why they deserve not making a penny on the "art" they made while GameStop, who contributed nothing, is making $55 on new AAA games?
look at that massive assumption
AppleSmack
Banned
There is no way the disposable income you get for selling games (which likely goes into some more used games, since why not?) makes up for all the lost sales developers suffer due to used games.
well its true for music, movies and shows.
Music industry sales were $38 billion at its peak in the 90s. In 2012, they were $16.5 billion.
How can you just say "well it's true" (that piracy is only done by those who would not purchase something in the first place) in the face of things like that?
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/t...s-first-revenue-increase-since-1999.html?_r=0
PrivateWHudson
Member
I looked at this guy's name to make sure I remember to never listen to anything he posts again. Lol...such a perfect name.
Exactly don't hear book dealers quit selling books because the E-version is cheaper same with movies and music. They are all cheaper digital but don't see retailers stop selling them. It is an excuse to keep prices high. That is what they want they want 59.99 dollar long term rentals plain and simple. People can deny it all they want but that is the truth. The big publishers are trying for a huge money grab by getting rid of the secondary game market. They are in effect trying to double the prices of games since there is no resale value. It won't work people will just purchase less games and casuals will just leave the market to another form of entertainment. Every issue is on the big publishes and not evolving to the new era of entertainment. Is gamestop a bit of an issue sure but be flexible in pricing. Very few games should be 59.99 that is why so many B titles don't sell well. They are to damn expensive. Why is there a such a big used market 59.99 is to much for 75% of games.
Poor devs. Seriously, it is their problem, not mine. Should we start a " give your rights to them"- charity? Would they do the same?
No they dont, they demand quality, as evidence by cut rope, angry birds, minecraft, terraria, braid, Star Craft 2, Dioblo 3, Deus Ex, Civ 5, and ect. Then you have the kickstarters showing true market demand for similar titles, followed by casual consumers gladly participating in iOS/Android and handheld games. That "demand" for 100 million dollar budgets is because of publicly traded companies. Their ability to convince devs that this is all consumers mainly want is their way to artificially pump up their stock value and at the same time keep the great developers under their control.
Great counter-argument. I know which one of you two I was more swayed by.
Show me the lost sales from used games. Give me numbers that prove or even hint that used games are forgone growth.
I think it's an equally large assumption that most people who pirate games would buy them otherwise.
No doubt, the existence of piracy has some kind of effect on sales, but I genuinely think it's vastly overstated. I think most people who pirate games, pirate lots of them, and if it weren't possible for them to do so they'd buy very few of those.
Do we know anything about the average demos of pirates? Don't they tend to be kids? How much spending power do those kids really have for games? They pirate due to a combination of lack of maturity/scruples and lack of cash.
Did you know, music pirates are bigger consumers of music than non pirates?
to be fair, that doesnt by itself prove hes wrong, but is a circumstantial proof we can use to argue the bigger picture
The nearly categorical nature of the statement is what makes it a large assumption. My rejection of "most pirates wouldnt buy anyway" does not mean that I think "most pirates would buy" - merely that it is enough that if a reasonable amount of pirates would have bought the content, then the act of piracy by itself is a pure loss for the content creator.
Developer profit is the core reason why we have copyright. And in that sense, yes, both used games and piracy do hurt developers. And if developer profit didn't matter at all, we could simply abolish copyright entirely. But we'd probably have a much less interesting gaming market.
So developer profit matters. But it's not the only thing that matters. The purpose of copyright is to promote the creation of intellectual works for the benefit of broader society. The balancing act is to make artistic development financially rewarding enough that people will actually do it, but cheap enough that it is available to as many people as possible.
Used games under the current system are considered acceptable to resell without the original creator getting a cut. That's the first sale doctrine. There's multiple reasons for this, but at it's core it's one piece of a (supposedly) pragmatic approach to balancing the rewards for industry, and the costs to consumers.
Quite frankly, I think that modern technology has broken many of the assumptions that those boundaries were based upon. The first sale doctrine worked best in a world where intellectual property was tied to physical goods that weathered and wore, and which took time to transport. But digital goods remain pristine forever, and can be transferred instantly. That changes the dynamic of the used market, and shifts the balance towards consumers.
