Used Games = Piracy?

[Jagos]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

I was under the impression bandwidth costs were rising.

Or is that server costs?

Bandwidth continues to fall

The networks are already established. While they do have to be maintained, that's more a fixed cost. Additional linkage. Makes sense that bandwidth costs less as more people are put onto broadband networks.

Server costs have their own challenges however. With servers, you need not only maintenance, but you also need air conditioning (dissipate heat) and more efficient parts that can stand all of the work needed. Then there's updating and upgrading those dern things...

Regardless, broadband being what it is, it's highly negligible that either of these two price points aren't already calculated in the money received from a game.

[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.'

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Nope.

Yep.

Originally Posted by Krylo

Agreed.

Yeah, I mean, I don't know how one can actually manage to find a way to state an opinion on something so utterly boring and unimportant as this and cause a huge fucking uproar over it like we have here, but man did he ever.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Krylo

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.'

Doesn't really change what I said though. Regardless of whether all the game is on the disc, or half is on the disc and half is on the server, or whatever, they're still breaking that game at the point of exchange, it's still douchey, and justifying it on the basis that "we get cheated" by used markets is extra-specially douchey in that way people become once they've decided they're entitled to all the money in the world.

EDIT: And really the server distinction doesn't mean a lot cause it's not like the music industry didn't lose it over used CD sales in the 90s. And games publishers aren't supporting any more than the same copy of that game than they would be if the original buyer had happened to keep it. All servers change is that they create a reliable way of nuking paid-for product by remote, fulfilling the promise of every executive who ever dreamed of DVDs that would just stop working whenever the publisher decided it wanted you to buy another one.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Doesn't really change what I said though. Regardless of whether all the game is on the disc, or half is on the disc and half is on the server, or whatever, they're still breaking that game at the point of exchange, it's still douchey

Would it be more or less douchey to just require everyone, initial customer or not, to pay a fee to access their online servers that cost them real dollars?

Also, would it be more or less douchey to give only original customers like, really shitty t-shirts that no one wants and an artbook no one cares about, instead of mostly useless DLC content?

Making your 'extra free goodies bag' digital content that can be purchased by those who don't get it is no better or worse than making it a bunch of real life stuff that can be purchased from their online store/catalog/whatever if you really want it.

and justifying it on the basis that "we get cheated" by used markets is extra-specially douchey in that way people become once they've decided they're entitled to all the money in the world.

The THQ guy should never be allowed to talk to the press, this is true, however:

You do realize that used games is actually an entire business that is built entirely upon fucking its customers right? Like, ok, even if I were to agree that it's douchey to not enable free online/give free DLC to rebuys, that still means that THQ is like, "Hey guys, we're going to screw you a little bit but also provide you with (apparently) quality entertainment while we do it," while Gamestop is pretty much just all, "Hey guys we're going to fuck you. Hard. And then we're going to fuck you a little more."

You have one market that is trying to get as much money as possible out of what they produce here, while another market is paying you five bucks for a game they had nothing to do with which they turn around and sell for fifteen dollars, except they aren't really giving you five dollars. They're giving you five dollars of in store credit. So really they aren't giving you anything at all, because they know they've basically trapped you into coming back and spending more of your money with them. The only thing they've give anything to is themselves, all while stealing ten of your dollars you could have gotten if you had just sold it directly to the consumer. A 2-300% mark up is ridiculous.

And while they're fucking you they don't even have the good conscience to treat their employers like anything but shit.

Like I said in my first post, it's more ethical for you to just pirate a game than buy it used. As an added bonus, the pirated version will probably already have the DLC/Online Play/whatever else cracked.

EDIT: And really the server distinction doesn't mean a lot cause it's not like the music industry didn't lose it over used CD sales in the 90s. And games publishers aren't supporting any more than the same copy of that game than they would be if the original buyer had happened to keep it. All servers change is that they create a reliable way of nuking paid-for product by remote, fulfilling the promise of every executive who ever dreamed of DVDs that would just stop working whenever the publisher decided it wanted you to buy another one.

So your argument is basically that all DLC should have already been included on the disk, basically?

I mean I'll agree there are some companies that definitely release shit on DLC that should have been there in the first place (*coughactivisioncough*), but I don't think it's a valid criticism of DLC as a whole.

Edit: or are you arguing against like Ubisofts bullshit DRM thing where you had to have your single player game connect to the internet every so often? Because that is complete and utter bullshit, but not really connected, even vaguely, to what we're discussing here.

