Buying used games = Piracy?

[Gamereviewgod]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/26/3

After reading this, I honestly don't see a difference between buying a used title from Gamestop or buying a CD of roms (or a burn of a game) from someone else.

Think about it. I buy GTA 3 from Gamestop/EB. Store profits greatly, game makers earn nothing.

I buy a burned copy of GTA 3, say, at a Pawn Shop or garage sale. Person profits greatly, game makers earn nothing.

What about buying a CD full of ROMs off eBay?

Am I just missing something here? How can one be legal, and the other not?

[unwinddesign]

Well you're not violating intellectual property when you buy a used copy -- it's authentic and licensed. Plus, you have the right to "transfer" said license to the software to another party -- be it Gamestop, your friend, some person on eBay etc.

Also, with a real copy of the game, game publishers already got paid for it with the original sale. It's not like you buya copy of the game and a magical used copy pops up, which they never got paid for. They get paid in the beginning, then afterwards, whatever happens is the rest of the people's business.

[Leo_A]

Because when you buy a legitimate game, its yours to do with as you please (With certain conditions in a EULA or something similar). Stealing doesn't give you any of those rights, its just stealing.

[Gamereviewgod]

Also, with a real copy of the game, game publishers already got paid for it with the original sale. It's not like you buya copy of the game and a magical used copy pops up, which they never got paid for. They get paid in the beginning, then afterwards, whatever happens is the rest of the people's business.

So what's the difference if someone buys a copy of a game, burns it to a disc, and then sells those? The company go their money in the beginning. Same thing, no?

[Leo_A]

No, the company didn't get the money in the beginning for the copies your making. Only the pirate is getting money for those.

[Gamereviewgod]

No, the company didn't get the money in the beginning for the copies your making. Only the pirate is getting money for those.

Only Gamestop is getting money for the used games. And of course the company got the money for the burned game if was copied from a legitamate store-bought disc.

[YoshiM]

Also, with a real copy of the game, game publishers already got paid for it with the original sale. It's not like you buya copy of the game and a magical used copy pops up, which they never got paid for. They get paid in the beginning, then afterwards, whatever happens is the rest of the people's business.

So what's the difference if someone buys a copy of a game, burns it to a disc, and then sells those? The company go their money in the beginning. Same thing, no?

No, it's not. One original game=one license. You can sell the original game to someone else with no problems, that's our right. In the case of burning the disc and selling the copies: you still only have one license for one game and the burned games hence are not licensed and therefore are illegal. Make sense.

To stretch the "used item" concept a bit to an illogical extreme: if you bought a new couch, had it for a few years and decided to sell it to someone else, wouldn't you be stealing from the couch manufacturer? That manufacturer would not be seeing any money from the used couch sale, so should used couch sales be illegal?

[poe]

No, the company didn't get the money in the beginning for the copies your making. Only the pirate is getting money for those.

Only Gamestop is getting money for the used games. And of course the company got the money for the burned game if was copied from a legitamate store-bought disc.

But Gamestop is transferring one legitimate product from one owner to another. Piracy takes one legitimate product and transfers it to 5,000 (give or take), with the developer losing the other 4,999 potential units sold (no original sales and no valid licenses being transferred to those "owners").

[Gamereviewgod]

But Gamestop is transferring one legitimate product from one owner to another. Piracy takes one legitimate product and transfers it to 5,000 (give or take), with the developer losing the other 4,999 potential units sold (no original sales and no valid licenses being transferred to those "owners").

But what's a "legitamate" product comes down to legality, not basic logic. If Gamestop was to swing a single copy of Halo 5,000 times, those new units won't sell either, and the owners see no profit or earnings. I'm looking at this from a "hurts the industry" stand point, not neccesarily legal (I'm sure that's an entirely different thread).


if you bought a new couch, had it for a few years and decided to sell it to someone else, wouldn't you be stealing from the couch manufacturer? That manufacturer would not be seeing any money from the used couch sale, so should used couch sales be illegal?

I'm not saying that used games should be illegal (or couches ;) ). I simply see a parrell between them, and in my eyes, both hit the industry pretty hard, and dare I say used game sales come close to pirated games totals? I think it would be an interesting stat, especially given how the buisness of the two big gaming chains rely so heavily on used games for their profit margins.

[Leo_A]

Portions of your post doesn't make sense, like using the word swing.

The developer and publisher earn money off each legitimate game sold initially. After that its free to be used or sold in accordance with terms of the EULA.

Making 5,000 copies of it and selling them to consumers hurts the industry much more than the sale of 5,000 legitimate copies of a game where the publisher/developer earn some money from each initially.

Its common sense, but your not seeing it somehow. And of course the sale of used games hurts the industry, that's common sense and is universal across any business (Automobiles, computers, etc.).

Your trying to make two very different things seem similar to you for some reason...

[Gamereviewgod]

Portions of your post doesn't make sense, like using the word swing.

The developer and publisher earn money off each legitimate game sold initially. After that its free to be used or sold in accordance with terms of the EULA.

Making 5,000 copies of it and selling them to consumers hurts the industry much more than the sale of 5,000 legitimate copies of a game where the publisher/developer earn some money from each initially.

Its common sense, but your not seeing it somehow. And of course the sale of used games hurts the industry, that's common sense and is universal across any business (Automobiles, computers, etc.).

I know used items are a problem. I understand that, regardless of what the item is, but an electronic media is a little different. People aren't going to sit in their backyard and create 5,000 bootleg Hummers.

Again, if someone makes 5,000 copies of Halo, burned from a brand new store bought copy and sells them, how is it different from Gamestop selling the same copy of Halo 5,000 times? Microsoft/Bungie will only see money from that game once. Either way, 5,000 people won't be buying a new copy, and as such, the original creator sees nothing.

