Buying Used Games: Theft?

[Encryptshun]

So the debate as tracked today by Penny Arcade seems to be worth some discussion. Is buying a used game the same as pirating that game?

Sound off.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Regardless, we'll probably see the end of used-game sales soon anyway with the direction DRM systems are going.

[Crazyirish]

Its kind of hard to argue against what THQs creative director said, at least if you look at it from the developers stand point. Everybody loves to bash the guys that make the games, but fact is that its a very expensive and risky business. Over the years I've seen many top-tier developers go from on top of the world to on top of the trash in mere months.

Is it piracy? That would actually depend on the license agreement of the specific product. Does the developer make any money from second hand users? Not a penny. What happens when developers don't make money? They don't make games. I like games. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Another option might be some sort of residuals. i.e. when gamestop sells a used copy of game x they have to pay the developer a percentage of the sale. Of course this could be easily circumvented by dishonest people/companies, but thats true of...well...everything.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Everybody loves to bash the guys that make the games, but fact is that its a very expensive and risky business.

Boy, I don't! I love to PRAISE and SUPPORT the guys who make games. I like to bash the guys who make CRAPPY games. Which I'm not buying used OR new anyway unless by accident.

Here's the thing, though:
I have NO OBLIGATION to support any developer anywhere. I CHOOSE to do so in some cases. But to suggest that there's some disrespect there is stupid. This is the world of the free market. No one OWES developers anything. Some of them EARN it, though, and that's where support comes into play.

All of that said, I've never liked buying games used for numerous reasons. People selling games back often take poor care of their optical media. I have to wait for used stocks to show up, which means no launch-day purchases of anticipated games (and these days anticipated games are all I buy, which makes this a real killer). And no supporting the devs I love.

BUT. But. The difference between CHOOSING to support developers and being OBLIGATED to support them is HUGE. And it should mean exactly the opposite of what the THQ dude is taking away from it to these game developers. People supporting you? You should take that as a class raised in your direction! People NOT supporting you? Yeah, that's your customer stiffing you on the tip. Better get your s*** together.
Granted, that scenario's not as cleancut as I make it sound, as a lot of people simply want to save money and don't care either way. But that's right back to the "choice" matter. That kid who bought MW2 used...he doesn't care to show support for activision anyway. And if it hadn't been for the Activision IW lawsuits he probably wouldn't even know who Activision is anyway. Which means the whole point is moot.

It's not disrespect. It's just not freely offered respect. You earn it. Some, like Valve and Positech and others, have absolutely earned my respect. Others, like Activision and Ubisoft and EA, have not. They DESERVE nothing from me. I give them nothing. By choice.

But, to the point of the topical question at hand, OF COURSE IT ISN'T THEFT. Did the developer get their money for the initial sale? Yes? Then it's not theft. The original purchaser can't legally (and, most likely, practically) use the software anymore. It's no different than selling a car or a lawnmower or a book. The INITIAL SALE gave money to the developer.
And I'd even look at a LARGE portion of used games sales in the same "every used game is not a lost sale" light as piracy. I'd wager that most people buying games used wouldn't be buying the game AT ALL if they had to pay new full price. Which means the pub/dev aren't losing any sales, but they ARE potentially gaining fans and community. And these days community can mean everything.

I'm certainly not suggesting used sales are an ideal occurance for developers and publishers. But for them to get upset about it like that is a bit...diva-ish. The sense of entitlement is pretty deep. Am I supposed to feel guilty about buying my Cadillac, Ford, Nissan, Infiniti, and Lincoln used? I loved them all. Should I feel guilty about buying the Dune collection used when I was younger? Because I don't. Just as I don't feel guilty when I buy a used game (especially since if I'm buying used, I probably wouldn't have bought at all otherwise).

[snwbrdr435]

I think its just developers if s*** games getting pissed when they don't sell more units because all of the original ones got returned and sold used.

[BusyBadger]

But, to the point of the topical question at hand, OF COURSE IT ISN'T THEFT. Did the developer get their money for the initial sale? Yes? Then it's not theft. The original purchaser can't legally (and, most likely, practically) use the software anymore. It's no different than selling a car or a lawnmower or a book. The INITIAL SALE gave money to the developer.

[ProudNissanFreak]

^ That. On top of that, they're making money off DLC, which is pretty much available for every game these days. You're still going to have to buy it even if you get a used copy, so what's the deal?

[Crazyirish]

There is a school of thought (fueled primarily by software designers of course) that views software as different from physical objects. In a way it does make sense as software isn't actually a physical object.

