buying used games = piracy

T

Thuleman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
5,833
Apparently some dude running Penny Arcade has come out and proposed this to be true.

His argument is that the effect of piracy and used game sales are alike, he doesn't say used game sellers/buyers are pirates, he merely points out that the economic impact is the same which is that the developer doesn't see any money from used game buyers. This can be especially unfortunate when a used copy is resold multiple times.

I buy used games for the PS3 because I feel that no game is worth $60 (or $69) to me. I also don't understand why "finance" doesn't get that you make more money selling 3 million copies at $25 each than 1 million copies at $60 (yes, the numbers are made up for dramatic effect).
 
I'm pretty strong anti-piracy but I'm not buying that particular argument for a second.
 
Thuleman said:
Apparently some dude running Penny Arcade has come out and proposed this to be true.

His argument is that the effect of piracy and used game sales are alike, he doesn't say used game sellers/buyers are pirates, he merely points out that the economic impact is the same which is that the developer doesn't see any money from used game buyers. This can be especially unfortunate when a used copy is resold multiple times.

I buy used games for the PS3 because I feel that no game is worth $60 (or $69) to me. I also don't understand why "finance" doesn't get that you make more money selling 3 million copies at $25 each than 1 million copies at $60 (yes, the numbers are made up for dramatic effect).
Click to expand...

So what happens if I buy say.. Mass Effect 2, which comes with the Cerberus Network DLC "for free." Then I buy the Overlord DLC and Kasumi DLC, finish the game, then let my sister have it. She then buys the Cerberus Network, Overlord, and Kasumi DLC, finishes the game, and gives it back. Then I sell the game to my friend, who buys the Cerberus Network, Overlord, and Kasumi DLC.

By the way, half of that is what happened with my copy of ME2. Doesn't sound like piracy if the company is still able to make money from that license. Now it sounds like EA made a hefty bit of cash on my single license of ME2.
 
I kind of agrew with PA on this one, *Shrug* Doesn't matter, second hand market including rentals and used sales will be gone completely in within a few years when DD becomes the only way to get games.

For what its worth, enjoy buying used games and using rental services while you can. /nojoke
 
While it isn't technically piracy. The end result is the same most often. That is they don't see any money from a used game sale. Can't blame them really, as far as publishers are concerned you aren't their customer if you didn't buy the game new and they are right, they haven't received no money from you if you didn't purchase the game new.
 
Exactly, what's the difference between buying used games and pirating a game as far as publishers are concerned? Nothing. I am wish pa on this one.
 
SPARTAN VI said:
So what happens if I buy say.. Mass Effect 2, which comes with the Cerberus Network DLC "for free." Then I buy the Overlord DLC and Kasumi DLC, finish the game, then let my sister have it. She then buys the Cerberus Network, Overlord, and Kasumi DLC, finishes the game, and gives it back. Then I sell the game to my friend, who buys the Cerberus Network, Overlord, and Kasumi DLC.

By the way, half of that is what happened with my copy of ME2. Doesn't sound like piracy if the company is still able to make money from that license. Now it sounds like EA made a hefty bit of cash on my single license of ME2.
Click to expand...
I think that will have to be the future of making money on games anyway, releasing inexpensive content that requires that you have the original, in turn also making the original less expensive and more appealing to consumers. As much as I dislike the Free-To-Play + Micropayments scheme, I do believe it is the most profitable way for a lot of companies to move forward with either free or very inexpensive games where you pay as you go when new content comes out.
 
I bought around 30 used x360 games for an average of $5/ea about a year ago when hollywood video was liquidating. I haven't played online nor have I asked a single developer for a cent's worth of support. I'm such a thief.
 
What about the people who buy a ton of new games for $60 each and turn around and sell them in order to buy more new games. I know a few people who do this and would not buy nearly as many games if they could not sell their old ones.

If companies want to make it so you can not buy used games they could compromise. Instead of releasing games for $60 and having a lot of people buy used copies, in the future sell a new game for $30 if they can not be sold used. People who buy used games would be bale to afford a new game at $30.
 
Long discussion on this in another thread. But it boils down to the question "What makes software so damned special?" for me at least.