What I don't understand is how those two are any different. Both involve buying ONE new copy, and selling 5,000 copies, none of which involve Microsoft after the first.

As for the word "swing," it's easier than saying "person A buys a game, plays it, takes it to trade, person B buys it used."

[Leo_A]

Your theory is flawed.

"Again, if someone makes 5,000 copies of Halo, burned from a brand new store bought copy and sells them, how is it different from Gamestop selling the same copy of Halo 5,000 times?"

Because its never going to happen 5,000 times for starters. Stop stretching things to make your theory work and legitimize piracy. Those 5,000 copies made no money for the developers at anytime. If some lucky legitimate copy of Halo got to see 5,000 different owners, it's completely moral and llegal even if it's never going to happen.

"Microsoft/Bungie will only see money from that game once. Either way, 5,000 people won't be buying a new copy, and as such, the original creator sees nothing."

How do you know people won't pay 20$ to buy a new copy of Halo if they can't find a pirated copy?

The facts are, the companies make money off the initial sale of a legitimate copy of a game. Those companies don't make money off burned copies of a game that that person has no right to be profiting off, and likely a lot of people would be buying new/used games if the pirated versions didn't exist.

[exit]

I see selling a used game the same as selling a used car. Its just old crap you don't want anymore, sold to get new crap you'll eventually not want anymore.

[davidbrit2]

When a game is first released, there are no used copies in the market. The game store purchases a stock of new games from the publisher. Now, since no used copies are available, new copies sell off the shelves. Eventually, used copies may come back and be recirculated. But if copies are reproduced by the store and sold, they will soon discover that they have less of a need to purchase new copies in the first place. Thus the publisher sees rapidly diminished sales, and the industry falls apart. But with the need to buy enough copies from the publisher to satisfy reasonable demand, it works out okay. The used copies only eat into a portion of the new game sales, and generally it's not for a while after a game's release that used copies are readily available. The publisher has already sold their new copies to the stores, so what do they care? Obviously, they could potentially sell more copies to the stores if used game reselling were not legal, but used game sales are obviously not as big of a hit as rampant piracy.

[kedawa]

In terms of impact, it's just a matter of scale. There's a logical limit to how many used games are available to compete with new ones, and each one earned the creator something to begin with. With piracy, there's no practical limit to how many bootlegs are available. You could theoretically make a a bootleg for everyone on earth using a single source copy.

What I'm wondering is whether or not the used game market is more harmful than the rental market.


To stretch the "used item" concept a bit to an illogical extreme: if you bought a new couch, had it for a few years and decided to sell it to someone else, wouldn't you be stealing from the couch manufacturer? That manufacturer would not be seeing any money from the used couch sale, so should used couch sales be illegal?
So, is it wrong for me to borrow my friends couch and make an identical copy for myself? :P

[Gamereviewgod]

I know no copy is going to end up with 5,000 people. I'm not trying to make pirates out to be good people. I hope they all burn in hell. I'm just using an example. From the initial article I posted, it shows how much the used games inudstry costs developers. It's a large chunk of cash.


Those 5,000 copies made no money for the developers at anytime. If some lucky copy of Halo got to see 5,000 different owners, it's completely moral and legitimate even if it's never going to happen.

But you didn't explain how it's DIFFERENT. If you wish, if a copy of Halo is sold 10 times used, the developer still only sees the money once. If someone was going to pirate 10 copies of Halo after buying a store bought copy, it's the same thing.


How do you know people won't pay 20$ to buy a new copy of Halo if they can't find a pirated copy?

I'm not entirely sure what you're going for here. I never said anything about people buying a new copy of Halo is they can't find a pirate.


The facts are, the companies make money off the initial sale of a legitimate copy of a game.

And what happens afterward... prated or used, the intial developer/publisher still sees the cash once.


Those companies don't make money off burned copies of a game that that person has no right to be profiting off

Ok, great. Then how is Gamespot able to get away with selling a copy of a game that the initial creator doesn't see anything of? It's the same thing.

I'm not understanding how the two are different as far as the game makers are concerned. We're going way overboard here on a topic I thought would be fairly simple. Maybe it's not though, and that's why I posted it. So, I guess just answer that one question so it's clear. [/quote]

[kedawa]

Now that I think of it, didn't it used to be illegal to sell used games in Japan?

[Gamereviewgod]

In terms of impact, it's just a matter of scale. There's a logical limit to how many used games are available to compete with new ones, and each one earned the creator something to begin with. With piracy, there's no practical limit to how many bootlegs are available. You could theoretically make a a bootleg for everyone on earth using a single source copy.

There we go... that's what I was looking for. That makes sense. So did Dave's. Thank you.

I still think there's a discussion here though. Given the cost of games though, there should be some type of kick back to a developer at some point. Movies have both theatrical and home releases, so I can't imagine the used market is a huge problem, at least not as bad as it is here. Games have one chance, and a brutally short shelf life. How about the used game market affecting innovative titles? There's a thought.

[davidbrit2]

But you didn't explain how it's DIFFERENT. If you wish, if a copy of Halo is sold 10 times used, the developer still only sees the money once. If someone was going to pirate 10 copies of Halo after buying a store bought copy, it's the same thing.

They're not different if you keep ignoring how supply scales in order to meet demand in the real world. If more than just those 10 people want to own Halo, the copies have to come from somewhere. Are they coming from the publisher, who gets money for selling them to the stores, or are they coming from pirates, who keep the money to themselves? The difference is that used copies are a limited supply, whereas bootlegs are theoretically unlimited. If demand exceeds the available supply, then the publisher is the only one who is legally entitled to produce and sell more copies.

