Is buying games second-hand "cheating"? THQ thinks so.

Look, not all publishers make billions from games - many barely break even, and their profits are very damaged by piracy/2ndhand sales, there's no question about that. But piracy isn't going anywhere, and nobody whines about the proliferation of 2ndhand hardware or bookstores or anything else. Countering piracy with severe legislation or DRM is only going to make you look like a bully or a public enemy - see Ubisoft. Dropping the price per unit of games might not lower the piracy numbers, but it probably will increase numbers of game sales - I have serious doubts about the argument that a pirated game = a lost sale. And incentivizing customers to buy new rather than disincentivizing them to buy 2ndhand will earn you goodwill and possibly increase sales as well (I don't have any reliable statistics for that, but it seems logical).
 
Agreed, but unfortunately humans being the fickle creatures we are will only moan again even if they reduce the prices by half that it is still not low enough. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, but I agree. Pirates might not lessen, but sales should increase.

And by implementing a charge for 2nd hand games, they are only going to make it worse, because now where people might have bought their product 2nd hand for less and maybe later bought some DLC or whatever add-ons, now they won't because coupled with the 2nd hand charge and the fee owed to published, it becomes too expensive again so they lose that customer anyway. Not everyone is a cheapskate, some people just genuinely cannot afford to hoof out that much cash to play a game.
 
Well, I disagree that people will still complain. There is a price point at which the average guy is happy to pay. I don't have any issue paying $10 for an Amazon Kindle book for instance. And iPhone games are cheap as chips - which makes pirating them seem just mean-spirited. In terms of movies as well, I'd rather rent or go to the cinema than watch one of those horrendous 700mb torrent rips. If buying new isn't cost-prohibitive and generally offers a better experience than pirating, I don't see why publishers shouldn't make a healthy profit.
 
I think a lot of gamers may have also become greedy over time.

There seems to be much more choice these days in decent titles that buying everything is incredibly costly. Thing is we feel pressured into doing it from peers, the industry and ourselves. I am sure many more gamers own more platforms than in the past. How many of us (myself included), buy games only to never finish them / have them sit on a shelf for months, but NOT because they are craptastic games, rather because we are greedy and want them all? Maybe we should play less games (which we actually finish), have more money, and subsequently complain less about pricing?
 
tehNihilist said:
I think a lot of gamers may have also become greedy over time.

There seems to be much more choice these days in decent titles that buying everything is incredibly costly. Thing is we feel pressured into doing it from peers, the industry and ourselves. I am sure many more gamers own more platforms than in the past. How many of us (myself included), buy games only to never finish them / have them sit on a shelf for months, but NOT because they are craptastic games, rather because we are greedy and want them all? Maybe we should play less games (which we actually finish), have more money, and subsequently complain less about pricing?
Click to expand...

Shush you. Nobody asked for a valid argument! Pfft.

More, I want more... :D
 
To quote Nick from lazygamer

"Hey EA, I'm sure you guys are all gonna be really upset when all those gamers sell their second hand games off to buy your new FIFA title"

Wonder how many people trade old games to subsidize buying new ones.
 
pantsula said:
To quote Nick from lazygamer

"Hey EA, I'm sure you guys are all gonna be really upset when all those gamers sell their second hand games off to buy your new FIFA title"

Wonder how many people trade old games to subsidize buying new ones.
Click to expand...

Plenty. In fact, most. Other than people who are no longer going to playing games anymore.
 
pantsula said:
To quote Nick from lazygamer

"Hey EA, I'm sure you guys are all gonna be really upset when all those gamers sell their second hand games off to buy your new FIFA title"

Wonder how many people trade old games to subsidize buying new ones.
Click to expand...

Voicy said:
There's no piracy involved since the material is not copied or redistributed. Buying it from them allows ONE person to play the game only. If you sell it, you give up your right to play it again and again.

If you sell games after one playthrough, then it doesn't say a lot for their product. Maybe they should start making better games that will keep you drawn in.

This also leaves you with 1 less title to play and more cash to buy another new game from a developer.

He can screw off.
Click to expand...

What Voicy said. :p
 
Voicy said:
There's no piracy involved since the material is not copied or redistributed. Buying it from them allows ONE person to play the game only. If you sell it, you give up your right to play it again and again.

If you sell games after one playthrough, then it doesn't say a lot for their product. Maybe they should start making better games that will keep you drawn in.

This also leaves you with 1 less title to play and more cash to buy another new game from a developer.

He can screw off.
Click to expand...

DenSweeP said:
I assuming you were being sarcastic here? Otherwise that is a really dumb argument. Kinda like saying well you are going to die eventually anyway, so it's ok for me to kill you now with this gun.

