txa1265:Thoughts on piracy aside (and remember that I got a warning for jumping on someone for what I thought was a piracy-related thread), how is that something that is even debatable?
I imagine because piracy is illegal, while bartering, selling, trading your personal property is not?
Solatso: chris100185: From a game developer standpoint Used games might as well be piracy. They don't see money from either, Actually I'd say used is a little worse, piracy is illegal and they can collect damages for it. Used is completely legal so their hands are tied. So no, I don't have a problem with developers trying to make a little money off used sales. Well maybe the problem is at the retail level then. Maybe retailers should have to "kickback" a percentage of their used game profits to the devs (or publishers or however it works with brand new titles). Maybe instead of screwing over the people BUYING the games they should take a look at the people getting rich SELLING the games. I'm sure there's a whole bunch of legal issues involved but that's what lawyers are for. EDIT: This is directed at EVERYONE who is defending this "the devs don't get money" standpoint. Ya know what then maybe they should get better at negotiating contracts.
chris100185: From a game developer standpoint Used games might as well be piracy. They don't see money from either, Actually I'd say used is a little worse, piracy is illegal and they can collect damages for it. Used is completely legal so their hands are tied. So no, I don't have a problem with developers trying to make a little money off used sales.
From a game developer standpoint Used games might as well be piracy. They don't see money from either, Actually I'd say used is a little worse, piracy is illegal and they can collect damages for it. Used is completely legal so their hands are tied. So no, I don't have a problem with developers trying to make a little money off used sales.
Well maybe the problem is at the retail level then. Maybe retailers should have to "kickback" a percentage of their used game profits to the devs (or publishers or however it works with brand new titles). Maybe instead of screwing over the people BUYING the games they should take a look at the people getting rich SELLING the games. I'm sure there's a whole bunch of legal issues involved but that's what lawyers are for.
EDIT: This is directed at EVERYONE who is defending this "the devs don't get money" standpoint. Ya know what then maybe they should get better at negotiating contracts.
The problem is there are no legal issues, Used games sales are legal, end of story. I'm sure developers would love it if Gamestop gave them a percentage of used sales, but what exactly is gamestop's incentive to do so. Legally they are completely in the right, so they're going to just give up a percentage of their profits out of the goodness of their heart?
Who is (are) Penny Arcade?
I have spent most of my money on women and beer. The rest I just wasted....
Dargo: Who is (are) Penny Arcade?
Webcomic. Enough said.
Goozex Forum Moderator
txa's wall of text
So devs want me to just skip the buying used and straight up pirate games? At least that way they'd have legal action to recoup costs right?
Forum Moderator
chris100185: Solatso: chris100185: From a game developer standpoint Used games might as well be piracy. They don't see money from either, Actually I'd say used is a little worse, piracy is illegal and they can collect damages for it. Used is completely legal so their hands are tied. So no, I don't have a problem with developers trying to make a little money off used sales. Well maybe the problem is at the retail level then. Maybe retailers should have to "kickback" a percentage of their used game profits to the devs (or publishers or however it works with brand new titles). Maybe instead of screwing over the people BUYING the games they should take a look at the people getting rich SELLING the games. I'm sure there's a whole bunch of legal issues involved but that's what lawyers are for. EDIT: This is directed at EVERYONE who is defending this "the devs don't get money" standpoint. Ya know what then maybe they should get better at negotiating contracts. The problem is there are no legal issues, Used games sales are legal, end of story. I'm sure developers would love it if Gamestop gave them a percentage of used sales, but what exactly is gamestop's incentive to do so. Legally they are completely in the right, so they're going to just give up a percentage of their profits out of the goodness of their heart?
Exactly, that's what I'm talking about. Everything that gets done is due to contractual agreements. What I'm proposing is that those contractual agreements should maybe include getting money from used game sales. Like you said it's not illegal to sell used games so it's not illegal to start negotiating profits made on used games. I can't possibly be the first person to think of this. I assume there is some kind of reason why the game companies haven't done it yet but without that reason I have to sit here and ask "WHY?" They're the ones with the power, not the retailers, so they're the ones who can lobby for changes like this and make it happen.
"We're not getting any money, wah wah wah." So who IS getting the money? Not the consumer. "Hmmmm........the retailer seems to making an awful lot on selling our product "twice", but we're only seeing it once. I know, the consumer is the problem" What kind of screwed up logic is THAT?
mafafu: Dargo: Who is (are) Penny Arcade? Webcomic. Enough said.