Music, movies.....both have used markets. They both also compete with themselves by releasing new music and they would prefer you buy the new stuff over the older.

I personally don't buy used games, but I also don't always buy games when they are first released either (anymore at least). I haven't pre-ordered a game in 3-4 years. And I've done this because games have become too inconsistent, I don't know what kind of twisted thing they will decide to include in the installation or what they've hyped or hidden until some non-jaded reviews make it out to the public. You can't even trust the majority of the review sites anymore because they are bought and paid for by the software guys, and this doesn't just apply to games alone...it's a lot of software.

DLC, Expansions, DRM, constant net connections needed on single player games, etc are all things software devs have added done themselves. Also not releasing demos, having very skewed screenshots and video releases (heavy on the cinematics and light on the actual gameplay), withholding early reviews that might be potentially negative. All sorts of fun things that they've done to increase their bottom line but costs them customers and goodwill.

And during a major economic recession they are wanting to force people to buy things new, and I can't help but think it's a way for them to maintain higher prices on games for longer periods since the only competition for some games will be a newer version of the same game. Think major IP titles like "The Sims", "Warhammer", "Call of Duty", "Battlefield", etc. While they might have competition from other series, their main competition is future and past releases of the series.

And I still question all of their piracy figures, because if you have someone calling used game sales piracy here...what else do they potentially consider piracy? Is downloading a crack for your game to turn off the DRM so you can play it counted? Are their piracy figures global results but presented as specific countries results? They throw a lot of insanely huge numbers out on what they think they've lost, but then offer no way to actually evaluate their methods.

I do not agree with people making money off of their work in a method of selling illegal copies as legitimate copies and I think they should be dealt with. But used games sales don't fall into that category because they are legitimate copies of the game sold second hand. And as for non-profit piracy, it's going to happen. Maybe it shouldn't be happening, but there's a lot of stuff that happens in the world that shouldn't be happening, people getting kicked out of their homes, people starving, people not getting medical treatment they need. But when you have people who are legitimately buying your games new, like you want everyone to.......why are you continuing to punish them? Why are the games being supplemented by DLC for these legitimate customers? Why is the DRM so bad some paying customers can't play until 3 patches later? Why does support for these games stop less than a year after release unless you buy the next expansion or whatever? It seems that the games that don't send people into a rage over spending 50 dollars to get a half finished non-working game usually turn out OK....so why do they keep screwing up when they've seen what earns them money?


And then on top of all of that, they hint around that people who have issues are pirates and their avid supporters like to play the "Pirate says what?" card whenever the point comes up. Customers can choose not to buy your product if you continue to insult them, and because they didn't buy your product doesn't mean they went out to download it. It's an easy explanation for them to jump on that wagon, but there's a level at which people say "I give up" and find something else to replace gaming.......and probably end up happier for it. Lots of other companies would love for you to pick up a hobby that makes them some extra profits, and they won't even imply you're a criminal for doing so!


And on used sales for non-movies/music/software. Car dealerships that used to be exclusively new sales only are getting into the used car sales and adding value to the sale by providing warranty and inspections...maybe even free oil changes and what not and making a profit on that. What are the software devs doing to add value to the used game sale besides hoping people will buy the often times useless DLC? Loyalty system perhaps, encourage people to keep new purchased games by giving them discounts on future releases that apply anywhere instead of on just their overpriced publisher ran sites. I just don't understand why they allow Gamestop to sell their new games releases, it'd make it a big PITA if you had to go to Gamestop to sell old games then go to another store to buy the new game you wanted. And why are digital prices still the same as retail prices and often times higher? Shouldn't digital be cheaper since it's a guaranteed non-resellable product that has no physical packaging/shipping costs?
 
Shakezilla said:
What about the people who buy a ton of new games for $60 each and turn around and sell them in order to buy more new games. I know a few people who do this and would not buy nearly as many games if they could not sell their old ones.

If companies want to make it so you can not buy used games they could compromise. Instead of releasing games for $60 and having a lot of people buy used copies, in the future sell a new game for $30 if they can not be sold used. People who buy used games would be bale to afford a new game at $30.
Click to expand...

