I had this arguement a while back on another forum and I wanted to see what a different group thought.

I see it as a lost sale. That person who is playing the game and bought it used did not pay the dev team. They're playing the game and they payed the store directly.

i've heard all kinds of fluff and whatnot saying "the person might not have bought it at all" or "they might have spent that money on a movie or something instead" or "used games can generate fans and talk about a game that creates sales".

After all that is said and done (and is heresay anyway) what it all boils down to is that first used game sale. That sale, even if all those other things are correct, is still a lost sale.

In my eyes I think it's just as bad as piracy.

BUT, I'm not against used games. I own more than a few games I bought used. i just think anyone who tries to sugar coat it is lying to themselves.

I think anyone who buys a game should have a right to sell it, and game publishers are vastly exaggerating the effects of used sales (and even piracy) so that people will be more receptive to their DRM techniques.

Games are paid for when they're sold.

No developer or publisher loses money on a used game.

It's a sale and sold at a price to cover all the costs.

However because they don't gain any money on the sale of a used game the publisher asks themselves "Wow... how can I get a piece of that market"?

That's why you get stuff like "Online Passes" to act as an incentive to purchase the game new or make some further money on the product you've already sold.

Az

Is it any more detrimental than contemporary used markets?

It's not a lost sale if I never would have bought it at a retail price in the first place. Nowadays I tend to only buy games when they have insane deals on steam. Used to buy used PC games, but now I can barely find a new box in a store, let alone a used copy.

I think developers should make games that don't end up on second hand shelves after 48 hours. Second hand copies will turn up eventually, no matter how good the game is but making longer lasting games would be beneficial to both developer and customer.

Well, in the defense of the devs. They don't sell 3 year old cars new. As far as I know. Car dealerships get an inventory and sell what they have and then the next year sell those.

You can still buy a 3 year old video game if you want.

But as I said, I'm not against it.

It's impossible to determine how many people would have bought a brand new copy had the used market and/or piracy not been an alternative, so it's silly to simply call them lost sales. Regardless, I don't see it as an issue. Defending the right to sell your things is hardly sugar coating it, even for companies like GameStop.

Dev don't get paid for reselling. They don't get commission or anything substantial. It's the 2nd hand game stores that got paid. Unlike tangible products, software don't degenerates through 2nd hand, what works for one guy will still get the 100% same quality for the second guy. So developers cannot present an edge for 1st hand sales simply because they don't depreciate. I won't call it piracy but it simply does not help digital creative industry a bit, and more harm than help. There is goodwill for games, but if the goodwill only leads to more resaling of the product instead of 1st hand purchase, the developers suffer still.

Most people never read the EULA, but if you do, the license specifies that you do not own the game, you simply were authorized to install it on your computer.

Am I a detriment to the kitchenware market when I have a garage sale?

kitchenware are tangible assets, softwares are not.

It's "potential" lost sales, sure. A game bought used doesn't give any money to the publisher, but then, a game bought used as already been bought "for real" in order to become used in the first place, so on the other hand they already got their money. It's ridiculous to say that emphasizing your purchases on used games is of no harm at all to the original distributors, but it's equally ridiculous to treat every used game sale as equivalent to a lost "real" sale. Some people only had that $10 to spend on a game and wouldn't have gotten anything release-day, period, and others weren't interested enough after hearing about the game to buy it at full price, but were still curious enough to buy it cheap. There's no real way to measure how many people would or wouldn't have bought the game full price if used wasn't an option, so all we can say is "somewhere in-between."

I see no basis at all to call it just as bad as piracy, however. Someone can steal a bag of oranges from a grocery store, or they can legally purchase one. If they legally purchase one and then decide to sell it to someone else, it does not magically become theft from the store.

When I buy something, its mine and I can do whatever I want with it including sell it. people are idiots...

Presumably I lose the ability to use the software when I sell it though, just like I lose the ability to use my kitchenware.

This is not necessarily the case in PC gaming, hence DRM. But that is the case with console games, which are the real perceived threat in the used market.

For most of gaming's existence software has been distributed on physical media that's susceptible to wear and tear, like anything else. The majority of games still require that physical media and those that don't are generally non-transferable anyway.

Make a good enough game, and people wont sell it. I still own Fallout new vegas, I clung to fable tlc for years until the disk was unreadable.
Also I liked alpha protocol, but it had lots of people talking bout its problems. I wasnt going to risk more money, for a product tht may not even work for me.

Instead of complaining about me, devs should look at why people buy used games, and sell them.

But you're not paying for the disc....you're paying for the software on the disc.

When you buy a car, it's yours. The disc is yours when you buy it. Stop imagining sales that aren't there. It's the persons disc to do what they will with. I can't help it if so many people sell them off. Make better games. When you sell that disc your selling your right to play that game to someone else. It's only ever one game. Find different ways to offer a service and draw people in. Don't cut them off from the discs they bought. Pfft, theft. More like [censored] cheap corporations trying to [censored] every last peny out of people. People should be a little ashamed at this point.

I still see this as the #1 defense. This is the way it should be.

I don't see why this matters.

A clever clause they included as a sort of loophole for things like this. In reality it means nothing.

I think the industry shouldn't be surprised if they find their products end up losing value if they continue to fight the used games market. That is, people might not be willing to invest the same amount of money (and will probably start being more savvy about what they invest it in) if there's no way to recoup part of the investment later

Jim makes some good points. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4568-Online-Passes-Are-Bad-For-Everybody, http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4720-Used-Games-Have-A-Right-To-Exist, and http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/4745-Fighting-The-Problem-Of-Used-Games.

I think the whole online pass thing is not as bad as some people make it out to be.

For pretty much any product when you buy it second hand is not going to be as good as buying a brand new one. Like with cars. If you buy a second hand car it won't perform exactly as well (or will degrade in performance earlier) than a brand new car. That's why you pay less for it. I don't see why videogames have to be the exception. At least that way the devs get some money from second hand sales.

Not much more than other tangible objects. Software is quite different, it cannot be treated like buying electronics. Because even if your disc is burnt, the dev is still subject to replacement since you bought the "right", not the item.

Good point, which also applies to piracy.

Although I think 2nd hand market shouldn't pose any issue. The damage it caused is far too insubstantial comparing to piracy.

No, read the license again. You're not buying a car, software is different.