Support NeoGAF

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Regardless, I'd be very suspect if you actually think that saying piracy is the same as the violent media argument helps his case.

If anything, it invalidates them because it just makes them look like a hipster gamer mad at the man.

 

[GYNGA]

If you didn't download a game then the only way to have experienced it would've been to pay for it. So to say they weren't going to is completely untrue since how would you know if they were or not?

I wouldn't have been able to buy a game when I was 13 years old. And my parents wouldn't have bought it to me. Now the logic says if I don't pay for it I don't have the right to play it and it's truth. But what difference would it make to a developer? No at all. It wouldn't have got money from me anyway. However, from being pirate at my childhood I became a normal citizen and I now pay for games (either new or used) because I fell in love with video games and now I feel that I have to support the industry.

The problem here is that PC is way too easy to pirate. The advantage of gen7 consoles is that it's a lot more complicated to be a pirate. When it comes to PC, it's so easy that some people don't see the point to pay when there are hundreds of thousands of games available with a few mouse clicks (and often new games show up even before release date).

 

[DigitalRicket]

I wouldn't have been able to buy a game when I was 13 years old. And my parents wouldn't have bought it to me. Now the logic says if I don't pay for it I don't have the right to play it and it's truth. But what difference would it make to a developer? No at all. It wouldn't have got money from me anyway. However, from being pirate at my childhood I became a normal citizen and I now pay for games (either new or used) because I fell in love with video games and now I feel that I have to support the industry.

The problem here is that PC is way too easy to pirate. The advantage of gen7 consoles is that it's a lot more complicated to be a pirate. When it comes to PC, it's so easy that some people don't see the point to pay when there are hundreds of thousands of games available with a few mouse clicks (and often new games show up even before release date).

I guess it does depend a bit on the generation upon which you grew up in. See when I was 13 and if I didn't have money and my parents didn't go buy that game then guess what? I wasn't playing that game!

 

[KingFire]

I addressed that, down to the exact percentage number, in my post. I'll clarify, anyway: I think some of those are sales. But I don't think a lot of them were. And those that would have been sales, likely wouldn't touch the game until it was priced extremely low.

I misunderstood your previous post. Since we both can't actually know how much of these are sales and how much are not, I think we should just agree to disagree then, for I think a significant percentage of these are sales, and this is also what the developers think.

 

[missile]

"So why does piracy and used games NOT hurt devs?"

Does anyone here have hard real numbers from developers telling the opposite,
i.e. that piracy and used games hurt them? Where are the financial reports
saying 'we made an xy% loss due to piracy'? I think that the word piracy is
abused by some big studios / companies to legitimate stronger control on the
consumer.

 

[Yagharek]

Regardless, I'd be very suspect if you actually think that saying piracy is the same as the violent media argument helps his case.

If anything, it invalidates them because it just makes them look like a hipster gamer mad at the man.

The same? No. Are there parallels? Yes. Both debates have plenty of research available and both are contentious issues in the industry and at a legislative level.

His point was not unreasonable, even if some evidence may discredit his thesis.

 

[hesido]

Oh yes. Piracy kills. Even though every single study of those who pirate show that they actually buy MORE retail products than those who don't pirate at all. Every. Single. Time. For the last 2 decades. Every time the study is done on piracy, those who pirate are those who spend MORE on products to begin with, on average.

Really, the "Piracy hurts" argument is the same as saying "Video games make you violent" argument. You aren't going to stop it, regardless of how much of a gut feeling you have that it hurts. Any actions against it are only going to hurt legit consumers.

I aggree with BobbyTKC and Boken's answer to Quadraphonic's post.

And I still say piracy hurts. If all games are selling 5% less because of piracy, that's piracy hurting the revenue of games. I am not buying outrageous publishers claims about lost sales either.

When you say it doesn't, you either imply games would sell only as much without piracy, or maybe even imply they'd sell more with Piracy. I don't know how that would work.

Let me put it this way: In Turkey, where I live, PS1 era and PS2 era piracy was rampant. I don't blame them when new games cost 100 usd here. (Yes..) AND we DON'T have a rental system. I don't think anybody in their right mind, if they aren't very spoiled with money, should actually support a system where you don't even have the ability to rent a game, and the game costs twice as much as other countries where average income is 4-5 times.