That's not to say that we should give copyright holders more powers, though. We shouldn't. Almost every law on copyright reform has shifted the balance further in their favour. They have too much power already.
As the world changes, we should be reconsidering precisely where the lines are drawn. The ideal framework for "[promoting] the Progress of Science and useful Arts" will change over time. Sadly, I don't think consumers have any chance of getting a fair deal out of copyright reform in the current climate. Even many consumers see copyright not as a way to benefit society as a whole, but solely as a way of ensuring content creators turn a big profit.
So developer profit matters. But it's not the only thing that matters. The purpose of copyright is to promote the creation of intellectual works for the benefit of broader society. The balancing act is to make artistic development financially rewarding enough that people will actually do it, but cheap enough that it is available to as many people as possible.
Used games under the current system are considered acceptable to resell without the original creator getting a cut. That's the first sale doctrine. There's multiple reasons for this, but at it's core it's one piece of a (supposedly) pragmatic approach to balancing the rewards for industry, and the costs to consumers.
Quite frankly, I think that modern technology has broken many of the assumptions that those boundaries were based upon. The first sale doctrine worked best in a world where intellectual property was tied to physical goods that weathered and wore, and which took time to transport. But digital goods remain pristine forever, and can be transferred instantly. That changes the dynamic of the used market, and shifts the balance towards consumers.
That's not to say that we should give copyright holders more powers, though. We shouldn't. Almost every law on copyright reform has shifted the balance further in their favour. They have too much power already.
As the world changes, we should be reconsidering precisely where the lines are drawn. The ideal framework for "[promoting] the Progress of Science and useful Arts" will change over time. Sadly, I don't think consumers have any chance of getting a fair deal out of copyright reform in the current climate. Even many consumers see copyright not as a way to benefit society as a whole, but solely as a way of ensuring content creators turn a big profit.
AppleSmack
Banned
When were used games actually a right? Games are not the only non-resale products in existence. What do you mean when you say you surrender your rights? If you don't like a system that doesn't support used games, don't buy it.
AppleSmack
Banned
Starcraft 2 and diablo 3 are 100 million dollar games. I can only imagine their price with top end graphics.
Reselling the things you own, is a right, atleast in europe. I guess you are american?
Exr
Member
Developers of AAA games that sell seemingly huge numbers but still are not profitable. Tomb Raider is a recent release, that game sold millions but Square still said they didnt make a profit. What differentiates videogames from other forms of media?
We can resell everything else at a lower price and other companies can operate. Why can't video game developers? If you feel used games and piracy are truly the only source of all these fiscal woes for these companies I'd need to read something linking loss of sales from used games. Is it shitty that Gamestop is a middleman for games? I don't think so when we are being charged $60 for new games. Can the market not adapt to its consumers? Why are we forced to adapt to their new methods when they are so blatantly in the way of our consumer rights? The onus is on these companies to provide the incentive for the people to stick with their products. If they can implement cheaper games then I am all for it, but I don't feel the onus is on us.
AppleSmack
Banned
Is Steam illegal in Europe? Are blizzard games legal in Europe? And no I live in Canada.
They are facing lawsuits because of their ToS. Does that ease your pain?
I didn't put all of those up their simply for cost, but also to show that it isnt graphics that sell(as proven that a lot of the time the weaker console wins the sales race). The fact that you think picking out 1 example to prove your point, only goes to show how little you have to go on for the opinion that you have.
Your mentality is essentially saying all movies must cost what Avatar cost.
AppleSmack
Banned
Reading that, second hand sales are an exception in the rights of the copyright holder. I don't see anywhere where it says that you have the RIGHT to used game sales. If you had the RIGHT to them, companies could not legally block it. In this situation, they are only preventing the exception from occurring and since you don't actually have the RIGHT to that exception, they can do this.
ricardo_sousa11
Member
Steam isnt physical.
That alone should let you know that the added liquidity and disposable income afforded to consumers through the 2nd hand market, was enough to keep the more economically aware industries from doing something stupid.