EDIT: Another thing to consider is that a game being a piece of shit in the presence of copyright law has largely the same financial effect on the publisher as a game being in high demand in the absence of copyright law. In either case, they have less incentive to produce such a game next time. Wrap your head around that one for fun.. ;-)

[Gamereviewgod]

Now that I think of it, didn't it used to be illegal to sell used games in Japan?

I think I remember reading that at some point. Nintendo also fought the rental market, which isn't that far off from used games, though there used to be revenue sharing programs. Not sure if those are still around, bu something like that for used games would be great.

[davidbrit2]

I think I remember reading that at some point. Nintendo also fought the rental market, which isn't that far off from used games, though there used to be revenue sharing programs. Not sure if those are still around, bu something like that for used games would be great.

Then the stores would just rape us even harder to maintain their margins. Heh. I can't wait to trade in my XBox 360 with 4 launch titles for $40 store credit! Oh boy oh boy! Ha ha.

[Zing]

I think what might be overlooked here is that every used copy sold does not necessarily translate into a lost sale of a new copy (although if you understand that each consumer only has a limited amount of spending cash, then every product in every retail store may cause the loss of a new game sale ;)). I'm sure a lot of people are buying that used copy of a new game for $5 less than MSRP, but there are also people who just browse the used games and pick whatever looks attractive at the time, having absolutely no interest in buying a new copy of any game.

[Slipdeath]

The way I see it is if a legitimate copy is continuously circulated through the used game market is still makes a variable of one game. So that means that only one used game that has already played its part in earning money for the makers is in circulation. Now were talking about a used game so you can't have it in two places at once regardless of how many times it is resold. On the other hand burned copies can be made and distributed at high increments thus that many have the game. It would take much longer for a used game to reach that height. So what's the difference in original profit you ask? Nothing this is true, but in the long run burned copies hurt the industry much worse. Used games bring profit to video game retailers therefore adding strength to the industry if you would include them. So basically a used copy might hurt the sales of a game but at a much slower pace than that of a burned copy, since in theory those burned games can keep multiplying causing a greater affect on the makers.

[ozyr]

Oh bloody hell. WHat is this with people thinking developers should get money for used game sales!!!

Do the auto makers get money for used car sales, do I have to send money to the companies that I sold stuff from at a rummage. Give me a break. This topic is just wacked! Drop it and get to something important.... :hmm:

end-of-line (which means I won't reply to anyone on this - I've said my piece - so deal with it).

[Griking]

I see selling a used game the same as selling a used car. Its just old crap you don't want anymore, sold to get new crap you'll eventually not want anymore.

Have you checked up on the health of the auto industry lately. General motors came close to filing for bankrupsy this year because of losses.

[Ulticron]

Behold the power of dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=piracy


4 entries found for piracy.
1. a. Robbery committed at sea.
b. A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane.
2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.
3. The operation of an unlicensed, illegal radio or television station.


We'll take definition number 2 for our answer. Let's start w/unauthorized use. Nintendo, Sony, and MS all know that their games are being sold second hand, so if they didn't like it they would have already handed out a cease and descist orders. Now for the unauthorized reproduction part, that's where your bootleg CDs/ROMs come into play. If anyone of the big 3 catch you doing that chances are your head is going on the choping block. Also try sliding into Gamestop or any of their clone stores and seeing if they'll buy your bootleg discs or any ROM discs, bet you'll get a polite "NO!". So there's the difference and there's your answer. Gamestop and their clone stores are making a good profit on used games but they're not doing anything illegal, if they were the big three would have already layed the smack down on them.

[goatdan]

A hopefully quick explanation because I have to get going to work now...

As someone who has created game titles, I do feel like my opinion is pretty valid on this, by the way. I am "in" the marketplace and someone who could get "screwed" by used game sales. So please do keep that in mind.

As was already pointed out, a sale of a used game is a legitimate copy of the title given to another person who will hold the same legitimate copy of the title. It is not a pirated copy, one which wasn't originally properly paid for.

In this country, we are free to buy and sell things as we please. I bought my car used. You can get a used TV. Heck, someone "used" my house before I bought it. Did I steal from Ford / Sharp / construction workers for not buying directly from them? No.

They were paid for their work that they did initially. When any of these companies makes a product, they have to realize that a sale of a car / TV / house will mean that there is one more in the market. In the case of houses, let's say that the population of an area increases. That does two things:

1) Used houses go up in value.
2) New houses, if there is space, start to be built again.

Now, if there is no space for new houses to be built, it means that just the used houses go up in value -- much like a rare game. Homebuilders should have factored it into their business plan not to plan on building the same houses over and over. If they did, it hurts their industry... but they shouldn't be so stupid.

The game industry is the same way. When I make an initial batch of games, I look at what I think the market will demand and then press that number. If we run out of a title, we can decide either to reprint or not. If we pressed too many, we are stuck with the extra. And you must factor in the used game market, even though the potential sales for our titles is in the thousands, not the hundreds of thousands.

So why would selling a used game be illegal? As far as I can tell, there is no reason for it. This debate seems to be brought up by collectors who are pissed that companies like GameStop actually make money off the sales of used games. It seems like people are pissed that the games aren't so worthless that people just dump them at Goodwill or something.

The reason the profit margin on used games is higher is because places like that need to hold onto used stock for a lot longer, and it can take a long, long time to sell used games. In business, there is a price to holding on to inventory, and for not selling it quickly. When you turn in your copy of Grooverider: Slot Car Thunder for $5.50 (As I did about six months ago), there is no guarantee that the store will sell it. In fact, I've still seen it there when I've been back for the last few trips, including yesterday. And I know it was my copy by a funny mark it had on the outside. Well, the game is now marked at $6.99, and they've had it in their inventory for 6 months. What happens if in another 6 months the game is $3.99 and still there? They'll lose money and have paid the cost of holding it for a year.

