Developers view old used games as similar to piracy

[ComputerSpaceFan]

Okay as Atari fans, I'm sure you all have some opinions on this.

 

I was reading this article that talked about how game developers don't see a dime in used game sales and so, from their point of view, they "can't figure out how buying a used game was any better than piracy".

 

I call B.S. on that philosophy.

 

I totally agree that developers deserve their hard-earned cash for making an awesome game and I will definitely buy the product without hesitation (most recently Red Dead Redemption was my cherished purchase). The article goes on to mention that, unlike movies or music, there is no secondary market for the creators to make revenue, for example no tours, no extra merchandising, etc. so the disc or cartridge or digital download is their one and only way to profit from their work and places like GameStop reselling a used game hurts developer business models.

 

I would just like to say I'm sorry to the game makers, but in my opinion video games are not perishable items that need to be shredded when they are past their "best before" date on the store shelves. Games are experiences that can go on giving year after year, in the case of Atari, decade after decade, and buyers of these games should have the right to purchase anything, even if it is not new, without being labelled part of the problem.

 

And I say to them don't go pointing the finger at GameStop or eBay or Craig's List as vendors of illicit goods either. People want to play games from different eras, titles that just don't exist as new releases anymore and stuff that stores won't carry. Few retailers still carry GameCube games nevermind something actually old like Genesis or Atari. Where is a gamer to go?

 

Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now and prepare myself for a flurry of developer-defending, but while I'm waiting for that, I'll just embrace my pirating ways and go to eBay to see if I can find a good USED copy of Pressure Cooker to buy without any acti-plaque on the label.

[4Ks]

Well, all the copies being sold used were once bought new. Pirated games were never purchased in the first place.

[NE146]

Well with all the 2600 collectors here, this site is full of dirty pirates.

[Goochman]

There goes the used car market - you shouldnt be able to sell old cars cause it damages the car companies ability to sell more new cars.........

 

When you buy something you own it - if they dont want a resale makre then provide things through internet distribution only on a cost per use basis - of course this model doesnt work for large scale games so they are SOL.

 

Another market who'd rather enforce bogus ways to keep revenue up vs changing with the times. The Music industry has been fighting the inevitable forever (and Im not talking about free music but the ability to buy direct per song).

[jmetal88]

Here's an article about my favorite court case involving used software sales:

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars

 

FYI, Timothy Vernor sells items on Bonanzle under the name HappyHourComics. I bought a 1050 disk drive from him and have nothing but good things to say about the transaction.

[Emehr]

I saw that article today, too, and wanted to throw up. It's incredibly ridiculous. All of these developers whining about used game sales is really putting me off modern gaming.

 

I do, however, have a solution for them: stop supporting online play! Simple. If it's costing them so much money to run servers that they can't make ends meet then they just need to chop off the problem at the source. Nix online play. No more server costs. Make players use LAN if they want multiplayer. Won't get any complaints from me, personally. I'd rather play with people I know.

 

Or maybe they should take a hint: gamers don't want to pay $60 for these games! Sure, maybe if they only put out a few games a year that would be okay but these developers are pumping out $50-$60 games left and right in a freaking recession and they start crying because Billy sold his copy and someone else bought it.

 

And getting back to this "server costs" crap. Really? You mean it costs them more money to run their servers if the game being played is a used copy? Can their servers magically detect when a used game is online? BULL. SHIT. They made their money on that copy when it was sold new. There are no more copies floating around than were sold new. If they sold 50,000 copies, there will never be more than 50,000 players online. Used copies will not make that number go up. What they want are people to throw their $60 game disc into the garbage and tell their friends to just buy it new. Sorry, foolish crybaby developers, it doesn't work that way. Maybe when they get their wishes of a total download-only hell it'll happen but until that day, they can look into my eye and ask if they see anybody in there that gives a shit.

 

And did I read that right? Is Penny Arcade supporting this bullshit?

[xg4bx]

Any artistry they actually had in their souls is long gone. They're nothing but money hungry corporate whores. Screw them, I'll give my $ to the homebrewers on AA who have passion for what they do. I don't see Stephen King bitching that people buy his books used off of Amazon.

 

If you have a hard time making a profit, start by cutting out licensed music and celebrity voice actors. I'm sure that costs a pretty penny.

Edited August 27, 2010 by xg4bx

[CGQuarterly]

I definitely agree that buying a used game is no better than pirating it, but I also don't care. I buy games because I want a physical copy of it, not because I care about it from a legal standpoint. I really do think that the manner in which GameStop operates is riding a really fine line, at least from a moral standpoint. And they are the reason that developers and suddenly all up in arms about used game sales. When you go into a GameStop to buy a game, they practically bully you into buying a used copy, convincing you not to buy a copy that will benefit the developer. Why not just chip your Xbox or whatever and pirate the game, then? Either way the developer gets screwed. Like I said, I don't really care, but I also don't blame the developers for trying to find a way to remove GS from the equation.