AppleSmack
Banned
I look at my collection and I don't see a single game that was made cheaply... Indie games maybe, but 3rd party budgets this generation are going to be anything BUT cheap. Anytime a game looks substandard you see people trashing it for looking bad all the time. You are highly undervaluing the importance of graphics.
Funny enough a German consumer group is suing Valve to allow the resale of Steam games. The European Union Court of Justice ruled that the trading of used software licenses was legal in 2010.
Steam is just as physical as the Xbox One OS.
10101
Gold Member
The EU did a study on this earlier in the year on music piracy and decided exactly what you you said. People who pirate do it cause they want it for free IMO, people who buy used want it cheap - neither are likely to buy it at full price.
PrivateWHudson
Member
Like all of the arguments haven't already been made. I just thought it was funny that something about his post out of the many rubbed me the wrong way enough for me to want to remember his name and sure as shit "remember" was part of his name.
I don't care what you do, a console that wants a fee for me to sell a used game won't have a place under the Christmas tree for my kids.
No. I guess I should clarify that they and them are Publishers and Console Makers.
I do not think that there is enough money that will come into the industry to replace the money that removing used game sales will remove from the industry. If used games generate $4 billion dollars (Gamestop generates about $2 billion from used games, doubled due to private sales and such, plus added for growth) money that is then spent on games, I don't think there is $5 billion that will leave another industry and enter the video game industry.
AppleSmack
Banned
It is a store that is accessible in Europe that sells games. You don't need a disk to play Xbone games either.
Can the "market" (developers/publishers) compete with GameStop? GameStop has $0 invested in the creation of the product. If the "market" sells new games for $50 (Steam pricing), GameStop sells it for $40-$45 without a loss. It is economically unfeasible for publishers to compete with someone who has no investment beyond the trade-in credit they offer their consumer (which is typically far below what they resell the game for).
AppleSmack
Banned
$4 billion dollars spent on games and publisher's don't get a cent. I'm not surprised they want to take action.
Nobody said it doesn't "effect" sales, just nobody knows how, because no industry puts the money into researching it enough, where they could get legitimate numbers to share with the public. I personally think piracy is theft, but just because I think it is morally wrong, I'm not going to start thinking it is effectual enough to spend time trying to kill it(which is never what DRM is really about anyways).
ricardo_sousa11
Member
All the buzz about selling content, is when it comes to physical copys of games (xbone).
Selling digital content is in courts in germany being taken care of.
Selling digital content is in courts in germany being taken care of.
Doesn´t matter in Europe.
Pureauthor
Member
Why does the market need to 'compete' with Gamestop? Set their own prices, Gamestop and any other reseller will set theirs, and the entire system goes on its merry way of some people buying used, some people buying new, and so on and on.
Red herring much? What you just said, with that anecdotal tidbit, has 0 applicability of what we are talking about.
You do understand that for there to be a used game there has to have been a new game purchase somewhere along the line. Unless we are going with the logic that since buying used games is like theft, people who sell used games probably stole it.
ricardo_sousa11
Member
You cant say piracy is lost revenue, because you never had that revenue in the first place.
For example, if I have straberry crops, and bugs destroy half the crops, I can say half the crops were destroyed, and therefore I lost revenue. I had inventory which was lost.
Piracy is an estimate of what people downloaded instead of buying, meaning they were pottential buyers.
From that number (x) you must take in consideration, how many did in fact buy the game after pirating it, how many just downloaded because they simply had acess to it, how many downloaded and didnt use it.
You cant go to a torrent website and see how many times it was downloaded, multiply by the retail price and say you lost it.
This is also impossible to determine because the industry has grown much much more by the years, therefore there was no real loss.
For example, if I have straberry crops, and bugs destroy half the crops, I can say half the crops were destroyed, and therefore I lost revenue. I had inventory which was lost.
Piracy is an estimate of what people downloaded instead of buying, meaning they were pottential buyers.
From that number (x) you must take in consideration, how many did in fact buy the game after pirating it, how many just downloaded because they simply had acess to it, how many downloaded and didnt use it.
You cant go to a torrent website and see how many times it was downloaded, multiply by the retail price and say you lost it.
This is also impossible to determine because the industry has grown much much more by the years, therefore there was no real loss.