I understand publishers etc need to make money, we all do, it's called business. What don't need to do however is rip off buyers buying the game new. Look at MW2 for instance. How many millions of copies were sold? Quoted from Wikipedia. You want to tell me that if they had made the product say 30% cheaper, that they would've made a loss? Of course not. And don't tell me yes but not all titles sell as well. Obviously, but then get better people working for you to decide which games to take on and sell and which not to. And remember, they probably made up all their cost on the first days sales alone with this title. Everything after that was essentially profit.

And this argument can be carried over to Windows as well. Look at Windows XP for instance. That was sold for how long, almost ten years? Was it really necessary to sell it for more than when it was originally released? When did they recoup their costs for R&D etc and when did it become wholly about ripping everyone off?

Publishers, wake up. If you want to stop losing sales to pirates and the 2nd hand market, then make the original product cheaper. I'm not saying it will be 100% cure, but it will make a large difference. Fine, your initial profits might take a slight dip, but in a very short time, you will see the rewards.
Click to expand...

damn! you guys miss the point totally, person 1 buys the game, publisher gets profit of 1 game, person 1 sells the game, to person 2. So no money from person 2 goes directly to publisher, so its a lost sale, because instead of buying from the publisher, (directly or indirectly) you are paying somebody else. you can you can carry on like a bloody street preacher how evil piracy is, it does not always equal a lost sale, and by buying the game 2nd hand you not doing the dev/pub any favors.
you got the game without paying the publisher A pirate could also spend money pirating a game though a blank disk or bandwidth. I'm not saying the publisher is right, or the pirate is right, or anybody, I'm simply saying that I can see the publishers point of View, and that buying a 2nd hand game = a lost sale.


(and DenSweeP thats stupid analogy)
 
tpex,

If I buy the game, the contents of the disk is now my property. If I sell it to you, I forfeit my right to using that disk. So in the dev's mind, only one person is allowed to play that game at any given time.

If we're not allowed to sell our games, then we shouldn't be allowed to lend it to friends for a weekend either.

The motor car industry is a good example. You buy your car, then sell it to your friend. He is now using the manufacturer's product without paying them. However, you're out of a car now and will most likely buy another new car (read game title).

Pirating means copying the product without paying for it. That way more than 1 person plays it at any given time. If you buy the game, you are paying to be able to play it 24/7 for the rest of your life. Lending it to your friend means you are cutting into your own allowed play-time. Selling it means you no longer have the right to play it.

If you buy the title and sell it to your friend, you're not making money and the money that was spent to print that disk and package it and distribute it ALONG WITH ITS PROFIT has been recovered by the company through its original sale.

Now, I agree with you - the company only makes 1 sale, while 2 people plays it, but person B would not buy the game anyway, so they cannot bank on "potential profit". They should be thanking people for buying 2nd hand instead of pirating, because it's the trade of legitimate wares.

Say the software devs were house builders. You ask them to build you a house. 5 years later you don't want to live in the house anymore. Do you just leave your house to rot or do you sell it?

If you sell it, you are infringing on the builder's potential to make profit by building a house for whoever bought yours. That sounds very unfair to the poor builder, doesn't it? Renting out your house is even worse. How can you now possibly want to make money off someone else's product? You terrible person. :p

However, if you sell, you now have money to get another house built by the builder. So he makes a profit twice on the same person instead of once on two people. This motivates him to build different and more exciting houses instead of building one type and selling it to everyone only once. That's why he lets them sell his product to people who can't afford his new product and that money is used by the richer folk to buy his new flashy houses.

If you pay for it, it's YOUR property. If you sell it, you lose all rights associated with it.


Please explain to me where that analogy misses the point?

Oh and if they use the excuse that you can use a house forever but you play a game only once, then it's a piss poor reflection on the replayability of their games they produce and they need to catch a wakeup.
 
Voicy said:
tpex,

If I buy the game, the contents of the disk is now my property. If I sell it to you, I forfeit my right to using that disk. So in the dev's mind, only one person is allowed to play that game at any given time.

If we're not allowed to sell our games, then we shouldn't be allowed to lend it to friends for a weekend either.

The motor car industry is a good example. You buy your car, then sell it to your friend. He is now using the manufacturer's product without paying them. However, you're out of a car now and will most likely buy another new car (read game title).

Pirating means copying the product without paying for it. That way more than 1 person plays it at any given time. If you buy the game, you are paying to be able to play it 24/7 for the rest of your life. Lending it to your friend means you are cutting into your own allowed play-time. Selling it means you no longer have the right to play it.

If you buy the title and sell it to your friend, you're not making money and the money that was spent to print that disk and package it and distribute it ALONG WITH ITS PROFIT has been recovered by the company through its original sale.

Now, I agree with you - the company only makes 1 sale, while 2 people plays it, but person B would not buy the game anyway, so they cannot bank on "potential profit". They should be thanking people for buying 2nd hand instead of pirating, because it's the trade of legitimate wares.

