More game developers whining about used games... - by lost_soul
Nameless Voice on 19/5/2011 at 12:36
Because films are more accessible to a larger audience, so more people will see it.
The "games are too expensive" argument comes up a lot, but I don't really see it. Games are a very cheap and cost-effective form of entertainment. Here in Ireland, a large number of people (especially young people / students) like to go out drinking regularly. They will think nothing of spending €50-100 to get so drunk that they don't even remember what they did that night, and have nothing but a hangover to show for it. A good game lasts far longer than a single night, (generally) costs less, can be replayed, and will leave you with good memories of the fun you had while playing it.
DaBeast on 19/5/2011 at 15:28
So now you want to remove any rights at all for the consumer?
If I buy flowers for X and sell it for Y, the original seller has no right to come back to me. It was sold to me for a fair price and I sold it for what I felt was fair too.
Fair trade mofo's.
Nameless Voice on 19/5/2011 at 15:50
You're forgetting that, however much we like to think otherwise, software is licensed, not bought. You're buying permission to use it, not actual ownership of the product yourself. The arguments about comparisons with physical items like flowers is flawed, because that bunch of flowers only exists once, it isn't a perfect copy of what is basically the implementation of an idea.
Eh, I don't care. Go buy second-hand games or pirate them or whatever. Just don't fool yourself into thinking it does the developers of the games any good.
It can still be argued that it doesn't do the developers any good anyway, as they're more likely to get wages/salaries from the publisher rather than any actual percentage of the profits from the sales but, on the other hand, said publishers might be inclined to continue paying those salaries for longer to developers from whose work they can make money.
Buying indie games direct from the developers, or through digital distribution, is probably the best way to actually support developers. The same doesn't quite equate with large AAA development houses.
DaBeast on 19/5/2011 at 16:01
I'm not forgetting, thats why I mentioned rights.
But I'm not selling the data, I'm just selling the container and my right to play it, since I don't have that game anymore, I can't play it.
The millions spent researching and developing a really nice car is as much an implementation of an idea as a game. Maybe it won't stay in perfect condition like a game/data, but it costs fuck all to mass produce that data, unlike a car.
Nameless Voice on 19/5/2011 at 16:26
I do get what you're saying in terms of re-selling a product, and it makes sense in those terms, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to the question of why you buy the items.
With a car, you have to buy a car to have a car, unless you steal it, in which case someone else doesn't have that car. You're buying a car to have ownership of a car.
With a game, you can copy a game and have the game, without anyone else not having the game because of it. Therefore, the possession of the game isn't really that important. The bigger reason for buying the game is because you want to encourage the people who made it to make more like it - to achieve that, you have to support them monetarily, which buying a game second-hand doesn't do.
Sure, having that box and manual is nice, and those are physical items that you only get from a physical copy (whether first-hand, second-hand, or stolen), but those aren't the primary thing that a game is about.
The people buying the second-hand games aren't doing anything illegal, or even morally reprehensible, but that doesn't change the fact that it's pointless.
d0om on 19/5/2011 at 16:36
High-street shops already sell games at a huge markup, why not complain about half your potential revenue being stolen by shops as well as second-hand games?
Second hand game/DVD/Book sales are all fine. If you don't want a second-hand game market then don't sell physical games, just sell licenses online. (or make your game have enough longevity that people don't want to re-sell it.)
At least in the UK you are buying a game, not a license when you buy a physical thing from a shop. You might get a license as well, but you certainly own the physical media you bought and can sell it on as you wish. Games companies can make that physical media worthless without a license though, eg Half-life 2.
Renzatic on 19/5/2011 at 16:39
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
The people buying the second-hand games aren't doing anything illegal, or even morally reprehensible, but that doesn't change the fact that it's
pointless.
Pointless? No. It's the cheaper option. Some people are frugal, and don't want to spend retail prices on something they can get for a little less money.
Gamestop has muddied this point up a bit, what with their selling of boxless, manualless, disc scratched all to hell games for 5 dollars less than a brand new copy. But that still doesn't change the fact that the used media market is all about some people getting what they want for a little less, and others getting a return on your initial investment. Not pointless at all.
Nameless Voice on 19/5/2011 at 16:46
Pointless with regards to my stated purpose of buying games in the first place: to support the developers.
Then again, all my points only relate to actually good games. It's all moot if the games are rubbish anyway.
DaBeast on 19/5/2011 at 16:54
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
I do get what you're saying in terms of re-selling a product, and it makes sense in those terms, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to the question of
why you buy the items.
With a car, you have to buy a car to have a car, unless you steal it, in which case someone else doesn't have that car. You're buying a car to have ownership of a car.
With a game, you can copy a game and have the game, without anyone else not having the game because of it. Therefore, the possession of the game isn't really that important. The bigger reason for buying the game is because you want to encourage the people who made it to make more like it - to achieve that, you have to support them monetarily, which buying a game second-hand doesn't do.
True, I buy a game full price, maybe even pre-ordered because I want to support the developers, but its still just a product, my life will go on without it. It isn't a charity where if I and others like me fail to donate full price to a developer they will get aids and die.
The problem stems from publishers having way too much control, they should be just a publishing group, people who front money for the publication of a book/game/movie and recover those costs + profit on sales. They have lobbyists buying laws to give them even more control of the product when its in the buyers hands and its only going to get worse.
When a product is sold, regardless of whether it is a digital media or not, it has been sold, the seller gets the profit, the buyer gets the item. That should be the end of the interaction between seller and buyer. It's been like that since trading began.
Why should the original seller get to have a say on what happens to that product in the long term after its been sold? So the developer doesn't get dumped by the publisher?
If I copy the game and don't pay for it, thats piracy. While the publisher may not be at a direct loss since I was never going to buy the game to begin with, thats irrelevant to this discussion since we're talking about resales. If I borrow a game from a friend, is that not also a form of piracy?
How far do you want to go?
* Buy a game that features split screen multiplayer.
* Invite a friend around to play the game with you
* Oh no, your friend didn't support the developer by buying the game...
Would you prefer this situation, which leads to:
* Realise you have to get your friend to pay for an account before he can actually play.
* Friend goes home.
I think a bigger issue is the discussion about the concept of ownership of ideas and how thats misused into generating profit and prohibiting the expression of art.
Nameless Voice on 19/5/2011 at 16:59
The fact that publishers have way too much control is certainly a major factor. To be honest, if it were possible, I'd rather pirate all games and give the money I'd have paid for them directly to the developers. I can't imagine that going down particularly well, though. Games are just way too "big business" these days, and it certainly does stifle innovation and creativity.
Publishers, generally, in all forms of creative media (games, music, books) are often nothing more than leeches feeding off the artistic merit of others while letting them reap little of the benefits from their endeavours. But, at the end of the day, there's not much we can do to change that situation.
My main point remains that if you really want to support the developers of a game, you should buy it new - nothing else really helps them much.