However, it took a LOT of time for PS3 to be hacked. But the fact that we could import games meant all the difference. People began to accept the fact that they won't be able to pirate the PS3, and SOME of my friends bought PS3's and began buying games legally (although importing games to not pay 100usd.) As more people bought, I guess Sony saw the amount of people playing, and now we even have Turkish subtitles and even high quality dubbing on select games. However, after the hack, several of those people who were buying games reverted back to pirating. Only very few who earned well didn't go that route. BTW, Sony Türkiye began competitively pricing Sony published games (~65usd). We still don't have the means of renting games.

In my example, lack of being able to Pirate PS3 games lead to people actually buy stuff. And when the hack was in place, hardware sales went through the roof, but software sales might even have declined (as I see from people around me)

 

[Gaming Truth]

Do you think they might have a bias? Or at least an incentive to bone the consumer over just to help their own bottom line.

In-game advertising, DLC, Special Editions, soundtracks, strategy guides, licensed toys, social game companions. There's a LOT of avenues for additional revenue.

DLC, Special Editions, soundtracks: Piratable. If I pirate a game, why wouldn't I also get everything else with it?

In-game advertising, strategy guides: Like web advertising, I'm assuming this is based on hits, which requires sales. Strat guides are published by other companies. There "might" be a small fee for authors coming in and talking to your debs, but not much.

licensed toys, social game companions: Huh? I don't claim to be a modern-day gamer, but I have no idea what you mean. Look at your game library and tell me how much of this stuff you bought with it. I have a few Yoshi dolls, that's it.

 

[Boken]

A proposed solution to used games:

Games are sold with a digital licence for your account so licence+ physical disc//or license + digital DL (e.g. 55$ retail game: 25$ licence, 30$ disc // $45 digital download: 25$ licence, $20 DL)

everybody needs a license (on an account) to run the game.

If you want to sell your game, you can sell the licence back to MS. (20$ money back)

People can buy licences from MS for 5$ more than they buy your licences. (MS sells licence for 25$)

now there is high liquidity for consumers
added bonus of screwing with piracy
but how do i save money for 2ndry users?! I dont know, but digital products dont degrade either. hmm.

 

[Jac_Solar]

You trade in your game for $30 - but GameStop will always sell your previously used game for well more than $30 (which is why they accept that trade-in). The trade-off works out in the negative for game publishers if anyone buys your used game at the price GameStop expects when they give you credit.

If it was a flat trade, it would be fine (from an economic point of view). But it never is anywhere close to flat.

Obviously, Gamestop needs to take a slight profit to stay in business and be motivated, but, while I don't know their prices (I've heard they are high.), they shouldn't be higher than an additional 5-10-15$, at most, I suppose. But they have no competitors -- so they get to rule the used games market. If they had a competitor, it would be better. 2 competitors, or more, could be good for the market.

A chain, like Gamestop, could go into business with a publisher/developer, or several, and let people trade 2 games for a brand new game of whatever publisher they are working with, and then proceed to sell the used games at a discount. Profits would be split between the chain and the publisher/developer. Could even work over the web in the countries the chain is located in, and they could let people mail them the games as well.

 

[zoukka]

Jaffe is 100% right. Pirates would not would play as many games if they couldn't pirate. But the chances of such person not playing anything anymore are zero.

And the age old sob story "bu bu bu I try games by pirating them and then I buy them if they are good" is the biggest bullshit ever. Today you can try almost any game for free before buying them through demos and you have infinite resources in form of walkthroughs and video reviews to see if you'll like it before the purchase.

Oh and games reach bomba prices even on consoles in a matter of weeks.

 

[Gaming Truth]

Okay, I'm sure that a furniture company is only making money off of furniture sales. Nike doesn't restrict me from selling my Air Force ones, Ford doesn't restrict me from selling my F150's, Levis doesn't restrict me from selling my jeans, etc...you can see where this is going right?

I do see where you're going. Everything you listed above wears down and has a life span. They will eventually need to be repurchased. There's also the investment, risk/reward scenario. Furniture is made from wood, needs metal tools to build. Clothes are made from cotton/polyester/etc. and sewing machines. No one will buy your Air Force Ones, but shoes are really rubber and cloth.

Video games require computers and highly paid workers. Not all companies spend millions making a game, but they all spend in the hundreds of thousands and hope to recoup it, per title (classic model. Web and phone/tablet games require far less, which is why developers are flocking and the old guard is so scared).

 

[TheLaughingStock]

"So why does piracy and used games NOT hurt devs?"

Does anyone here have hard real numbers from developers telling the opposite,
i.e. that piracy and used games hurt them? Where are the financial reports
saying 'we made an xy% loss due to piracy'?