You need to understand from there perspective. Software companies for the longest time have maintained the stance that they sell "usage license" and not a transferable physical good. That means from there view when you buy a game you are buying a license for you to use it, that is all. You aren't allowed to sell, give it away, exhibit it, loan it, and etc. unless it is part of the agreement you agreed to upon licensing that particular software.

Also from a pricing perspective, these are for profit companies. The prices are set to generate maximum profit. If they sell games for $30 vs $60, they would only do it if they could generate more then 2x the sales (since the profit margin for each sale would be lower).

Gaming is a big business these days. People really need to understand that game companies don't feel they owe you anything, and likewise you shouldn't feel that you owe them anything. They want to sell you as much as they can at as little cost as they can. You should want to get as much content out of them at as little cost as you can. In some areas the interests of both parties overlap, and both sides benefit, in others they are at odds.

There priority is not to care about your woes in dealing with "fair use," accessibility, costs, and etc. Likewise your priority shouldn't be to care about there woes from reselling, piracy, commercial failing, and etc.
 
There's been a used books market since at least 400 BCE[0] when I'm sure copies of Plato's "Republic" changed hands both once and thrice, and books and book publishers are still with us today. Apparently you CAN exist as a business in a market where used copies of your goods are sold. Game publishers just don't WANT to, because they're so fucking special. My wish of game publishers? I wish they'd just shut the fuck up about the used games market and make sure their games are something you'd WANT TO OWN^H^H^Hlicense (ha).

Also, the irony of the games business always coming back to how gamers are the self-entitled whiny bitches. I've never SEEN as much whining and bitching as when it comes to game publishers and used games.

[0] Or the 1500s if you want to be less spectacular, but that's a mere 500+ years, clearly the game industry knows better.
 
Last edited:
limitedaccess said:
You need to understand from there perspective. Software companies for the longest time have maintained the stance that they sell "usage license" and not a transferable physical good. That means from there view when you buy a game you are buying a license for you to use it, that is all. You aren't allowed to sell, give it away, exhibit it, loan it, and etc. unless it is part of the agreement you agreed to upon licensing that particular software.
Click to expand...

Of course they want people to believe that - just like GM would like people to believe the are licensing thier cars, and Samsung would like people to believe they are licensing their TVs and monitors. The only difference is that the software industry has managed to convince people that, in their case, it is true, and have been able to do something about it with DRM. Just because they want it to be that way doesn't mean that's the way it ought to be. Why should they be the only industry that gets to control thier product in perpetuity?
 
zyzeast said:
Exactly, what's the difference between buying used games and pirating a game as far as publishers are concerned? Nothing. I am wish pa on this one.
Click to expand...

What's the difference between buying a used car and stealing a car as far as the car companies are concerned? Nothing.

What's the difference between buying a used book and shoplifting a book from a bookstore as far as the authors are concerned? Nothing.

What's the difference between buying a used CD and shoplifting a CD from a music store as far as the musicians are concerned? Nothing.

What's the difference between a car company, a book author, a musician and a game company? Only the game company has figured out a way to keep you from buying a used version of their product.
 
zyzeast said:
Exactly, what's the difference between buying used games and pirating a game as far as publishers are concerned? Nothing. I am wish pa on this one.
Click to expand...

Except that the used sales market funds the purchase of new games. What happens when people can no longer trade in old games to fund new ones?! Do the maths.

And I don't see why the game industry thinks they should be treated any differently to every other industry on earth that has a secondary sales market for used goods. I bet each and every one of them would ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT if they could force the customers to always buy new!
 
So when I buy a used car, I am pirating it from the car's manufacter? cool, I learn something new everyday
 
Based on THQ's stance and wanting to charge for online access with used copies...

Person A and Person B buy a game with online play from Company X.
Person A plays the game online for one year.
Person B plays the game online for six months, then sells the game to person C.
Person C continues to play that copy of the game online for six months.
Company X now wants to charge Person C an additional fee to play the game online, effectively making extra money for zero effort for something they currently are keeping available for Person A anyway.

Yeah, real fair guys.
 
Hey maybe we should make a community pool of games. So instead of buying a game for myself I buy it for the Society of Game Players or something. So it becomes commune property or suchlike.