 

Chris

[ledzep]

Those developers who actually hold this view are retarded. Actually they're lazy, greedy and retarded. If they're not making enough money fast enough through video game sales then they should try something else, like pro sports or pop music or selling crack. Someone in that article asked the naive and dumb question "What other customers expect a used product be be identical to a new product?" People who buy used CDs and DVDs, of course.

 

The basic problem is that video game makers believe that it is their right to get paid every time something happens with their games. Nice belief system, too bad nobody else agrees with it. There is no difference between 1) me buying a game new and then selling it used and someone else buying it used, 2) me buying a game new and giving it to someone else as a gift and 3) me buying a game new and handing it down to my little brother later when I'm done with it. In all three cases the game is bought once, the developer only sees one instance of profit yet more than one person ends up eventually owning it. Yet somehow option 1 is worse to them. Simply because new money changed hands and they never saw any of it. Boo hoo. I suppose those greedy clowns think that if I buy a game and then take it to a friend's house to play that I owe them money, too.

 

It's a similar stupid philosophy in the world of autographs. I've gotten some of my Playboy mags' centerfolds (gasp!) signed by Playmates. I bought the magazine and brought it with me. Typically the Playmate charges nothing or charges $10 or so to sign it (she is there all day and many times pays to have a table at that convention so she has to recoup her expenses somehow). I'm cool with that. What I'm not cool with is the occasional model or actress or whatever who sees that some collectors resell the autographed items on their websites or on eBay for a lot of money. Let's say $50 each. "What!?!?!? That's my money! I signed that magazine, it wouldn't be worth squat without my signature!" So, what happens is some of those celebs assume that everyone is selling their autographs for huge profits and...? Right, they jack up their autograph fees. So instead of $10 or $15 for an autograph it's now $40 or more, even if it's on your own copy you brought with you and you have no intention of reselling the autographed thing. You know, because he/she is "owed". There's nothing to stop that celeb from doing the same thing the resellers do and offer the signed thing online for the same prices. Yet somehow those who think that way are indignant, they see it as some sort of thievery or scam against them. It's ridiculous.

 

And I agree about the prices, too. It was one thing when games and consoles didn't cost that much. How could they, when they were 8-bit and the games looked like animated LEGOs? Still, they weren't cheap. But now many developers think their games are movies or something, they spend so much money on 3D graphics, texturing, animation, camera moves and now they need to recoup all that expense with massive sales. All for a bunch of games that typically look great but aren't all that fun compared to the hype. If the game is really good then everyone will want it, nobody will be able to wait even a week to get it. But the problem is that too many gamers have been burned by over-hyped expensive games that aren't worth it. Used is a better way to avoid that happening again if you don't mind waiting.

[+RevEng]

The article goes on to mention that, unlike movies or music, there is no secondary market for the creators to make revenue, for example no tours, no extra merchandising, etc. so the disc or cartridge or digital download is their one and only way to profit from their work...

Movies... check.

TV Shows... check.

Books... check.

Comic Books... check.

Official Game Guides... check.

Game-Based Merchandise... check.

 

Nope. No secondary markets here!

[Emehr]

The headline should read: Developers get hostile towards gamers and blame them for their own poor, outdated business models.

[dooglehead]

When you pirate music, you receive a copy of a song. When you buy a used game, the previous owner no longer owns it.

 

Unfortunately, I think that in the future, hard copies of games will no longer be released, and therefore, there will be no used game sales and no reasonable way to preserve games.

[nightglider1]

 

 

It's a similar stupid philosophy in the world of autographs. I've gotten some of my Playboy mags' centerfolds (gasp!) signed by Playmates. I bought the magazine and brought it with me. Typically the Playmate charges nothing or charges $10 or so to sign it (she is there all day and many times pays to have a table at that convention so she has to recoup her expenses somehow). I'm cool with that. What I'm not cool with is the occasional model or actress or whatever who sees that some collectors resell the autographed items on their websites or on eBay for a lot of money. Let's say $50 each. "What!?!?!? That's my money! I signed that magazine, it wouldn't be worth squat without my signature!" So, what happens is some of those celebs assume that everyone is selling their autographs for huge profits and...? Right, they jack up their autograph fees. So instead of $10 or $15 for an autograph it's now $40 or more, even if it's on your own copy you brought with you and you have no intention of reselling the autographed thing. You know, because he/she is "owed". There's nothing to stop that celeb from doing the same thing the resellers do and offer the signed thing online for the same prices. Yet somehow those who think that way are indignant, they see it as some sort of thievery or scam against them. It's ridiculous.