It's too complex for a developer to develop a methodology and tackle it by themselves. Organizations like the GAO or OECD don't look at the net impact on games in isolation, so it's unclear what the net impact is on sales, revenue, profit, etc.

 

[Winterfang]

Jaffe is 100% right. Pirates would not would play as many games if they couldn't pirate. But the chances of such person not playing anything anymore are zero.

And the age old sob story "bu bu bu I try games by pirating them and then I buy them if they are good" is the biggest bullshit ever. Today you can try almost any game for free before buying them through demos and you have infinite resources in form of walkthroughs and video reviews to see if you'll like it before the purchase.

Oh and games reach bomba prices even on consoles in a matter of weeks.

This, if you want to try a game Download a demo. Heck go watch a let's play on youtube and be done with it, you ain't paying anyway.

 

[GYNGA]

I guess it does depend a bit on the generation upon which you grew up in. See when I was 13 and if I didn't have money and my parents didn't go buy that game then guess what? I wasn't playing that game!

And a few decades ago people weren't able to play video games at all. Because there were no video games!

I don't get what's your point here

 

[missile]

Wow. That's surprising. I thought he [Jaff] was a reasonable guy. ...

I think that he thinks that he has to do it to be cool, having something to
say about the world. Today, everyone who can write just a single line of code
or can push some buttons on a game maker tool claims to be a developer. The
times were developers were calm and doing their job at its best seem to be over.
Today every "developer" has to say something about the world. Look at Phil and
Tommy for example, they are quite new to the business and look at Jaff (an old
fart ). The youngster fool around and the olds think they have to do similar
to get some attention, being cool, having something to say. Well, I can't
stand those (twitter-)developers. They think they can program a line of code
and now have the rights flooding the world with sh!t. "I have programmed a
cool game (or was known for doing so), so I earned the rights sending sh!t
from above". Oh, thanks! Way cool.

 

[Boken]

And a few decades ago people weren't able to play video games at all. Because there were no video games!

I don't get what's your point here

people are too prone to making straw men on the internet it seems

his point is that if you were really interested in a game, you could eventually save up either money or goodwill to ask your parent to buy it. the cases where a child pirates games and grows up to love them enough to start paying instead of continuing to pirate does not justify the greater value of other people pirating.

i understand that in a world where games are all 60$, and parents hated games your category might exist. (the child who finds and loves video games himself through piracy). but today with hundreds of f2p games, cheap ios games and plenty of flash games, i have to say that while your story is touching, it just doesnt apply anymore.

 

[mavs]

It doesn't matter. All that matters is that on average, some money is going to be used for new games, and on average, the industry will always benefit. The reasoning will still work even if only 10% of the initial value of the games traded in are used for new games on average. It will simply change the numbers, but so long as some percentage of the trade in value is used for new games (gamestop claims this percentage may be as high as 70%), more money will be pumped into the new games industry than otherwise.

I don't see how you can prove that. One issue is that the difference between the trade in value and used game purchase price is lost* to the game industry as it goes to Gamestop. So Gamestop does end up sucking money out of the market. There's also theoretically a problem where particular games may wind up serving more players with a single new copy than other games, thanks to the magic of continual second-hand sales. You're looking at it from the perspective of an invariant pile of money going towards gaming purchases, with second-hand sales serving as a sort of "recycling" mechanism. Developers look at it as every second-hand sale fighting and defeating a new sale which they depend on. Since you're ignoring the way money leaves the system your view doesn't look any more complete.


*except for the part of Gamestop revenue that helps sell more games, like maintaining the store and its displays, and paying the wages of Gamestop employees who probably spend a lot of their income on games and systems.

 

[Night_Trekker]

Piracy hurts devs because pirates copy games illegally and then play them instead of buying them.

Used games sales don't hurt devs like piracy, but devs like to say it's the same thing because they feel entitled to a new sale every time someone purchases a game second hand. Those devs are delusional, and their tears delight and sustain me.

 

[noquarter]

Obviously, Gamestop needs to take a slight profit to stay in business and be motivated, but, while I don't know their prices (I've heard they are high.), they shouldn't be higher than an additional 5-10-15$, at most, I suppose. But they have no competitors -- so they get to rule the used games market. If they had a competitor, it would be better. 2 competitors, or more, could be good for the market.