Now when as the caretaker of this game I feel as if I should pass on this game to the next party, I hit the society pages, and find the next person willing to maintain and take care of this title. They pay a transfer fee to me covering transport to them based on the worth of the product (newer games and rare games need better handling). Thus I transfer the product to the next owner after receiving the fee. Though ownership remains with the library.
 
Good news though, you don't have to pay them if you don't want to be subjected to their schemes, in fact, by voting with your wallet, you are making them minus a sale anyway, regardless of if you buy it used or not. As long as you don't buy it new or pay them in any way, shape or form, then you've denied them a sale.
 
This argument is stupid and inane.

The person who originally bought the game new might, just possibly, take the money he received from selling the used game and buy ANOTHER new game.

I'm sick of this crap about reselling used games.
 
Don't buy that argument.

When I buy a game it's my business/property to do with what I wish. If I want to resell property of mine it's no concern/business of the original seller or developer.
 
"I don't think we really care whether used game buyers are upset because new game buyers get everything. So if used game buyers are upset they don't get the online feature set I don't really have much sympathy for them."
Click to expand...

Had to quote from the CVG link. But

BOOO YA!!!!!! About time devs said flatly to used game buyers "NO" Many don't give 2 craps about you game devs why do you want to concern yourselves with them!

THQ, EA, Others! Keep fighting the good fight against reselling!
 
DeathPrincess said:
Hey maybe we should make a community pool of games. So instead of buying a game for myself I buy it for the Society of Game Players or something. So it becomes commune property or suchlike.

Now when as the caretaker of this game I feel as if I should pass on this game to the next party, I hit the society pages, and find the next person willing to maintain and take care of this title. They pay a transfer fee to me covering transport to them based on the worth of the product (newer games and rare games need better handling). Thus I transfer the product to the next owner after receiving the fee. Though ownership remains with the library.
Click to expand...

This doesn't sound honest at all unless ownership is transferred. Including the genuine game disc and no making duplicate copies of game serial numbers etc.
 
Zachstar said:
Had to quote from the CVG link. But

BOOO YA!!!!!! About time devs said flatly to used game buyers "NO" Many don't give 2 craps about you game devs why do you want to concern yourselves with them!

THQ, EA, Others! Keep fighting the good fight against reselling!
Click to expand...

Yeaaaahhhhhhh! Fight on brothers!

Next up, we're going to stop some other theft. Things like selling used cars - seriously, that's just FLAT OUT STEALING from the car companies. Why do you think Chrysler went under? If every person who bought a used Chrysler instead bought the current new model, Chrysler would still be around.

USED CAR SALES ARE THEFT.

Don't even get me started on people stealing ENTIRE FREAKING HOUSES. House theft. Who'd have thought?
 
Thuleman said:
Apparently some dude running Penny Arcade has come out and proposed this to be true.

His argument is that the effect of piracy and used game sales are alike, he doesn't say used game sellers/buyers are pirates, he merely points out that the economic impact is the same which is that the developer doesn't see any money from used game buyers. This can be especially unfortunate when a used copy is resold multiple times.
Click to expand...


Stupid people have opinions also...
 
Fail said:
Good news though, you don't have to pay them if you don't want to be subjected to their schemes, in fact, by voting with your wallet, you are making them minus a sale anyway, regardless of if you buy it used or not. As long as you don't buy it new or pay them in any way, shape or form, then you've denied them a sale.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but then they just blame piracy for the lost sales.
 
ZodaEX said:
This doesn't sound honest at all unless ownership is transferred. Including the genuine game disc and no making duplicate copies of game serial numbers etc.
Click to expand...

Well if you transferred ownership then it would be selling.
It would involve trust, but the legal ownership would stay with the group, just the "caretaker" would change. Everyone "owns" all the games. Instead of selling there is a "transfer fee" for handling etc. You could have some intermediatary websites or something that would inspect the completeness of the product and funds and then send them on. Basically its the used game system with the money transferring without actually selling anything.
It's not a real system, but its less stupid that the nobody owns anything system they are trying to force on everyone.
 
Dont software dev's make money from the dlc attatched to the game regardless of wether it's second hand or not? :confused:

If dev's arnt making much money from new game sales alone then perhaps they should be negotiating for a larger slice of the pie from their publisher rather then blaming people who buy used games?