[Specterbane]

Well the general point I've been trying to drive at is that any content has been paid for or given away already by the person who was using it. It should be theirs to do with as they please. If they want to sell it with the game I think they should be able to.

If you want to relate DLC in games to cars then you don't relate it to a can of oil cause that's standard maintenance for a car. Instead you relate it to a stereo or a spoiler that was installed after purchase, because it's not needed for the function of the car but it is a part of the car now that it's been installed and is factored into the sale and re-purchase price.

I can't see how the industry can say this hurts them when if the game never changes hands they'd never see another dime anyway. To me DLC has been incorporated into the game if purchased and should stick with the game. However infeasible that may be in practice, that's my thinking from more of an ethics stand point (that it's wrong to want to be paid twice for something that is simply changing users).

Now, would I pay for DLC on a used game when the original buyer didn't have to? Sure why not, it's $10. That doesn't mean I have to like doing it, I'm just willing to pay that for it.

[Kim]

Providing bonus stuff for buying the game new, or pre-ordering it, is fine by me. Atlus does it all the time. It's why I've got this totally bitchin' Persona 4 art book thing. Getting some of the DLC free, or anything like that, is also a totally cool way to encourage people to buy new.

PA's latest stupidity frustrates me because I'm poor. I literally can not afford to buy every single game that looks remotely interesting. I suspect this isn't much of a problem for them, which would explain the gaping logic gaps in their argument. Plus, if I buy new every game that might possibly maybe be good, I'll inevitably end up supporting bad games.

From my perspective, this means that I should only buy games that I know will be worth the money, and come from companies that I want to support. If I didn't rent or buy used, I generally wouldn't be buying the game at all. My budget wouldn't allow it. Either way, the developers don't get any money, so what does it matter?

Treating it like it's no different than pirating, especially after they've thrown a corn field's worth of strawmen at anyone who argues in favor of pirating under any circumstances whatsoever, is kinda offensive. Treating renting/buying used like it's morally reprehensible to begin with is, too.

I mean, I'm trying to think of a way to explain all this better, but I don't really need to. Pretty much everything wrong with what they said should be readily apparent, and this is just another instance of them having their heads up their asses.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by NonCon

Providing bonus stuff for buying the game new, or pre-ordering it, is fine by me. Atlus does it all the time. It's why I've got this totally bitchin' Persona 4 art book thing. Getting some of the DLC free, or anything like that, is also a totally cool way to encourage people to buy new.

PA's latest stupidity frustrates me because I'm poor. I literally can not afford to buy every single game that looks remotely interesting. I suspect this isn't much of a problem for them, which would explain the gaping logic gaps in their argument. Plus, if I buy new every game that might possibly maybe be good, I'll inevitably end up supporting bad games.

From my perspective, this means that I should only buy games that I know will be worth the money, and come from companies that I want to support. If I didn't rent or buy used, I generally wouldn't be buying the game at all. My budget wouldn't allow it. Either way, the developers don't get any money, so what does it matter?

Treating it like it's no different than pirating, especially after they've thrown a corn field's worth of strawmen at anyone who argues in favor of pirating under any circumstances whatsoever, is kinda offensive. Treating renting/buying used like it's morally reprehensible to begin with is, too.

I mean, I'm trying to think of a way to explain all this better, but I don't really need to. Pretty much everything wrong with what they said should be readily apparent, and this is just another instance of them having their heads up their asses.

No worries. I already had it covered pages ago.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

It's not being denied. They're just making you pay for it like normal. Let me explain how this really works.


What they're doing is trying to encourage people to buy original by giving away free extras by including codes. That's just what it all is: extras. It's DLC. You can pay for it later as a second-hand owner. That makes it no different than any other DLC. The fact that they give it to original buyers (or whoever first uses the codes) free is just being nice. The fact that anyone else has to pay for it is standard.


See, what PA is playing on is the backwards logic of the entitled. Rather than saying how nice it is that it's possible to get the DLC free, as a gift for buying the game first-hand, they've focused on trying to make people outraged that they have to pay for things that by all means they'd normally have to pay for.


In short, PA doesn't have a clue what they're talking about and basic logic shows that. DLC is something people normally expect to pay for, but PA has somehow, intentionally or unintentionally, missed that.

[Eldezar]

Does TF2 function without DLC.