There are reasons that used video game places have low commissions and higher sale rates, and it isn't to "kill" the industry. It is to stay alive in it. Otherwise, we'd see GameStop owning Barnes and Noble, not the other way around.

[Dangerboy]

I see selling a used game the same as selling a used car. Its just old crap you don't want anymore, sold to get new crap you'll eventually not want anymore.

Have you checked up on the health of the auto industry lately. General motors came close to filing for bankrupsy this year because of losses.

That's not because of used sales, that's because it's General freaking Motors. LOL

The used game business is here to stay; I refuse to pay $50 for a new video game, especially when it seems like most of today's hits are like, 5 hours tops. I even waited till the games I TRULY Had to have, like Transformers PS2 and ICO were $10 - 20.

The real problem is when retail companies get too carried away with used game sales...and start trying to make it their major bread winner, that's when the imbalance comes in...but not because it's losing sales to the game companies, but because it's screwing up the natural flow of the new / used market.

It also doesn't help when they're only charging $3 less for a used one, but that's a different thread all together...

[Chronodriftersx]

Gamereviewgod I have one response. Wouldn't making/selling copies of disk be different then stores selling used games in that when you're making copies its actually saturating the market making more used games available then there would have been otherwise. Ergo more used and or pirated copies of a particular game available in circulation equals less new copies of that game sold. Increase the number of available disks in the used market of a particular game and it will depreciate the number of new copies that would have been sold?

[rbudrick]

The bottom line is that not a single game manufacturer/developer/publisher has any leagal problems with used games being sold. if they did, you can bet your as someone (everyone) would be sued. They haven't been, so obviously every lawyer that works for said companies knows nothing illegal is goin on with used non-pirated games.

Piracy and used games are simply not the same. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. <shrugs>

-Rob

[FantasiaWHT]

gamereviewgod, have you thought about what people do with the money they get when they sell video games?

I think the fact that the majority of money from customers selling used video games goes right back into the industry to buy both used and new games is what keeps the used game trade from having a MAJOR negative impact on the industry. Especially since EB, Gamestop, etc. tend to give bonus money for trades towards NEW release titles.

Another thought to consider is that without the used game trade (and more specifically the extremely high profit margin from it) retailers would have to sell new games at a higher price to maintain viability.

[doomedpeasant]

Oh bloody hell. WHat is this with people thinking developers should get money for used game sales!!!

Do the auto makers get money for used car sales, do I have to send money to the companies that I sold stuff from at a rummage. Give me a break. This topic is just wacked! Drop it and get to something important....

end-of-line (which means I won't reply to anyone on this - I've said my piece - so deal with it).

I'll just agree with what he said

[Lothars]

The bottom line is that not a single game manufacturer/developer/publisher has any leagal problems with used games being sold. if they did, you can bet your as someone (everyone) would be sued. They haven't been, so obviously every lawyer that works for said companies knows nothing illegal is goin on with used non-pirated games.

Piracy and used games are simply not the same. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. <shrugs>

-Rob


I agree fully I honestly think that you are definitly correct on this

otherwise I think this topic is just nosense mainly because used games don't equal piracy

Stealing a game than copying it for alot of people equal piracy

[jajaja]

This is strange, I though about the exact same thing some weeks ago and now someone wrote an article on it.

What you say is true. If you buy a burned copy of GTA3 or buy it used on Ebay the makers wont make any profit from that sale. But as probly mentioned before in this topic, its not illegal to sell a used copy, but its illegal to sell a pirated copy. That is the only diffrence.

[goatdan]

This is strange, I though about the exact same thing some weeks ago and now someone wrote an article on it.

What you say is true. If you buy a burned copy of GTA3 or buy it used on Ebay the makers wont make any profit from that sale. But as probly mentioned before in this topic, its not illegal to sell a used copy, but its illegal to sell a pirated copy. That is the only diffrence.

*sigh* The exact same thing?

So the only difference between buying a house that was already made and breaking into one to live out of it is that it is illegal to break into the house?

From what I've learned over the last year, that sure isn't the only difference. Could you explain otherwise? Otherwise, piracy is in no way, shape or form anything like selling a used item, be it game, house or car.

[unwinddesign]

This is strange, I though about the exact same thing some weeks ago and now someone wrote an article on it.

What you say is true. If you buy a burned copy of GTA3 or buy it used on Ebay the makers wont make any profit from that sale. But as probly mentioned before in this topic, its not illegal to sell a used copy, but its illegal to sell a pirated copy. That is the only diffrence.

No. Because with a burned copy, no one got paid for it in the beginning. With the burned copy, the game is "multiplying" and being distributed. Every used game starts out as a new game. When you buy a used game, it doesn't "multiply" in addition to the new ones; it was once a new one as well.

Basically, by creating a burned game, you're adding another one to the "market" that no one was paid for. With a used game, only one person can own it at once -- a million different people can't.

Piracy is a violation of intellectual property, the EULA, the system usage policy, and a host of other things as well.

[lendelin]

The only difference between a used game sold over and over again and allowing making duplicates of one source is unlimited reproduction of a product which would inflate the market, make distribution with profit impossible and therefore destroy an industry.

The difference between the two for the manufacturer is indeed minimal in the short run.

BUT: one game over and over sold 500 times still remains ONE game which the developer/publisher/manufacturer can prize to cover costs and make a profit. (same for a house or couch) However, one game duplicated 500 times, with each again duplicated 500 times, (unlike a house or a couch) no control over costs, estimated profits or the number of products is possible; except the single source or very limited sources are prized very high, licensed and sublicensed and then sub-distributed. If not, games would become freeware. The industry as we know it would become extinct.

No matter which kind of different distribution models we are talking about in the future, one thing has to remain: cost control, reasonable estimations of margins through licensed distribution models.

