Used Games = Piracy?

[Mannix]

There has been an interesting discussion happening at Penny Arcade (at least on the front page; I'd never cheat on you with another forum, baby) about used games and developers' use of codes to effectively disable features in used games. A few interesting points have been made: that from a developer's perspective used games are essentially the same as piracy as they never see a dime from either one and that when you buy anything used you pay less because there is increased risk of failure or decreased function and why should it be different than games. The counter argument is basically that people don't have a lot of money and need a cheap way to get stuff especially considering the $60 price point for most console games, also that finding a way to lower the price point would help get more people to buy new games more than removing functionality will.

I have to say that I agree that buying used games is essentially the same as piracy as far as the industry goes, but people are paying money to somebody so it isn't "as bad" to the average Capitalist American mind.
I disagree with them purposefully removing content as the increased risk factor comes in the form of disc scratches and other physical points of failure. The devs removing functionality would be like if car makers remotely made it impossible for the car to go faster than 20 miles per hour after the original owner sold the car.
And last, the decreased price point is why I game on PC exclusively and almost always only buy through Steam; the developers are getting my cash but there are always all kinds of crazy sales at some point on just about everything. (I personally think PC gaming is coming into something of a renaissance but that's another thread entirely).

I'm keen to hear what you guys think about this.

[Jagos]

*facepalm*

I grow so weary of the strawman argument that used games/piracy are killing the industry. Used games - Basically we have used games and physical mediums to back up said games. Be it a CD for PSX games or a memory card, $10, and a PSN game, people buy games they support. We are protected by the first sale doctrine that allows us to do whatever we want with a game. And there's various studies that show time and time again, if you let the developers/publishers get all they want, they'll jack the market price to monopolistic levels and people will have less to enjoy.

Right now, we have the PC, the PSN, Xbox's Live Arcade along with Wii minigames that have exclusive content. While I don't agree with distributing only to a harddrive that I can't back up without voiding the warranty, it's a great place to say that some games do fairly well on those platforms. Quite frankly, if more developers are focusing on the "used games means you aren't my friend anymore" then it means less to put into development. That's more anathema than one lost sale ever will be.

[Toast]

Originally Posted by Mannix

I have to say that I agree that buying used games is essentially the same as piracy as far as the industry goes, but people are paying money to somebody so it isn't "as bad" to the average Capitalist American mind.

Why is that? The game was paid for the first time. Any and every subsequent sale is really not the business of the industry. The developers, publishers, and primary retailers got their cut off the first sale of that product. Why should they be paid again for every time it changes hands? It's really no different whether you're talking about a game, a car, a book, or any other secondhand item.

I disagree with them purposefully removing content as the increased risk factor comes in the form of disc scratches and other physical points of failure. The devs removing functionality would be like if car makers remotely made it impossible for the car to go faster than 20 miles per hour after the original owner sold the car.

Same here. If the gaming industry wants to reduce the secondary market, maybe they could stop treating their customer base like criminals and quit packaging invasive and potentially damaging drm without the customer's permission. That issue aside, there are a host of other possibilities from making better, more innovative, games to better pricing and alternate business models.

[EVILNess]

On the topic of:

Originally Posted by Mannix

The counter argument is basically that people don't have a lot of money and need a cheap way to get stuff especially considering the $60 price point for most console games, also that finding a way to lower the price point would help get more people to buy new games more than removing functionality will.

Pay special attention to the bolded section.

The fact of the matter is that $60 is more or less arbitrary. Even if there are games that warrant such a tag, there are many more games that just don't. It's a price floor, it's what they know they can get away with selling a product for.

6 years ago it was $50 dollars. What happens is there are guys sitting in front of a computer and watching a line that says "Hey you can get away with selling the games for X amount of Dollars" When the current gen came out they said that increased costs would drive up the cost of games. That may have been true a few years ago, but COSTS GO DOWN OVER TIME. Guess what? We are still paying $60. Why? Cause they can charge us for it, and now that shit is seeping into the PC market as well.

Blargh.

[Yumil]

The industry is going the right way for the most part on this. They either cut off the free online functionality to used copies or they cut off free content updates(such as the Cereberus network in ME2).

This stuff is what they use a portion of the money they get from market to draw in more people down the line. They shouldnt make the game unplayable when sold used, but it's not like they shouldn't want money for things they've developed or funded after the disc.

[Kim]

I think I get what the PA guys are getting at with this. We are morally obligated to pirate any game we wouldn't buy new. That's a philosophy I can get behind!

[bluestarultor]

I don't even know why anyone cares about PA's opinion on this anymore. It's pretty obvious they have a poor understanding at best of what's going on.

Simply put, second-hand sales are NOT piracy and nobody treats them as such. The entire point of not giving away free features on second-hand games is to try to wring more pennies from second-hand buyers. Optionally. You don't NEED that stuff. It's DLC. Just giving it away free to first-hand purchases is supposed to encourage those, but it doesn't actually hurt anyone else. All it does is make people pay for stuff people normally would otherwise pay for.

[POS Industries]

Just a heads up, this is a perfectly great topic for debate if y'all want to keep an appropriately level head about it.

Discussions about controversies surrounding other PA comics are completely unrelated, however. If you'd like to discuss anything about that, you can start a different thread. If you want to get pissy about how they're treating the discussion of one subject you're mad about with more respect than another subject you're mad about in a big ol' logically fallacious comparison that has nothing to do with anything, try not to.

Thank you. You may continue.

[Fifthfiend]

Jerry Holkins makes a very good argument, in the universe where people who buy one of a company's games used would never buy one of that company's games new in the future. In this universe, he's a dumbass.

And it's nice that he has friends in the video game industry and that he's willing to listen sympathetically to their views that they're entitled to all the money in the universe, but that doesn't actually mean that buying used goods is any less legitimate than it's been in the whole history of buying any kind of non-perishable product or that it's any less douchey to artificially rig games to break because too many people enjoyed them.

Originally Posted by POS Industries

logically fallacious

Nope.

EDIT: So this is what that tweet was about? Ugh.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Jerry Holkins makes a very good argument, in the universe where people who buy one of a company's games used would never buy one of that company's games new in the future. In this universe, he's [is] a dumbass.

Agreed.

artificially rig games to break because too many people enjoyed them.

But that's not what's happening. What is happening is that Devs are saying you can't have anything that's not actually on the disk without giving them money.

Online play isn't on the disk. It's on a server someplace else. Extra DLC content isn't on the disk. It's on a server someplace else.

Now if they started not shipping the whole game so that you couldn't use it at all without buying it new, or so that parts of the game that shouldn't require connecting to their servers don't work/aren't there, or altered their EULA to make it illegal to transfer ownership of your software license that'd be a different argument.

They aren't doing any of that, though. They're more or less just saying, 'if you want the extra things on our servers you have to pay us for them.'