Say the software devs were house builders. You ask them to build you a house. 5 years later you don't want to live in the house anymore. Do you just leave your house to rot or do you sell it?

If you sell it, you are infringing on the builder's potential to make profit by building a house for whoever bought yours. That sounds very unfair to the poor builder, doesn't it? Renting out your house is even worse. How can you now possibly want to make money off someone else's product? You terrible person. :p

However, if you sell, you now have money to get another house built by the builder. So he makes a profit twice on the same person instead of once on two people. This motivates him to build different and more exciting houses instead of building one type and selling it to everyone only once. That's why he lets them sell his product to people who can't afford his new product and that money is used by the richer folk to buy his new flashy houses.

If you pay for it, it's YOUR property. If you sell it, you lose all rights associated with it.


Please explain to me where that analogy misses the point?

Oh and if they use the excuse that you can use a house forever but you play a game only once, then it's a piss poor reflection on the replayability of their games they produce and they need to catch a wakeup.
Click to expand...

Kudos !!! well said
 
tpex said:
(and DenSweeP thats stupid analogy)
Click to expand...

I'm assuming again you refer to my killing someone analogy? Why is it stupid? Crass maybe, but that's the point. You can not justify a crime by saying well they were going do it, so why don't I do it first? That must be the dumbest argument ever. Tell you what, you try telling a court or the cops that should you ever be arrested for a crime and tell us how that works out for you.
 
K, seeing as you all are missing the point
Please see below EULA extract:

3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Software. The Software is licensed, not sold.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/eula/home.mspx

Therefore your arguments really are pointless, If you don't want to play or own games that publishers can do with as they please, go play a GNU license product
And wait for it ---------------> LOL ! @ the usage of a House as an analogy, one is intellectual property the other one isn't, want a clue as to which is which ?
 
Xerowing said:
K, seeing as you all are missing the point
Please see below EULA extract:

3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Software. The Software is licensed, not sold.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/eula/home.mspx

Therefore your arguments really are pointless, If you don't want to play or own games that publishers can do with as they please, go play a GNU license product
And wait for it ---------------> LOL ! @ the usage of a House as an analogy, one is intellectual property the other one isn't, want a clue as to which is which ?
Click to expand...

That's a very valid point for a software license.

However, I checked 3 of my Xbox games now and none of them listed any copyright / trademark information indication that I may not resell the disks.

Only the ME1 disk refers to me having statutory rights if I bought the game for personal use and has "do not make illegal copies of this dic" printed on the dvd along with stuff about reverse engineering, copying, renting out and public play being prohibited.

At the end of the day, how are they going to prove you bought/sold a game 2nd hand? I don't retain my till slips and as long as I have the original disks at my house (whether they belong to my friends or not) will not cause the copyright cops to take me to the big house.

If they're so worried, why don't they make their software acquisition freely available, but charge for activation/registration keys? That way you can't use a code more than once, but then you also don't pay R700 per code.

The intellectual property excuse validates the issue of copying the item, but when it's in its original packaging it's no longer just intellectual property, but a physical product. Which is why you are allowed to sell a 2nd hand laptop along with its original windows disks as a unit, because it's a complete product, not just the intellectual property...
 
Nope, according to law, both domestic and International
You may not transfer rights, be they pertaining to ownership or usage that do not belong to you, seeing as you never BUY a title, but merely license it, you may not transfer ownership of that product as it does not belong to you but is licensed from a publisher for individual usage.
All games are automatically copyrighted as is the case with all intellectual property, go look in the back of your game manuals, the EULA should be printed there or supplied on a separate piece of paper.
And yes this is valid for all games, reasons I used a MS OS EULA is because I had it on my desktop, busy working on a EULA for something else and needed a reference
 
Ah cool, thanks for the info.

Despite us not liking it or rationalizing it, it may very well still be legal as you pointed out. I couldn't find the EULA in my 3 game boxes, and I cannot recall agreeing to it when I install the game...

...which raises another question.

If I buy the game off the shelf, never open it and then sell it as a 2nd hand game...where I never agreed to anything inside the box. What's the law say about that? Since I never signed or agreed to anything other than purchasing the game for the legal tender requested.
 
Technically, you aren't buying it in the first place, but licensing it, although it could probably be argued both ways.The second hand buyer would purchase the title with ALL the benefits of the original buyer as codes etc would be unused.
Look I don't personally think that it will EVER be enforced to such an extent, but the point is that publishers are within their rights to limit usage or charge for de activated content on titles resold by individuals.
 
It would be interesting to see (in an ideal world where consumers aren't sheep) how many people would avoid buying a title if they were aware of the smallprint.
 
Well there are quite a few end users who do exactly that, look at the founders of the GPL GNU license model, Opensource community etc and you'll find there are literally millions of people who don't purchase anything released under this standardized type of EULA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top