 

 

 

OK, this is OT, but FWIW I manage to avoid the problem of jacked-up autograph prices by having the item personalized. There have been some occasions where the fee has been waived entirely because I: a) asked for the item(s) to be personalized and b) didn't show up with multiple copies of the same item, thus appearing to be a reseller.

 

On topic, I too get really tired of developers/publishers whining about used game sales.

[mbd30]

When you pirate music, you receive a copy of a song. When you buy a used game, the previous owner no longer owns it.

 

Unfortunately, I think that in the future, hard copies of games will no longer be released, and therefore, there will be no used game sales and no reasonable way to preserve games.

 

I've never played downloadable content on a modern console. What happens if the hard drive / console dies? Do they let you freely re-download the games you've already paid for, or do you have to purchase them all over again? Also this would suck for people who'd rather not pay for broadband internet. And as you say, it sucks in terms of preserving games. Users would have to make an effort to preserve such games beyond the point where the companies care about doing so... on private servers and such.

[Austin]

So if I get this right, these guys feel this way about used retro games?

 

*facepalm*

[4Ks]

You know, the more I think about this, the more I am reminded of...

 

[+Gemintronic]

Well, the first peeved software house the article mentions is THQ. Makers of 10 out of 10 material such as "Bratz: Super Babyz"

 

I feel sad for the guy who had to pay full price for that.

 

Joking aside the heart of a game company is the actual artists and code monkeys. Creative Director sounds like an uncreative management job to me. Out of the loop and into their own world.

 

UPDATE: Looks like they noticed their customers were less than pleased..

http://www.gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=134143

Edited August 27, 2010 by theloon

[ledzep]

Well, the first peeved software house the article mentions is THQ. Makers of 10 out of 10 material such as "Bratz: Super Babyz"

 

I feel sad for the guy who had to pay full price for that.

 

Joking aside the heart of a game company is the actual artists and code monkeys. Creative Director sounds like an uncreative management job to me. Out of the loop and into their own world.

 

UPDATE: Looks like they noticed their customers were less than pleased..

http://www.gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=134143

 

"Creative Director" is an uncreative management job, though not as bad as "Producer". But come on. "Then it gets really squishy."? Did he really say that? Is he in the 3rd grade? "Aw shucks, guys, can't you all just pay full price and let me buy a new Ferrari? I wanna hang out with Bill Gates!!" What a lame rebuttal. He wants to punish people who buy used games but he's not man enough to admit it. He acts like buying used media is a recent trend or something. Has he heard of eBay yet? Must have been a shock to the core of his being when he found out such an evil entity exists. "People... buy things used?!? You mean like this guy Craig Slist?"

[Skylark68]

There goes the used car market - you shouldnt be able to sell old cars cause it damages the car companies ability to sell more new cars.........

 

Actually, in the early '50s the new car market was in pretty bad shape and the government actually stepped in and started scrapping used cars to keep them off the market. I guess in a sense the "Cash for Clunkers" plan was basically the same thing, it kept used cars off the market from being purchased after the previous owners traded them in on new ones.

 

It would be difficult I imagine for game developers to try to require that people destroy their games once they are done with them, but who knows? I have heard rumors about games not being able to be used by 2nd owners online because of a code that would have to be entered to access online play.

[ComputerSpaceFan]

Here's a hilarious spin, according to IGN, Retailers Want Your Used Games. What will developers do now to combat Best Buy, Block Buster and Target?

[MagitekAngel]

All you dirty pirating AA'ers are just going to have to fess up, turn in your stolen cartridges, and upgrade to seventh gen consoles - all ordered directly from the manufacturers of course.

 

I'll doing my part by contacting the family in need to whom we once donated a super nintendo and ensuring that the console and cartridges are destroyed.

Edited August 27, 2010 by MagitekAngel

[Reaperman]

Here's a hilarious spin, according to IGN, Retailers Want Your Used Games. What will developers do now to combat Best Buy, Block Buster and Target?

don't forget walmart, they sell used online too

and yes, it seems that game publishers do want to undermine the profit of their own primary distributors by killing off used sales.

 

I don't know if anybody's noticed some of the insane prices that regularly pop up in the EA store, but they are well below what a retail establishment can afford to charge even on a used product. Example: $10 shipped for a new copy of dead space.

 

Sony's being a bit nicer to retailers and customers by offering some of their older games at the new $10 and $20 pricepoints. undermine used sales with kindness I suppose. I don't mind that nearly as much. There are some damn good games at those prices too. Of course with that carrot also comes the 'stick' of nerfed online for used copies of some of their newer titles.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Reaperman

[roland p]

When you sell your old games you can buy new ones.

[Crazy Climber]

The used game market is another reason why everything will be a download someday

[Jess Ragan]

I don't care what those douchebags think. It's not illegal, so they can go eat a meat twinkie. "Oh god, I'm only making millions instead of billions! The horror!"