I run a printshop. We own, say an x number of seats license to adobe cs4. We paid money for it. We can use it as long as we like. But we can't sell it. Period. Does this suck? Maybe. I guess it depends on if we go out of business/ get sold.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that the new school of thought on software (viewed more as intellectual property than an object to be bought and sold as people wish) is right. I'm just saying that its going to happen. The problems the internet (and file sharing) has caused the music industry have not gone unnoticed by other tech industries. Developing software is very expensive, and companies will not do it unless they can be assured a profit.

MoD has a good point when it comes to support via your purchase. Support the companies you like by buying their products. However, when it comes to used game sales and common analogies lets take a look:

Used Car = unlikely any warranty, likely mechanical problems. Cost to manufacturer = none to slight. The purchase of a used car might continue to generate repair revenue, but is less likely to than an original owner (my opinion, but wouldn't be at all surprised if it was supported by statistics.)

Used Movie/Books = If you bought the Dune collection used then you are a huge dork. Its ok, because I also own the movies and the books. I bought them new though Why are used movies and books not as much of an issue? Not sure. But it might have something to do with not having to release new versions of books and movies when hardware/firmware updates invalidate the old ones.

Used Video game = no additional revenue for game developer, like buying new for end user. Continues to need support. (especially true for pc games, but increasingly so for console games as well.)

Whatever you guys think, its way more than likely that a new set of rules(lawa) governing the sale of ip and similar things such as software/games/etc will emerge that has nothing to do with how people value and sell physical objects.

If we as consumers marginalize the point of view of developers too much, then only companies like "Activision and Ubisoft and EA" will be left. Indies or even small triple A devs wont be able to even sit at the table. Period.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I run a printshop. We own, say an x number of seats license to adobe cs4. We paid money for it. We can use it as long as we like. But we can't sell it. Period. Does this suck? Maybe. I guess it depends on if we go out of business/ get sold.

I can understand with corporate licensing like that. There's a special degree of support that goes with that kind of software, and that kind of support should rightfully only come with a legitimate firsthand purchase. But in this instance, you're paying (knowingly) for much more than a piece of software. Not so with games (or movies, or music, etc.). That's part of the reason CS4 costs so much more than a videogame.

If you bought the Dune collection used then you are a huge dork. Its ok, because I also own the movies and the books. I bought them new though

I've since bought them new as well (the boxed set I bought used as a kid was published before Chapterhouse) and again when the nice new hardcover republishings came out.

Used Video game = no additional revenue for game developer, like buying new for end user. Continues to need support. (especially true for pc games, but increasingly so for console games as well.)

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I don't entirely agree. Especially not with recent changes in digital distribution. Companies like EA and Activision have made it a point to produce what they call "value added" content that's free to the initial purchaser but requires an extra cost to any secondhand buyer.
And with the proliferation of "DLC" and other mini-expansions (not to mention "real" expansions) I only see profit from used games becoming MORE likely.
As for support, most of that support is already happening for "paying" (I use quotes because the initial copy was paid for) customers anyway. Patches, community support, etc. All of that is already there. Used customers aren't exactly placing a burden on it. It's not like the manufacturer is being expected to replace a transmission under warranty for a 15 year old used car.

Whatever you guys think, its way more than likely that a new set of rules(lawa) governing the sale of ip and similar things such as software/games/etc will emerge that has nothing to do with how people value and sell physical objects.

I'm not so sure about that. Maybe if things had moved faster, and software had joined record companies in their initial fight against filesharing. But the record companies haven't ingratiated themselves with consumers, and the crusade against filesharing has been handled a bit aggressively. I don't think anyone is going to be able to step on consumers in that way ever again. The record companies made it too public an issue, and people are too aware of what it really means now.

If we as consumers marginalize the point of view of developers too much, then only companies like "Activision and Ubisoft and EA" will be left. Indies or even small triple A devs wont be able to even sit at the table. Period.

In the consolescape, perhaps. But there are more successful indie devs in the PC world today than ever. The big guys, if anything, are looking at LOSING their grip. It comes back, once again, to consumer awareness.

[Crazyirish]

I can understand with corporate licensing like that. There's a special degree of support that goes with that kind of software, and that kind of support should rightfully only come with a legitimate firsthand purchase. But in this instance, you're paying (knowingly) for much more than a piece of software. Not so with games (or movies, or music, etc.). That's part of the reason CS4 costs so much more than a videogame.

That and cs4 is typically used to make money. But you have to admit the licensing model for such software is very attractive to game developers.

I've since bought them new as well (the boxed set I bought used as a kid was published before Chapterhouse) and again when the nice new hardcover republishings came out.

Excellent stuff. Definitely my favorite science fiction of that era.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I don't entirely agree. Especially not with recent changes in digital distribution. Companies like EA and Activision have made it a point to produce what they call "value added" content that's free to the initial purchaser but requires an extra cost to any secondhand buyer.
And with the proliferation of "DLC" and other mini-expansions (not to mention "real" expansions) I only see profit from used games becoming MORE likely.
As for support, most of that support is already happening for "paying" (I use quotes because the initial copy was paid for) customers anyway. Patches, community support, etc. All of that is already there. Used customers aren't exactly placing a burden on it. It's not like the manufacturer is being expected to replace a transmission under warranty for a 15 year old used car.

