Used Games = Piracy?

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Odjn

The game company owns the content they produce. I own the disc on which they put the content onto. I can do anything I want with that disc because the disc belongs to me. The car industry has the same problem. They get over it. So should you, game industry.

Yes, but the DLC isn't on the disc.


Edit: I guess I shouldn't be so flippant about it, but as I said, I doubt they'd actually prevent you from transferring the DLC if there's an actual means of doing it, and by the same logic, the DLC is on their servers, and again, not necessary. They're not preventing you from playing the game. They're just making you actually pay for the extras as per normal. Nobody is being stopped from getting the extras. It's just a matter of companies choosing to waive the fee if you have codes that come with the game. The fee is the normal aspect. Waiving it is the special one.

[phil_]

blues, you know that the thing they wrote this comic about is a code that locks people out of online play, right? Like, if you don't buy the game new, you can never play online? 'Cause it seems like you don't know that.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by phil_

blues, you know that the thing they wrote this comic about is a code that locks people out of online play, right? Like, if you don't buy the game new, you can never play online? 'Cause it seems like you don't know that.

I'll admit that, no, I didn't read the article, as there was no link and I don't read PA. Can you pay to unlock it? And if not, why is anyone paying for the game? Sounds like something good to boycott.

In short, info-hunting time on my part. I was under the impression people were bitching about free DLC, and I guess I got it wrong. Be back in a bit.


EDIT:

LINK TIME!

http://www.geekosystem.com/thq-punis...d-game-buyers/

Okay, so here's the deal. It's a WWE wrestling title, which doesn't really need the online.* (In fact, did any of them even have online stuff before? Honest question.) Also, by paying $10, you not only can unlock the online bits, but also get a full DLC pack. The original announcement was made by a guy with less than a silver tongue, but the creative director isn't paid to be smooth.

It's not the best setup, but it's not quite as bad as I was personally thinking based on the info I was given.


In short, it's not "never" and the online comes with a bunch of shiny new stuff when you buy it, so it's not great, but it could be worse.

[phil_]

Not to sound bitchy, but, yeah, you really should read the articles you're arguing about. If you read a bit deeper, you can see that second-hand buyers can play online once for $10, but that's pretty awful.

However, this is for a wrestling game, so it's hardly Halo.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by phil_

Not to sound bitchy, but, yeah, you really should read the articles you're arguing about. If you read a bit deeper, you can see that second-hand buyers can play online once for $10, but that's pretty awful.

However, this is for a wrestling game, so it's hardly Halo.

This is why people are generally encouraged to post links and snippets of what they're actually talking about.

I DID read the first post, but it didn't mention any specifics and I was operating under the assumption that people were all talking about what it sounded like, which they weren't.

Also, I did some quick research and made an edit, in case you missed it.

Just to reiterate, the $10 also nets them the full first DLC pack, so it's not to just play online. Playing online comes with new shiny objects.



Edit: Actually, upon reflection, this doesn't change things at all. The guys who buy the game get a free online play code like other people would get free guns in a shooter. Buying the ability to play online actually nets you more than you otherwise would have started with. The real question becomes how much of the $10 the original owners would have to pay to get the same DLC pack. If it's $10, you get a discount on the items, or very charitably get the online portion free anyway.

Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a price on the DLC items alone that I can find.

I'll admit it's still kind of shaky, but it seems they realized that and are doing their best to make up for it without backpedaling and losing face.

[Yumil]

Like I said earlier, if it uses their servers, aka they are paying for it, it's perfectly fine for them to charge a one time cost for it. But, it's been a free part of the franchise for at least 2 titles(my roommate has 09 and 10...let's not get into that), so I can understand the outrage.

Basically, they use some of their money made from the game sells to further the game in both content and bandwidth. A player who gets bored with the game will stop using bandwidth. A player who buys said game from the bored player will start using bandwidth, but the entity paying for the bandwidth does not get a cut of this used sell. It's fair to charge for anything that is outside the game disc.

[Jagos]

Originally Posted by Tev

Maybe I just don't play enough new games but I have a question about this whole thing.

Say I have a game installed on my computer and it has been registered and such. The I get a new computer and/or in the case of say Blizzard, for the sake of an example, lose my Battle.net password and have to make a new account. Would the game treat me like a new and secondary owner and refuse me download-able content? And if not......why?

This came up recently on another forum that I visit:

Guy lost his code for Starcraft 1. Calls Blizzard to get it re-registered since he has since lost the comp that he played it on.

Blizzard wanted him to send the CD and all materials PLUS $10 to get a code when he had already bought it full price the first time around.