Or just choose a better publisher?

Keep im mind that games are more expensive then they used to be so gamers are going to look for ways of getting better value for money. Buying used games is one answer, but it also means that gamers arnt going to be willing to splash out $60 on a game that *might* give them their money's worth.

You used to get quite a bit of kit when you bought a game brand new but these days they just slap a game in a tin add 3 pages of backstory and call it 'limited edition' - and then charge you almost double the price for it!

So perhaps most gamers feel a little bit ripped off, hence the large used game sales?
 
Fire2YK said:
Dont software dev's make money from the dlc attatched to the game regardless of wether it's second hand or not? :confused: ]


Only if the customer beleaves in buying digitally downloaded content, which I do not. Gotten burned multiple times and even before that I knew it was a bad idea.
Click to expand...
 
OP - you missed Tycho's point. Text is below.

In a literal way, when you purchase a game used, you are not a customer of theirs. If I am purchasing games in order to reward their creators, and to ensure that more of these ingenious contraptions are produced, I honestly can't figure out how buying a used game was any better than piracy. From the perspective of a developer, they are almost certainly synonymous.
Click to expand...
First you have to have some context. This is in response to THQ saying that they don't care about people who buy their game used. The company basically took the stance that it didn't give a shit about having features only for people that bought the game new, because it doesn't make a dime off of used sales (only gamestop does).

Tycho is not saying that buying used games is the same as piracy. He is saying that the for the company, there is no economic difference between the two. In both scenarios the developer doesn't get money, while a person is able to play their game. Obviously piracy and used game buying are not the same thing because one is legal and the other isn't. But as far as the economic result for the developer, neither result in it making any money.

That's Tycho's point. He is saying that there is no reason for a developer to give two shits about the people who buy the game used because those people didn't pay for the game in a transaction that gave the developer any money. It all went to gamestop.

It might not seem right to us that you don't get the same features or game modes as someone who bought it new, but this is the market correcting a known issue with the first sale doctrine and software. In normal goods (say for example, a car) the product degrades some as it's being used. In software, the used copy (has in the past) functioned exactly like the new. The only disadvantage to the used was you had to wait to get it. Now, used games are going to be more like other goods in that you will have a product that isn't the same as the new. As to whether this is a good idea or not, that's an opinion we all can make. As to whether you are surprised that video game manufacturers don't care if it upsets used game buyers, that's a matter of common sense.
 
I own a game studio which will publish its first games this year. We do not see our games as products we're selling, we see ourselves as selling a service. We develop games, you pay for us doing so. This way we don't have to care about DRM (expensive and futile) or second-hand sales (even if we were planning non-digital sales).

To treat video games as a physical product is just wrong. We don't care how many people have shared copies with others, as long as they'll mostly be playing our games, and paying us to develop more of them :)
 
Agree with him 100% but that's not going to stop me from buying used at all.

DLC and Online passes though, company's have found a way to make some money back regardless. I'm not a fan of most DLC, esp when it's content that should have been part of the game in the first place. But just like the online passes, it's all optional.
 
ryken said:
OP - you missed Tycho's point. Text is below.

First you have to have some context. This is in response to THQ saying that they don't care about people who buy their game used. The company basically took the stance that it didn't give a shit about having features only for people that bought the game new, because it doesn't make a dime off of used sales (only gamestop does).

Tycho is not saying that buying used games is the same as piracy. He is saying that the for the company, there is no economic difference between the two. In both scenarios the developer doesn't get money, while a person is able to play their game. Obviously piracy and used game buying are not the same thing because one is legal and the other isn't. But as far as the economic result for the developer, neither result in it making any money.

That's Tycho's point. He is saying that there is no reason for a developer to give two shits about the people who buy the game used because those people didn't pay for the game in a transaction that gave the developer any money. It all went to gamestop.

It might not seem right to us that you don't get the same features or game modes as someone who bought it new, but this is the market correcting a known issue with the first sale doctrine and software. In normal goods (say for example, a car) the product degrades some as it's being used. In software, the used copy (has in the past) functioned exactly like the new. The only disadvantage to the used was you had to wait to get it. Now, used games are going to be more like other goods in that you will have a product that isn't the same as the new. As to whether this is a good idea or not, that's an opinion we all can make. As to whether you are surprised that video game manufacturers don't care if it upsets used game buyers, that's a matter of common sense.
Click to expand...