The difference between a used game sold and re-sold 100 times and making 100 legal copies of the game doesn't so much affect the individual actor in the marketplace in its cost calculation, it affects the marketplace as a whole by making these cost calculations for everyone impossible by inflating it with a huge amount of products.

[jajaja]

This is strange, I though about the exact same thing some weeks ago and now someone wrote an article on it.

What you say is true. If you buy a burned copy of GTA3 or buy it used on Ebay the makers wont make any profit from that sale. But as probly mentioned before in this topic, its not illegal to sell a used copy, but its illegal to sell a pirated copy. That is the only diffrence.

*sigh* The exact same thing?

So the only difference between buying a house that was already made and breaking into one to live out of it is that it is illegal to break into the house?

From what I've learned over the last year, that sure isn't the only difference. Could you explain otherwise? Otherwise, piracy is in no way, shape or form anything like selling a used item, be it game, house or car.

You cant say its not true, because it is. If you buy a pirated PS2 game in Thailand or buy it used on Ebay the people wont make any money from that sale. Thats all im saying.



No. Because with a burned copy, no one got paid for it in the beginning.

Well.. it depends. I guess the people who put it out on the internet have bought the copy themself.
But all I'm saying is that if you download a game or buy it used on Ebay (or elsewere) the producers of the game wont make any money on you.

[Captain Wrong]

This is strange, I though about the exact same thing some weeks ago and now someone wrote an article on it.

What you say is true. If you buy a burned copy of GTA3 or buy it used on Ebay the makers wont make any profit from that sale. But as probly mentioned before in this topic, its not illegal to sell a used copy, but its illegal to sell a pirated copy. That is the only diffrence.

*sigh* The exact same thing?

So the only difference between buying a house that was already made and breaking into one to live out of it is that it is illegal to break into the house?

From what I've learned over the last year, that sure isn't the only difference. Could you explain otherwise? Otherwise, piracy is in no way, shape or form anything like selling a used item, be it game, house or car.

You cant say its not true, because it is.

Umm...no it's not. For one thing, and this is a MAJOR POINT everyone seems to be ignoring, your hypothetical burned copy of GTA3 isn't going to play on my real world un-modded PS2. You're not getting the art work or a pressed and legal cd. In other words, YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE SAME THING. Not even close.

The developer already got their money. They got it when the store put in the order for GTA3 in the first place. Selling a used game isn't creating a new product out of thin air. There's no new thing being traded here that a gaming company is not getting their cut on. They already got what was due them in the initial transaction.

I think this is the 4th or 5th time someone has made that point in this thread, yet people just ignore it. *shrug*

Like I said in the other thread, if you're against used games, don't buy them. More for me.

[kevincure]

What is with all this talk of "EULA, system usage policy, etc."? Why do we care? First of all, the vast majority of EULA and "system usage policy" terms are not legally enforceable. Let me give an exampe: textbook publishers print "Not authorized for sale outside of Singapore, India, Nepal", for instance, on the cover of a "soft-cover" textbook. These books are the same as the US version but much cheaper. Does that mean it's illegal for us to buy them in the US? No. It's meaningless drivel intended to scare the ignorant from buying the books. The same is true for "system usage policies," etc.

Throughout the history of copyright, IP holders have attempted to outlaw used sales. In 1908, a famous case went to the Supreme Court after a bookseller wrote "This book cannot be resold" on the cover, and attempted to sue used booksellers. The Court ruled that there was the "principle of second sale" in copyright, which means that once the good is sold once, the copyright holder can no longer tell you what to do with it. Sell it, give it away, whatever.

Today, the copyright holders are more clever. What you can't get the law to do, you ought use technology to do. Why do you think the IP industry is so hyped about online distribution? Have you tried reselling your iTunes song, or you game bought on Steam?

[Ed Oscuro]

Piracy doesn't support the scene at all.

That said, I'm loath to buy used games unless they're from a generation or two ago. I got burned, pretty much, when I bought a used Resident Evil (GC) at GameStop (read errors, argh), even though it was cheap.

The article gets the predicament GameStop in perfectly right; I often go there to browse but I just can't bring myself to pay their outrageous prices (or at any other big box retailer, at that). I can go to Amazon, to eBay, or our own B&S Forum, and if I find what I want it'll be cheaper and in perfect condition.

[Tan]

companies like Microsoft, Nintendo etc. do benefit from used game sales, people are just not seeing the bigger picture here.

read any article about places like gamestop or EB and you'll see that used games fuel their businesses, half or better of their profits come from buying used game A for $5 store credit and reselling it for double or triple. this in turn keeps the stores open which in turn allows publishers a nationwide chain of retailers that they can sell their products from, not to mention a place where faulty or broken hardware finds it way and is refurbished. i.e. $20 in store credit for a broken ps2. Sony is just happy that they didn't have to re-market, refurbish a small % of those systems because EB did, meanwhile Mr. Gamer buys a refurb console and new games alongside used ones. making both company and retailer happy.

besides the ripple effects like "buy game A used, love it so much bought game B new at release day"

and the ever popular "buy game A used, seen game B beside it new, so bought both"

[jajaja]

Umm...no it's not. For one thing, and this is a MAJOR POINT everyone seems to be ignoring, your hypothetical burned copy of GTA3 isn't going to play on my real world un-modded PS2. You're not getting the art work or a pressed and legal cd. In other words, YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE SAME THING. Not even close.


If one guy buys the game originaly from store for $40 and sell it used to someone for $30, do you mean that the industry makes $70?

Maybe I wasnt to clear to describe what my point was, but Im only talking about buying and the profeting. What you say about modchip is needed is true, but that wasnt my point. It was simply that the industry doesnt make direct profit from you if you buy a game used. The money goes straight to the seller, not a dime goes to Nintendo, Sony, Sega etc.. And in my opinion this can kinda be compared to piracy.
But if you mean this isnt true I would like to hear why :)

[john_soper]

The best thing for the game industry is to require each citizen by law to buy a copy of each new game.

