Used Games = Piracy?

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Eldezar

Does TF2 function without DLC.

Yes. Steam and updates don't count as DLC.

[Eldezar]

Oh, I always considered DLC to include updates and patches to a game. So I guess you are talking more along the lines of The Engineer Update vs. the OSX Represent Earbuds?

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Eldezar

Oh, I always considered DLC to include updates and patches to a game. So I guess you are talking more along the lines of The Engineer Update vs. the OSX Represent Earbuds?

Sort of, but more like the difference between the Engie update and going out and buying a super-special wrench for $5 that doesn't get randomly dropped.

That's the point of DLC is that it's a system whereby you get special items via microtransactions.

[krogothwolf]

Can some explain to me the difference between buying used games, garage sales and ebay? Seriously, If you purchase anything from a garage sales or ebay you're doing the same thing as buying used games aren't you? You're giving money to someone else for a product they didn't have make but bought and are now done with. Or Pawn Shops/Used Book Stores/Salvation Army Places. Honestly, I don't understand why everyone keeps putting Games in a category of their own when compared to other products.

I have no problem buying a game used, I also have no problem with them having stupid DLC in a new game for "free" but charging for it if you bought used. So having 8 maps on the game disk then 8 maps DLC for free if you bought it new, or at a price if bought used I don't see a problem with this at all. Limiting functionality of it though I would have a problem with, like charging someone who bought it used to pay money before they can play it online I don't agree with.

[Donomni]

There is no difference whatsoever between buying used and buying it from a garage sale/ebay, except that you end up supporting a middle-man like Gamestop more instead of the previous owner directly.

The reason Vidja Games are somehow considered separate from most other media has been stated before: The games industry still wants everyone to buy new games, but doesn't(or rather, won't) understand people can't always pay out the ass for a new game without giving something else up... like food, or medicine, or cooling or heating and electric. They'll wise up eventually, but it's a matter of when, not how.

As for all these extra charges: Well, I understand DLC as an incentive, but online multiplayer is normally a key feature in games, and the feature in some of them. Not including that simply because someone bought it used is a bit of a ripoff.

[krogothwolf]

I didn't say not include multiplayer, I did say that is ridiculous if they did that. I said I could understand not including some maps.

I don't care about how to greedy industry feels about it, I can't understand how bloggers/comic book writers/other people feel so divided on this. It's pretty cut and dry for every other form of medium so why do they put video games in a different light. It's hard to listen to someones argument knowing that more then likely they have no qualms about buying something else used but go "USED VIDEO GAMES BAD!"

Sorry, if I see a game for 60 bucks new that I'm iffy on getting, I won't buy it, if I see it used for much cheaper I'll get it. I really don't care about Gamestop giving me "store credit." It's not like I'm not buying video games ever again and the credit is going to waste. I buy 1 game month, 2 if I get decent enough trade in value from played games. Removing that means I will buy less games new and used.

[BitVyper]

I don't know how to stress that. The industry DOESN'T equate second-hand sales to piracy. They're just not giving away DLC for free. They're not making you pay to make the game function. The idea that the industry is thinking the way PA thinks they're thinking is nothing short of stupid.

The actions of developers seem to indicate that they feel they have a right to limit the access of secondhand users. I am aware of your opinion that this is not the case or that it's justified; although I'm not exactly sure where free DLC comes into it, as getting a secondhand game doesn't confer any DLC as far as I'm aware. If it's a special edition game, or something where that copy specifically has access to certain content, then as long as no copies are being made, I'm not sure where the issue would be.

Jumping on my comments with giant bold allcaps and responding to other people smugly with emoticons is not actually making me anymore likely to consider the things you say in the future. In fact it's got me thinking I ought to just filter out everything you say.

[Nique]

I can't believe this is even a debate at all. If I buy a used desk am I STEALING from the desk manufacturer?

The answer is emphatically no, and also that any apologies or justification for any industry person holding such a whining 'me first' opinion are wrong. The game has been bought and they have made their money. End of story. If buying new was the only option then guess what? I wouldn't be playing those games.

[Yumil]

Here's the thing. They aren't destroying the used game market, they aren't really trying to. They are just trying to get back some money with the tactics of charging for online play(requires entities outside the disk) and dlc(requires data outside the disk).

Theres a reason why MMO's require a monthly fee(or an adequate micro-transaction model) as it's expensive to continue to maintain and update old products. Patches that fix vital parts of the game should be free(as in the Backbreaker patch which actually has made the game playable), but anything extra should have a charge.

We've been getting free online play for a long time, perhaps they've started seeing a dip in their products as used copies proliferate their userbase. We don't have all the data, but I can see where they calculate the time one copy would use their resources and have that all included in the price. In that case, any additional transfer would significantly alter the profitability of that price they calculated for one household to have the one disc. One can't charge the first owner for the 10 people who are going to use it used in a daisy chain of transactions. This is where this model comes in.

In Smackdowns case they feel that $10 is what a single household will use on average with online play before they get bored and stop using it. It's included in the original price, but since it's an ongoing cost to Smackdown, it's not transferable like the disc.

If we were comparing cars, it'd be like the dealership giving you a 5 year subscription to satellite radio with the purchase of a new car and the person buying it getting pissed off to find that the subscription is nontransferable. You got it for free when buying the car, heck there is still a couple years left on your subscription, but they'd have to subscribe themselves to get the satellite radio.

EDIT: Generally one rents a game to play the single player. It sucks if you want to test online first before you buy it(perhaps they should have some sort of trial for each individual machine), but the main reason is still there. This method may not work on primarily online games(Shooters for the most part), but works on ones that had proved profitable before their online modes were introduced.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

although I'm not exactly sure where free DLC comes into it, as getting a secondhand game doesn't confer any DLC

True, but:
http://masseffect.bioware.com/info/cerberus/

Buying them first hand sometimes does. The second hand users apparently don't like this kind of business model wherein they have to buy the DLC while the first hand users don't.

The online multiplayer thing is the same exact issue, except for the things Yumil pointed out vis a vis gamers just being used to getting it for free.

Originally Posted by Nique

I can't believe this is even a debate at all. If I buy a used desk am I STEALING from the desk manufacturer?

The answer is emphatically no, and also that any apologies or justification for any industry person holding such a whining 'me first' opinion are wrong. The game has been bought and they have made their money. End of story. If buying new was the only option then guess what? I wouldn't be playing those games.

No one who isn't a raging moron is saying that it is theft.

What they are saying is that limiting second hand user access to online play or DLC that comes free to first hand users is no different than, well:

Originally Posted by Yumil

it'd be like the dealership giving you a 5 year subscription to satellite radio with the purchase of a new car and the person buying it getting pissed off to find that the subscription is nontransferable.

Speaking of, that's a great analogy. The last time I bought a car satellite radio wasn't even a thing, so I was really having trouble coming up with something close, but this is basically it right here.