So yes, game companies bone you when they can.

Basically, they use some of their money made from the game sells to further the game in both content and bandwidth. A player who gets bored with the game will stop using bandwidth. A player who buys said game from the bored player will start using bandwidth, but the entity paying for the bandwidth does not get a cut of this used sell. It's fair to charge for anything that is outside the game disc.

Somehow, I have a thought that bandwidth is getting cheaper every year and more and more companies are just finding ways to pad their bottom lines rather than actually, ya know... Do work.

[bluestarultor]

I was under the impression bandwidth costs were rising.

Or is that server costs?

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by EVILNess

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.

Please look up the cost of producing video games today versus last generation... and the generation before... and the generation before, etc.

ALSO: the worth of money changes, particularly during times of economic crisis.

ALSO AGAIN: Costs don't go down on NEW things. The consoles aren't new, and the costs have gone down. Games that came out when they consoles were new have had their prices go down. New games, however, are still new. They are going to cost the full price point.

I'm really not sure what part of the economic model, exactly, you don't understand, but I know you don't because 'PRICES GO DOWN OVER TIME' doesn't apply at all to newly produced video games.

Any more than it's a reason that theaters should cost less, or new blu-ray movies should take a dive in costs.

You aren't paying for the cost of manufacturing the CD--which does go down--you're paying for the three million dollars worth of man hours that go into producing new games, which, short of us hitting the technological singularity all of a sudden, isn't going to be reduced by new technology any time soon.

Originally Posted by NonCon

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!

Well I don't know if the devs or PA guys are saying that, but I'm going to. Because everything I've heard about EB or Gamestop or basically any other used game store that's not some ma and pa place in the middle of nowhere is that they are fucking evil monster corporations that fuck everyone they can as hard as they can.

And really, if you wouldn't buy it new, you aren't supporting the devs ANYWAY, so yeah. Go ahead and pirate.

Originally Posted by Specterbane

Well I'm no developer, but I don't see how content should be denied to second hand purchasing, especially if it's free to begin with. People might compare this to things like buying used cars or books, but that analogy fails because when you're talking about digital information it doesn't have the same kind of "shelf-life" as a physical car. What possible reason should the industry deserve a cut of the change of hands for a game when they've already had their cut.

If you want to compare it to a new car, let's actually make the argument a thing that's feasible.

You buy a new car and they give you a bottle of oil, which'll probably last the car around a year before needing to be changed.

You sell the car a year later, there's no reason a car company should send the new owner a bottle of oil for free. The car company hasn't gotten anything from the new owner.

The same goes for online play and DLCs.

The game company produces DLCs after producing the game. They are things that the company is doing for THEIR customers. In so much as used game buyers are SOMEONE'S customers, they are not the customers of the game company itself. As such, a game company has no prerogative to send the new owners nice things that they have made since.

Online play is the same way. When you log onto an online game of Halo you are sitting on Microsoft's servers, using Microsoft's bandwith, and Microsoft's hardware. If you didn't buy the game from Microsoft, and Microsoft doesn't charge you for online access (which they do through Live gold, but that's just MS, not THQ, whom are actually putting in the online code), then Microsoft isn't getting paid for the usage of their hardware and bandwidth.

Charging used game owners a one time fee to access their hardware and bandwidth allows them to be paid for it.

When you buy a used game and go online you're costing a developer money without actually giving them anything.

Originally Posted by Specterbane

here is no change in the gamer base for game X (in so far as the numbers are concerned)

And?

The gamer base doesn't matter to most game devs. They don't give a shit if there are three people or three million people playing the game. They only care about how many people bought the game first hand in the first place. They aren't getting monthly fees, just the one time fee.

Just like the people who sell fans don't give a shit if there are thirty million people using their fans at right this moment, so long as thirty million people bought them in the first place.

The only time the gamer base for game x matters is when game x = MMORPG.

Originally Posted by Odjn

The game company owns the content they produce. I own the disc on which they put the content onto. I can do anything I want with that disc because the disc belongs to me. The car industry has the same problem. They get over it. So should you, game industry.

DLC and online play aren't on the disc. This argument has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion of what developers are actually doing.

Originally Posted by RobinStarwing

That discriminates against all people with a pegleg!

Well of course it does. The industry hates pirates.

[Amake]

Remember when Nintendo had "authorized second hand dealers"? I wonder what happened to that. And why the stores still pay the same pittance for used games, if not even less, as when they had to cut the producers in on the profits. I mean, I assumed they still did that until I read the comic.