There is no such law because the property rights of people to keep their money takes precedence over the rights of game companies to profit on their work.

The next best thing would be for games to only be sold once and never resold.

There is no such law because the property rights of people (or gamestores) to keep or sell items they legally own takes precedence over the rights of game companies to profit on their work.

The next best thing would be for games to only be produced by the manufacter, so the game companies profit on each copy in existence.

This is the law because the rights of game companies to profit on their work takes precedence over the right of consumers to mass produce items they own as a single liscense sale.

I stop at red lights, even if no other car or person in sight. Even though its an identical situation as a green light, the law should be obeyed.

[FantasiaWHT]

The best thing for the game industry is to require each citizen by law to buy a copy of each new game.

There is no such law because the property rights of people to keep their money takes precedence over the rights of game companies to profit on their work.

The next best thing would be for games to only be sold once and never resold.

There is no such law because the property rights of people (or gamestores) to keep or sell items they legally own takes precedence over the rights of game companies to profit on their work.

The next best thing would be for games to only be produced by the manufacter, so the game companies profit on each copy in existence.

This is the law because the rights of game companies to profit on their work takes precedence over the right of consumers to mass produce items they own as a single liscense sale.

I stop at red lights, even if no other car or person in sight. Even though its an identical situation as a green light, the law should be obeyed.

Very well said

[goatdan]

The best thing for the game industry is to require each citizen by law to buy a copy of each new game.

There is no such law because the property rights of people to keep their money takes precedence over the rights of game companies to profit on their work.

The next best thing would be for games to only be sold once and never resold.

There is no such law because the property rights of people (or gamestores) to keep or sell items they legally own takes precedence over the rights of game companies to profit on their work.

The next best thing would be for games to only be produced by the manufacter, so the game companies profit on each copy in existence.

This is the law because the rights of game companies to profit on their work takes precedence over the right of consumers to mass produce items they own as a single liscense sale.

I stop at red lights, even if no other car or person in sight. Even though its an identical situation as a green light, the law should be obeyed.

Great post. Exactly right on all accounts and the best said so far.

And by the way, there could be the option for games to be only sold once and never resold through a "marrying" scheme much like the thing Sony patented for whatever reason. If such a thing were to happen, it would be up to the company to try to market it. Anyone remember when it was DVD versus DIVX (if I recall correctly?), the format where the players cost less than DVD players and the movies only cost a couple bucks... but you had to pay for it again each time you saw it? It didn't take off. Could it have? Yes -- but the marketing of it was wrong, and consumers wanted to buy something they could actually own. Could it work in the future? Yes. But whomever does it would face an uphill battle... one that is much bigger than allowing people to resell used games.

[calthaer]

A better title for the thread might possibly be:

"Being down on used game sales = idiocy?"

[Ed Oscuro]

The best thing for the game industry is to require each citizen by law to buy a copy of each new game.
This is one of the most meaningless sentences I've read in...a while. Yes, pigs should fly, too.


There is no such law because the property rights of people to keep their money takes precedence over the rights of game companies to profit on their work.

The next best thing would be for games to only be sold once and never resold.

There is no such law because the property rights of people (or gamestores) to keep or sell items they legally own takes precedence over the rights of game companies to profit on their work.

The next best thing would be for games to only be produced by the manufacter, so the game companies profit on each copy in existence.

This is the law because the rights of game companies to profit on their work takes precedence over the right of consumers to mass produce items they own as a single liscense sale.

I stop at red lights, even if no other car or person in sight. Even though its an identical situation as a green light, the law should be obeyed.
Bah.

Look, this is and isn't rocket science, so let's keep it as simple as possible, but also try to grasp the fundamentals of the situation. Slowly working through a formula up to a climax (!) might work in some creative writing assignment, but unfortunately you didn't really say anything until the last few paragraphs. The laws are in place to protect copyright owners' ability to control production of their work, while letting people transfer assets they came by legally.

If developers want to break out of the cycle, they should consider alternative distribution (via a Steam-style service, or perhaps the Live! Arcade). That's really all you have to know. It provides an elegant solution, as you're simply paying for a ticket to the experience, like a virtual theater (and goodness knows those preshow trivia screens, like a demo download or Steam update, can drag on forever). There's nothing to actually transfer from one person to the other - unless, as with Eve Online or the Xbox 360 online marketplace (still a rumor?), the developers want people to actually have "things" to possess and transfer.

Game shops such as GameStop and EB do provide a service, but they're simply middlemen. That doesn't mean they are a scourge of society, however; they remain in business because they provide a useful service.

Software companies are complaining because these are hard times for developers, and because there is (for computer games, and now next-gen consoles with internet access allowing hotfixes and player rankings/services, to say nothing of phone help) a persistent cost of providing support. We're all familiar with paying for tech support, or going online to find answers, as savvy gamers should be, but for the legions of clueless people out there, bugging an online forum (without reading the FAQ) or simply calling up tech support are the two obvious answers.

Books are a different matter because it's easy to write a book and get it published - easy! (It might not be very professional looking, but again, nearly anybody can meet the minimum for publishing, especially with online services like those that just put out the PlayStation book). Secondly, while there is a resale busines for books, it doesn't hurt publishers because most books can sit on a shelf for years and the content will remain as relevant as ever (this isn't true in some areas, like textbooks where publishers are waging a war on students by pumping out new editions every year to ensure students won't keep the same book in circulation more than a few years, knocking the publisher out of the picture).

[jajaja]

Selling used games = legal
Selling pirated games = illegal

That should be clear, but isnt this thread about that the industry doesnt profit from games that are being sold used? Thats the way i understand it atleast.