There's plenty of reason for them to give a shit. If people buy the game secondhand goes out and tanks the reviews on sites because their product is purposefully rigged to not work......well that's going to have impact on new sales.

If any other company decided to add in some feature where you had something unique to only you that made the product work....say your social security number or some sort of biometrics that made it impossible for other people to use, borrow, or buy from you. That devalues your product in people's minds. If you bought a lawnmower that would only remain running if you (the first owner) were the one using and couldn't be resold due to that "screw you bomb" in it........it'd get a few people before people got word of it and made sure they took that into account when they purchased lawnmowers in the future. Whether you left the feature in or not, it taints your product and it taints your company reputation.

It just seems to me that they are investing a lot of time, effort and presumably money into trying to thwart something that probably in the end has more positive benefit to them than they can determine. Wouldn't you like to be able to trade a game with a friend every now and then? Plus making it so previously new copies who presumably had someone using the MP components of a game, now would have 1 less MP player when it was sold used. And that effects the longevity of the game for those original purchasers when the population diminishes to there point where you play the same dozen people every night assuming they login.

Sounds like they really just want to go subscription based for everything, whether it deserves it or not.

Plus, what the hell do they think gamers do when they sell their game off? Do they magically stop gaming? Only buy used? What do the new buyers do when they sell the used game? Do they just stick to used games? I mean......gamers just don't stop gaming when they sell the game. Which means they are probably moving onto a new title these schlubs might have just released. Perhaps if they had kept the game instead of selling it they wouldn't have bought this new title to hold them over until "game they really want" comes out. Seems like they might get a cut of the used sales somehow and kill off some of their new sales in the process.
 
Last edited:
I see the point that they're trying to make, but I have to ask how is this any different from something like buying a used car?

Do any of us think it's morally wrong to buy a used car from someone else? How about if someone gives you their used car as a gift so you don't have to buy a used one? How about a friend gives you a lift everywhere you need to go and relieves you of the need for a car?

All these things decrease possible sales for the car dealers, but do we consider giving a gift to friends or lending our friends our possessions immoral?

What I morally object to is someone making a buck off it, gamestop are making a lot of money off this and that's not right, I think commercial resale of games is wrong and either should be made illegal or a certain cut of the transaction should legally be owed to the creator of the game, if something like 50% of the profits made from a game went back to the developers that would be a big win for game developers.

I do however have issues with this whole lost revenue talk, the same way I have an issue with lost revenue from piracy, I think we have to be extremely careful how we treat this idea, while it's true in some cases if you removed the second hand component of games that sales might increase it's definitely not true in all cases, and I would hazard a guess that as a percentage the amount of people buying an original because they lack access to a used copy, is probably very small.

My argument would the same as for piracy, that people pirate and buy used games primarily because buying new games is quite expensive and people simply cannot afford to buy all of the games that they like, people aren't endless pits of money, we all have our budgets that we stick to otherwise we'd be penniless hobos on the street.

This cost to developers to have their games re-sold has to be put in perspective and we have to treat them no differently from other businesses who make products who also lose sales due to people buying their products second hand. This is common within the gaming community everyone seems to be trapped in this sort of virtual bubble and inside is happy land where we all seem to think that nothing bad should ever happen to game studios, lets drop the outrage and consider development studios to be just another part of the business world, they deserve no special treatment.
 
I also have to ask, what do developers think that gamers do with the cash they make from selling their used games?

I'm willing to bet that most of that goes straight back into the gaming market, your average Joe is going to take his games to game stop, unload them all for a bunch of cash and then use that to buy more games with.
 
Pretty soon buying bargain-bin games will equal piracy, not paying US$60 for a game will equal piracy, and then not pre-ordering every game will equal piracy.
 
They're not the same but they are logically equivalent in that the outcome of the two are equal.
 
I just bought AVP, Borderlands, & Prototype, brand new from a Target for 10 bucks each. Now, how much of that does the Developer get? Does that make me a legitimate customer, even though I didn't pay full price? I am sure Target made something off the sale, so how much does the game company get?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top