I think most of the things you mentioned are "best attempts" at reclaiming used game revenue. Game developers (and really any savvy businessmen) know that consumers will accept huge amounts of change so long as its administered in small enough doses. I remember when something like a paid for DLC would've had gamers up in arms. Now its the standard. And what would have today's gamers up in arms that tomorrow's will line up for?

I'm not so sure about that. Maybe if things had moved faster, and software had joined record companies in their initial fight against filesharing. But the record companies haven't ingratiated themselves with consumers, and the crusade against filesharing has been handled a bit aggressively. I don't think anyone is going to be able to step on consumers in that way ever again. The record companies made it too public an issue, and people are too aware of what it really means now.

I think you give the public at large too much credit, but you may be right.

In the consolescape, perhaps. But there are more successful indie devs in the PC world today than ever. The big guys, if anything, are looking at LOSING their grip. It comes back, once again, to consumer awareness.

PC Gamers have always been far more aware as consumers (IMHO) than console gamers. But console gamers (and their habit of buying identical games year after year) drive a lot of the industries direction. Like you said earlier, in a free market we vote with our dollars. But I fear that (much like in real life) the votes of the discriminating few will be drowned out by all the people who are buying their 47th updated version of some EA sports game. (Which are still fun btw)

[Chaotic_Warlord]

I thought video games had the same thing with sales as every other form of media out there, that being the issue of royalties. I mean why else would game stores like Game Stop charge so much for used games, most of the time they charge you damn near full price, and you sure as hell don't get full price when you trade a game in, you're lucky to get maybe 20% for a brand new release.

So what you are saying is that Joe Shmoe trades in a new release for whatever reason, he get's $20 for it when it's $50 new, I go in and buy that very game a week later and pay $45 for it, so GS doesn't pay a portion of that to the game developer and just pockets it as profit? I find that very hard to believe and if it is true then the only theft going on there is theft by GS for not giving a portion of the pre-owned games sale to the developer. There's no way they could do that, media laws are much different than other retail laws because of the whole royalties thing. Now if you buy a used game off of ebay or CL then yes you are circumventing those laws, but it's still not piracy. Private sales are just that, private. Piracy only becomes a factor if you buy a game (or any other form of media) and illegally make and sell copies of it, or if the retailer of a public sale doesn't share it's profits with the creator of said media, b/c it's a public sale they are obligated to give a portion of that sale back to the creator or said media. It's all fine print lawyer speak between one company and another.

Personally I think some of these game developers have gone Hollywood and are starting to get a little greedy (cough Activision cough cough EA cough).

[BusyBadger]

So what you are saying is that Joe Shmoe trades in a new release for whatever reason, he get's $20 for it when it's $50 new, I go in and buy that very game a week later and pay $45 for it, so GS doesn't pay a portion of that to the game developer and just pockets it as profit?

That's exactly how it works. Why do you think that EB/Gamestop pushes the Edge Card so much? It makes the consumer more likely to buy a pre-owned game. Sure, the Edge card nets you a 10% discount, but when they just paid $20 for a $50 title and sold it to you for $40 ($45 before your 10% discount) they're making far more profit than had they sold you a new title that they had to buy directly from the source.

[Red coupe]

Developers need to make games people want to hold onto, not flashy graphics that is boring by the end of the first play through.

ESPECIALLY with something like a console game, where once I sell it I can't play anymore this is a ridiculous argument.

One licensed copy, one licensed user. How is this piracy, and how is it different then anything else?

After playing my board game, I was done and sold it to a friend. He is a thief and a criminal?
No.
Is it wrong to buy a used movie? How about CDs?
I have never even heard that issue brought up.

If the number of users of the product matches the number of products sold... how the hell can you claim this is any different or worse then anything else that has ever been sold?

[Encryptshun]

This same sort of logic has been applied to enterprise software for the past couple of years. It used to be that when you bought such software, you paid licenses equal to a specific number of seats (or shelled out for "unlimited"), but the specific logons associated with those seats were not factored in. This allowed a company to recycle licenses. However, software companies who hit a revenue wall after the 3rd year of an enterprise license agreement discovered that lots of companies weren't paying to upgrade the software or paying for gold-star support anymore, so their model collapsed. So publishers like [name witheld] went back to their enterprise customers and now charger per unique user ID. So each time a new user ID is generated (for any environment), the client is assessed a fee equal to one license. Smart companies negotiate to reduce the overall cost, but it's still more than what the client would have paid previously.