A extra note to what I said earlier in case I didnt write it well, I didnt compare an original product with a pirated product. I only compared the factor that the industry doesnt make any direct money on a private sale of a used game.

[Ed Oscuro]

A extra note to what I said earlier in case I didnt write it well, I didnt compare an original product with a pirated product. I only compared the factor that the industry doesnt make any direct money on a private sale of a used game.
A game company should only be able to sell the media once (first sale rights). They're entitled to go with another method of distribution, like digital only (or read-once discs, just so long as it's made clear what they're doing...this would be disastrous for the rep, though. There's also Valve's cd-key transfer fee, which I believe the EU forced them to drop in some territories...)

[Half Japanese]

blah blah blah blah

This has all been done before with music, movies, etc. It is your RIGHT to sell what you own regardless of whether or not the original manufacturer sees jack shit off of it.

All of you "it hurts the industry!" types should stick to buying new copies and sending the company a peace offering every time the temptation to buy a used game is too great (just for fun, make it the difference between a new and a used copy). I find it even more ironic that this is a site for collectors (and even those that don't, but collectors make up a huge part of this site) and that most of the things some of you prize so greatly aren't even available new anymore. What then, huh? Do you stick to your ridiculously fundamentalist guns or do you defect to the dark side?

As for those that have compared the buying and selling of used games to outright piracy, well, that's just retarded. Helmet-with-a-chinstrap, puddin'-eatin', bed-shitting retarded.

[Eternal Champion]

The way I see it is if a legitimate copy is continuously circulated through the used game market is still makes a variable of one game. So that means that only one used game that has already played its part in earning money for the makers is in circulation. Now were talking about a used game so you can't have it in two places at once regardless of how many times it is resold. On the other hand burned copies can be made and distributed at high increments thus that many have the game. It would take much longer for a used game to reach that height. So what's the difference in original profit you ask? Nothing this is true, but in the long run burned copies hurt the industry much worse. Used games bring profit to video game retailers therefore adding strength to the industry if you would include them. So basically a used copy might hurt the sales of a game but at a much slower pace than that of a burned copy, since in theory those burned games can keep multiplying causing a greater affect on the makers.
Your post finally made this all click into place in my head. Thanks.

But what about for out-of-print games/books/DVDs/CDs/whatever? Any legit copy I buy will not profit the publisher, or, some cases, the publisher doesn't even exist any more. I see no harm in, for example, downloading a copy (as opposed to paying for a pirated copy), as I can't buy a legit copy. If I could, I would.

[Ed Oscuro]

I see no harm in, for example, downloading a copy (as opposed to paying for a pirated copy), as I can't buy a legit copy. If I could, I would.
One of the dilemmas that comes up, yes. With emulation, there's often no actual benefit to owning a real copy.

Legally, you're supposed to buy a legit copy. The benefit to publishers is that consumers aren't allowed to create copies of games, and (theoretically) if the publisher sees fit to reprint the work, then people will have no alternative but to buy the reprint (or an original).

[keiblerfan69]

Well the company already made profit off it so it doesn't really matter.

[Biff_McFresh]

The way I see it is if a legitimate copy is continuously circulated through the used game market is still makes a variable of one game. So that means that only one used game that has already played its part in earning money for the makers is in circulation. Now were talking about a used game so you can't have it in two places at once regardless of how many times it is resold. On the other hand burned copies can be made and distributed at high increments thus that many have the game. It would take much longer for a used game to reach that height.

Precisely.

[Eternal Champion]

I see no harm in, for example, downloading a copy (as opposed to paying for a pirated copy), as I can't buy a legit copy. If I could, I would.Legally, you're supposed to buy a legit copy. The benefit to publishers is that consumers aren't allowed to create copies of games, and (theoretically) if the publisher sees fit to reprint the work, then people will have no alternative but to buy the reprint (or an original).
I see your point. I just ask because some old (well, mid-late 90s) PC games are out of print, the publisher still has the copyright (Thief and Eidos, for example, but the developer is long gone), but used copies are hard to find, and prohibitively expensive if you can find them (Thief Gold on amazon--just look).

So "abandonware" isn't really legal, right?

Btw, Quake is still being "published": downloadable from ID for a hefty price. I don't understand why more publishers don't do this; Lucasfilm and old Star Wars games, for example.

[Ed Oscuro]

I just ask because some old (well, mid-late 90s) PC games are out of print, the publisher still has the copyright (Thief and Eidos, for example, but the developer is long gone), but used copies are hard to find, and prohibitively expensive if you can find them (Thief Gold on amazon--just look).
From $31 new and used...not as expensive as the Prima guide, though (over $45!)


So "abandonware" isn't really legal, right?
'Course not. However, that doesn't mean some companies or individuals won't deliberately look the other way, and that's pretty common. They don't want to officially make the titles freeware because they feel there's a chance they might rerelease stuff, port the games someday to GBA, PSP, or whatever.


Btw, Quake is still being "published": downloadable from ID for a hefty price. I don't understand why more publishers don't do this; Lucasfilm and old Star Wars games, for example.
Yes, and I believe 3D Realms still offers some sidescrollers for download...same might be true of certain Commander Keen titles, as well.

[sabre2922]

First: the game publishers (those are the ones that actually make/press the cds or DVDs/ package and release the games to stores) make their money from the actual stores and chains-like Walmart- that buy whatever number of copies of the games that they think they might sale.

In all respect its funny that ppl think that the profits from a new copy of any certain video game they buy from the store goes straight to the game company developer or publisher of that game :roll:
Sure if the store sells more copies of the game they will be more inclined to order more new copies so in affect yeah a few ppl playing burned games could cause them to sale 4 or 5 less copies but thats it.