A chain, like Gamestop, could go into business with a publisher/developer, or several, and let people trade 2 games for a brand new game of whatever publisher they are working with, and then proceed to sell the used games at a discount. Profits would be split between the chain and the publisher/developer. Could even work over the web in the countries the chain is located in, and they could let people mail them the games as well.

They do have a competitor, lots of them. They even have a competitor right here on this website (Buy Sell Trade Thread). There is eBay, there is Craigslist, there is the guy at work that you can sell to. The industry wants to control every dollar that enters it. It wants to monopolize all sales of videogames.

Why don't they compete with Gamestop by allowing you to trade back to them. They could give you a credit to purchase directly from them and they could destroy the used game if they wanted, or they could resell it the same as Gamestop is doing. But instead they want to take the easy way out and have consumers take the hit.

All those copies of games that Gamefly buys are going to be lost sales now. All the copies that Ganestop sells by giving a trade in bonus for preordering will take a hit and possibly not be sold. All the copies of games people purchase by selling there used games on eBay will be sitting on store shelves.
Or, as they think, more money will be entering the industry be closing a market that exists within the industry. Where do they think the billions of dollars that are generated by selling games are going to come from? Are current gamers going to all get more disposable income? Is there a group of people that are not currently gaming because there is a used game market and they will start gaming now? Where does the extra money going to come from for all of us to buy the same amount of games as we do now without having an outlet to sell these games to?

They need to think of other options. If the XBox is required to be online, work with Microsoft and create an OnDemand rental service, much like Pay Per View. Give early access to your game to people who buy digitally. Do something beneficial to the costumer instead of treating the customer as the villian.

Thus industry is so backwards that it will destroy itself. They pat Ganestop on the back with the left hand and try to burn it down with the right. They give the consumer a hug and then knee us in the groin. The industry itself doesn't know who to blame for all the fuck-ups it has made so is going to blame everyone and then cry when it collapses

 

[Garcia]

I think that the word piracy is
abused by some big studios / companies to legitimate stronger control on the
consumer.

You're not alone. I share that thought as well.

 

[Slavik81]

Wow. That's surprising. I thought he was a reasonable guy.

When you read all the stuff he's saying, it appears more reasonable. I still do think those tweets are a little besides the point, but in context it's not so bad.

David Jaffe's full argument RE: used games.

.@Bennie_Hair @SpongebobGAF Should devs make money off used games? Legally it's not necessary. But practically, I see zero issues- ASSUMING IT DOES NOT HURT THE GAMER'S EXPERIENCE (other than gamers having to just get used to a system they are not used to)- for devs/publishers to try to get a cut of the used game market. You can argue that no other industry does such a thing but I would argue that right now with the used market there are folks- namely Gamestop- making boatloads of cash off used games so why in the world- ASSUMING the game biz finds a solve that makes customers happy- would the game biz not put into place a plan that will allow us to be the ones making the cash. SOMEONE has to make the cash off used games- why the hell NOT the folks making the dang games?

And before you write back telling me how terrible you think Xbox One's solve is and this how bad my above view is, know two things:

#1- Neither you nor I have HEARD the specifics of how they plan to deal with used sales. Until we know that, no real point in arguing that specific case.

#2- Please see above where I make it clear that the solve- whomever benefits from it- MUST take customer's experience/happiness into account. As much as I feel used game cash should go- at least in part- to the game makers I DO NOT AGREE that the customer should feel ANY sort of hit because of the shift in where the revenue goes. If ANYTHING it should allow the customer experience to be better and/or allow the customer to make more cash off used sales/share in the revenue of the used sale. But whatever the solve, it MUST be customer friendly or- for me- the whole thing falls apart.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rkh3mr

I agree with it.

 

[GillianSeed79]

Yeah, I can't defend piracy. Used games, yes, piracy fuck no. Look at one of my favorite games this gen - Witcher 2. I bought a physical copy (weird I know), but there was no DRM, you essentially got a collector's edition version of a game (Making of DVD, game guide, soundtrack, map, papercraft, etc) at $40 to $50, all the DLC has been free, free back up copy on GOG and you got the enhanced edition free if you bought in on PC.

Yet it was still pirated to hell and back. (And after reading how Metro: Last Light was developed, I wouldn't be surprised if the guys behind Witcher 2 didn't also go through hell just to make a game they loved making.)

That's when I feel sympathy for developers and publishers. Trying to block used games? Fuck no. But if someone goes out of their way to do everything every conusmer could every dream of and pirates still pirate the game? Fuck pirates.

