ercles on 14/12/2008 at 01:50
Yeah totally, I think we are mixing up our arguments here. I really don't think that many people would try and defend game pirating, beyond "fuck greedy developers they got what was coming to them". But I don't understand why re-sale is such an issue, realistically it's not like you are making any profits off selling your second hand games. In the music industry, some companies have actually started to endorse ticket scalping companies so that they can make some money off the market, surely this approach is more constructive than what the games industry is doing right now.
Phatose on 14/12/2008 at 01:51
And you can do anything you want to the physical CD you bought with the game, no lawyers involved. Look at it, beat off on it, shove it up your ass, no one cares.
BEAR on 14/12/2008 at 02:20
I don't think you quite get the argument if you can't understand the audi analogy.
fett on 14/12/2008 at 02:40
Quote Posted by Phatose
And you can do anything you want to the physical CD you bought with the game, no lawyers involved. Look at it, beat off on it, shove it up your ass, no one cares.
Let me spell this out for you:
Not being able to re-sell a game you purchased outright is the same as and not being able to re-sell a car that you bought. In both cases, the *actual* intellectual property, nor the development secrets of the company are being sold. All the discussion about licenses is legalese noise to excuse companies from developing a product that works and everyone knows it, so cut the bullshit.
Fafhrd on 14/12/2008 at 02:54
Quote Posted by ercles
But I don't understand why re-sale is such an issue, realistically it's not like you are making any profits off selling your second hand games.
The Audi analogy is broken, though. Companies that sell used games make around 200% profit (buy back a used game for 15 dollars, turn around and re-sell it for 45. Same game new goes for 50) by selling them, and none of that goes to the original developers or publishers.
The profit margin for used car sales is what? 20% tops (and I'm probably being massively over-generous there)? And when you factor in that for maintenance on a used vehicle, you still have to buy parts from the original manufacturer, used cars continue to make money. Short of charging for patches, there's no way publishers will ever see another dime past the initial sale in the way that auto manufacturers do.
RavynousHunter on 14/12/2008 at 04:15
In the end, it's almost the same as the anti-piracy malware they force-feed us in our games. Its a bunch of pretentious bullshit they spew out because they feel victimized by the "evil pirates." The "evil pirates" stop being evil when their versions work better than the fucking RETAIL versions; in the end, the pirates (more times than not) end up peddling a better quality product than the people who actually made the damn game.
Assholes that try to fuck over second-hand game buyers, such as myself, need to go die in a fucking fire, 'nuff said. :mad:
Phatose on 14/12/2008 at 04:26
Quote Posted by fett
Let me spell this out for you:
Not being able to re-sell a game you purchased outright is the same as and not being able to re-sell a car that you bought. In both cases, the *actual* intellectual property, nor the development secrets of the company are being sold. All the discussion about licenses is legalese noise to excuse companies from developing a product that works and everyone knows it, so cut the bullshit.
Right.
So, if it's not the intellectual property of the developers, and it's not a license, what the fuck is that game you 'outright bought'?
BlackCapedManX on 14/12/2008 at 04:46
I may be alone here, but I think the idea of "used" software is ridiculous. Software doesn't degrade, and when you buy a game, you're not buying "stuff" you're buying IP usage. The problem with saying that games are like, say, cars, is that once you put a car in your garage, it doesn't come with all of the plans and parts to build a second one at no cost to the driver, and if you buy a used car it's not like you can put a new paint job on it and have all of the internal workings just as good as when it was made (or in fact better, if the car company has "patched" the car and is sending out new engines for free.)
I personally don't think I've ever bought a used PC game, and the only used console games I buy are when they're old and obscure enough that I can't find new ones (basically the entire Armored Core series.) To continue the car analogy, if you buy a used car, you can't go to the parent company and say "hey, I want a new factory warrentee," because they don't owe you jack shit because you didn't buy it from them. The PC gaming industry is trying to do the same thing with DRM, essentially arbitrarily laying down rulesets so that digital media can have the same restrictions in distribution that's inherently a part of physical property. Is it bullshit? Maybe. Do the development/distribution companies have the right to put shit like that on their software? Of course, it's their software, you agree to buy whatever comes with it, and the only say you get is by not buying the games.
I can forsee a furture where nearly all PC gaming is distributed through a system like Steam, because from a producer's standpoint it neatly wraps up all of the problems with digital media. It may be more of a pain in the ass than just having the software untouched on your harddrive, but buying insurance is also a pain in the ass and you can't drive a car with out it. Requiring you to have internet access so it's assured you own the game is like Valve's way of making you "pay" insurance, rather than merely jacking up the cost to cover all of the games that have been pirated (which, if you really wanted a totally DRM free world, would be the end result: more expensive games.)
It's like all the talk around NYC about raising subway tickets (possibly even to $3.50.) Sure it's stupid dumb to have to pay seven dollars to get anywhere an back, but that may be the bottom line cost, to ensure MTA isn't running at a deficeit. We're just not used to paying that, so from our perspective it doesn't seem fair, but the people who are watching the operating cost vs. income ratios may be seeing things we aren't. Similarly we may not be used to, or may not even like extensive or prohibitive DRM, but the industry (clearly) has been looking at its costs and saying "we have to do something about pirating" and someone (the gamer) ends up paying for those operating costs.
Aja on 14/12/2008 at 08:27
I don't buy used games because I actually want to support the industry that supplies my hobby. That, and the fact that trading in used games is pretty high up there on the list of things that make one feel worthless and expendable.
The used-game market is despicable, from both a retailer and consumer standpoint. Cheers to Epic for providing a free map pack to those who bought a retail copy of Gears 2.
doctorfrog on 14/12/2008 at 08:29
From Ars Technica, this may be the 'crackdown' that the OP was talking about (it was news to me):
(
http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/12/04/atari-calls-used-game-sales-extremely-painful)
"Atari calls used game sales "extremely painful". Echoing an increasingly popular sentiment amongst big-name publishers, Atari has called out the second-hand game market. Apparently, used games are killing the industry, and Atari will be one of many publishers seeking to contain the used sales of its games."