If it is still a popular game say GOD OF WAR for example the store or chain is going to continue to order or get as many copies as possible while the game is hot therefore the publisher is making the $$$ a few hundred burned copies that some geeks are passing around or selling to each other isnt going to make Sony step back and say NOW WERE FUCKED we should have sold exactly 120 more copies of this game ITS ALL OVER lets just go back to making a new walkman for the 1 billionth time and just forget about this whole videogame buisness LOL nor is Sony going to knock on your door and give you a wad of cash and an expensive hooker for the night for being a loyal and law abiding gamer and say thanks for not buying that burned copy of god of war from your 40 year old virgin buddy :evil:

Anyway burning CDs/DVDs does hurt the profits that a game might make but not enough so that it would make a combo publisher/developer company like Capcom or Konami go under.
Now does that make it wrong or right? well thats up to each individual do decide for himself or herself.
I personally dont give a fuck either way although I dont buy or make burned games.

All the tech-geeks on the net rant about how the ease of copying or burning Dreamcast games helped push Sega into the red and doomed the DC and all that shit and they go on and on about what a big effect it has on everything when in fact it has very little effect in the overall aspect of the videogame industry as a whole.

Even if someone went to the trouble of burning and selling 5000 copies of a game like RE4 do you think Capcom would suddenly throw in the towel and start making adult diapers or something? fuck no its ridiculous to think that a few thousand tech geeks can crash an industry as large as the videogame industry is right now just by copying some popular games here and there.

[Yamazaki]

5000 copies? Come on, get serious!

How many young people in say Russia are playing games? A lot more than 5000. And probably 90% of them play illegal copies.

you can also see this like a snowball effect. one russian guy burns ,lets say, Quake 4 and gives it to a kid, that kid gives copies to 5 other kids etc etc
and even faster with Internet.

[sabre2922]

5000 copies? Come on, get serious!

How many young people in say Russia are playing games? A lot more than 5000. And probably 90% of them play illegal copies.

you can also see this like a snowball effect. one russian guy burns ,lets say, Quake 4 and gives it to a kid, that kid gives copies to 5 other kids etc etc
and even faster with Internet.

RUSSIA?

umm yeah Im sure that 1 in every 6 kids (or adults for that matter) in Russia has a PC capable of burning new PC and PS2 games :roll:

Man some ppl on here seem to think that the whole fucking world is a bunch of rich tech geeks hell bent on getting or burning as many illegal copies of any PC/console games as possible x_x

[Yamazaki]

I lived in Turkey, and I know how many kids and adults play pc games. and many of them cant afford to have the newest games.
but there are special stores that sell nothing but copied games. same in hongkong and russia. its not that everyone has a cd-writer pc etc

but a lot of them have access to bootlegs.

[Ed Oscuro]

In all respect its funny that ppl think that the profits from a new copy of any certain video game they buy from the store goes straight to the game company developer or publisher of that game :roll:
That's true. Bungie (back in 1996, when they were their own company) put out an article about the Mac software business. One thing that was always a problem for them was retailers not paying for copies of games sent out until they wanted more sent! Thus, they'd be a whole shipment behind in payment. Not good.

Yamazaki's right, piracy works just like that on the other side of the globe. Piracy is unfortunately pretty huge.

[Eternal Champion]

RUSSIA?

umm yeah Im sure that 1 in every 6 kids (or adults for that matter) in Russia has a PC capable of burning new PC and PS2 games :roll:
Why is that so unbelievable? Piracy is HUGE in Russia. The point is not that so many people have computers with burners, but that there is organised reproduction and selling of pirated games and DVDs (allegedly with organised crime involvement).

[rbudrick]

You know, I just remembered something. Back in the 80s, Nintendo sued Blockbuster (I believe it was BB)for renting games, claiming it was illegal. Blockbuster won that one. I wish I had more details on the case. Maybe it would close this thread.

-Rob

[Tan]

As the Nintendo Entertainment System grew in popularity and entered millions of American homes, some small video stores fed their registers some extra profit by buying their own copies of Nintendo games, and renting them out to customers who paid a fraction of the game's original price to play it for a few days. Nintendo received no profit from the practice beyond the initial cost of their game, and unlike video cassette rentals, a hot game could be put up for sale and for rent on the same day. Nintendo took steps to stop game rentals, but they didn't come out roaring until Blockbuster Video began to make game rentals a large-scale service. Nintendo lost the lawsuit, however; the only thing Blockbuster could be nailed for was including original, copyrighted instruction booklets with their rented games. Blockbuster simply switched over to photocopied booklets, or handed out a card that explained the game's basic premise and controls to the player. Despite threats to rental kiosks and retailers who sold multiple copies of certain games, video game rentals were free to prosper, and still do.

[Tan]

http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=1&cId=3146206

there's the link if anyone is interested

[goatdan]

You know, I just remembered something. Back in the 80s, Nintendo sued Blockbuster (I believe it was BB)for renting games, claiming it was illegal. Blockbuster won that one. I wish I had more details on the case. Maybe it would close this thread.

There were a few. First, Nintendo sued Blockbuster / video rental chains for renting out games contending it could hurt their game sales. The courts decided that Nintendo didn't have much of a case.

A short period later, Nintendo sued Blockbuster for making photocopies of the manuals in an attempt for them to stop rentals. Nintendo won that one for copyright infringement, and that's why rental places either give our the original manual, shortened versions or none at all to this day.

[Nature Boy]

The most interesting fact in that article, to me, was pointing out how short the shelf life for a new game is as compared to a piece of music or a novel is say.

The only way I could see that being transferred to the games industry would be for there to be one type of console to buy (like the3DO, where the technology is licensed to MS/Sony/Nintendo/whomever and everybody manufactures their own machines with whatever extra gadgets they want to add) and future machines remain backwards compatible to the present day.

I don't see it happening of course but it's an interesting thought.