 

[undrtakr900]

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

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

Used game can both Help and Hurt developers, so I think it balances out.

Personal anecdote:
A while ago at gamestop, I found/bought Deus Ex: Invisible War(xBox) for only $4 dollars. I loved the game so much I went on to buy the og Deus Ex for PS2 and PC(Steam). Then bought DE:HR on the launch week for $60 new.

So because of that $4 dollar used game I bought on a whim, I became a lifelong fan and spend $70+ dollars on Invisible War's prequel/sequel. Money I would have never spend if I never bought DE:IW used.

 

[kevm3]

Piracy should rightfully be illegal, but trying to shame gamers and attempting to block them out of buying used games or selling their used games is stupid and points to greed on the part of publishers. I hope they taste some of their home cooking and don't ever attempt to sell their old cars when it's time to get a new one since they will be stealing money out of the manufacturer's pockets according to their own logic.

 

[Vice]

Movie studios have different revenue streams. The original theatrical release and home video. How could games also do that?

.

Digital rentals. Pay X dollars and you get the game for however many days as long as you are online.

 

[Jac_Solar]

They do have a competitor, lots of them. They even have a competitor right here on this website (Buy Sell Trade Thread). There is eBay, there is Craigslist, there is the guy at work that you can sell to. The industry wants to control every dollar that enters it. It wants to monopolize all sales of videogames.

Why don't they compete with Gamestop by allowing you to trade back to them. They could give you a credit to purchase directly from them and they could destroy the used game if they wanted, or they could resell it the same as Gamestop is doing. But instead they want to take the easy way out and have consumers take the hit.

All those copies of games that Gamefly buys are going to be lost sales now. All the copies that Ganestop sells by giving a trade in bonus for preordering will take a hit and possibly not be sold. All the copies of games people purchase by selling there used games on eBay will be sitting on store shelves.
Or, as they think, more money will be entering the industry be closing a market that exists within the industry. Where do they think the billions of dollars that are generated by selling games are going to come from? Are current gamers going to all get more disposable income? Is there a group of people that are not currently gaming because there is a used game market and they will start gaming now? Where does the extra money going to come from for all of us to buy the same amount of games as we do now without having an outlet to sell these games to?

They need to think of other options. If the XBox is required to be online, work with Microsoft and create an OnDemand rental service, much like Pay Per View. Give early access to your game to people who buy digitally. Do something beneficial to the costumer instead of treating the customer as the villian.

Thus industry is so backwards that it will destroy itself. They pat Ganestop on the back with the left hand and try to burn it down with the right. They give the consumer a hug and then knee us in the groin. The industry itself doesn't know who to blame for all the fuck-ups it has made so is going to blame everyone and then cry when it collapses

I meant another rental store chain like Gamestop -- I didn't think there were any other large, used game sales chains that also have physical stores.

And yeah, they treat the consumers as villains. That type of behavior will continue regardless, as it's been that way for over a decade -- they've based their entire business model on it, so it won't stop if they suddenly get to power the used/pirate market, it'll just become worse for the consumers. People who think otherwise are naive.

An online only console with no, or restricted used games will grant them an insane amount of power and access. They will start implementing a lot of ads in their games, a lot more DLC, passes to the extreme, and probably increase prices. They will have a direct connection to the consumer (And the game of course.) in the console environment. I really, really, really doubt they would lower the prices.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

To those that get worked up over the idea of what is essentially no used games do you make a habit of boycotting PC games?

 

[HarryHengst]

To those that get worked up over the idea of what is essentially no used games do you make a habit of boycotting PC games?

No, but i only buy games if they have a huge discount. If the console market would do the same as Steam does (i.e. daily/weekend deals and twice a year a huge sale), the lack of used games might not be so bad. But no way in hell that is happening.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

No, but i only buy games if they have a huge discount. If the console market would do the same as Steam does (i.e. daily/weekend deals and twice a year a huge sale), the lack of used games might not be so bad. But no way in hell that is happening.

PSN and XBLA already run great sales on their indie titles and relatively decent discounts on first day digital releases. I would imagine they would continue to follow the PC market footprint that has been left which has proved to be a very successful business model.

 

[JimmyRustler]

There is no reason because it does nowadays.

Remember the times when Sony released a Platinum game and that meant you could actually finally get a game cheaper? Yeah, those times are long gone.

 

[CorySchmitz]

Basically sounds like "a little piracy doesnt hurt" and some even saying it helps. hmm

I was talking about used games.