Oh you mean the same people who a few weeks ago were running strips complaining that PS+ was useless because they weren't giving away premium PSN games every week? Oh the irony.
There's nothing wrong with buying used games but don't delude yourself for a second into thinking you're supporting the developers (more likely the publishers) by buying used. Nobody here seems to have too high opinion of themselves, but used games that were recently released are unequivocally lost sales, unlike piracy which 75% of the time the thief in question would not even buy the game if he had no other choice.
That said, used game sales are a non issue when compared to the gigantic stinking behemoth of corporate greed exhibited by companies like Activision, Ubisoft, EA, etc. The truth of the matter is that a lost sale only impacts how likely the executives are to axe the development house rather than the paltry sum they receive in commission. Once we live in a utopia where publishers are abolished and more than 10% of a game's sales goes to the people who actually make the game instead of Bobby Kotick's world domination fund, we can discuss used game sales as a threat.
txa1265:Also, as I mentioned the comic alludes to a parallel economy
Not sure what sounds more squishy than that... --also what is the definition of "parallel economy" -- the webs says black market. Is that what you meant?
Seriously, had this line from the article had been written with a little more thought me, my pitch fork, and the "frothing masses" would not have given it second thought:
"If I am purchasing games in order to reward their creators, and to ensure that more of these ingenious contraptions are produced, I honestly can't figure out how buying a used game was any better than piracy. From the the perspective of a developer, they are almost certainly synonymous."
Now, I get what he's saying. You can't buy used and say you're supporting the developers. I can get behind that. But the point of the post, imo, is to infer that those that purchase used are no different than those that pirate, regardless if they are good people with good intentions or not.
Where I think there is a major disconnect b/w Devs/Publishers and Gamers is the definition of customer. Is a customer one that pays retail for your product -- or one that plays your product? If I was in their shoes I'd make a stand and say it is clearly one that plays my product and how do we get more people playing my product. And that will be the tide that raises all ships.
Checkout Goozex Top 10 RSS List Top 10
mrkekeru: There's nothing wrong with buying used games but don't delude yourself for a second into thinking you're supporting the developers (more likely the publishers) by buying used. Nobody here seems to have too high opinion of themselves, but used games that were recently released are unequivocally lost sales, unlike piracy which 75% of the time the thief in question would not even buy the game if he had no other choice. That said, used game sales are a non issue when compared to the gigantic stinking behemoth of corporate greed exhibited by companies like Activision, Ubisoft, EA, etc. The truth of the matter is that a lost sale only impacts how likely the executives are to axe the development house rather than the paltry sum they receive in commission. Once we live in a utopia where publishers are abolished and more than 10% of a game's sales goes to the people who actually make the game instead of Bobby Kotick's world domination fund, we can discuss used game sales as a threat.
Exactly. It's just easier to attack the consumer because we're viewed as powerless. If we were the ones holding all the devs money then we would have bought their stupid game brand new and it wouldn't even be an issue. As it stands the world economy as whole is still struggling, the U.S. economy is still in the crapper and the rich people are still rich while the poor people are even more poor than ever.
I-Weapon-X: txa1265:Thoughts on piracy aside (and remember that I got a warning for jumping on someone for what I thought was a piracy-related thread), how is that something that is even debatable? I imagine because piracy is illegal, while bartering, selling, trading your personal property is not?
See - this is exactly the problem: you pulled part of a quote out of context to be self-serving and change the meaning, same as was done on page 1 by BlackCoyote. I completely agree that "piracy is illegal, while bartering, selling, trading your personal property is not" ... BUT could you please answer the ORIGINAL question IN CONTEXT? Because what I said was that NEITHER ONE TRANSFERS MONEY TO DEVELOPERS.
cheeznrice: txa's wall of text So devs want me to just skip the buying used and straight up pirate games? At least that way they'd have legal action to recoup costs right?
No - devs want to be compensated for their hard work. Which, in my opinion, happens with initial sale. Publishers, on the other hand, want to get money based on all expenditures - so if 40% of gamers in a given online match are playing a used game, then the publisher who is paying for the online hosting has only been paid by 60% of players.
Some have suggested that they (the publishers) should price the initial sale to compensate for the used game market. OK, I wonder if you looked at things and asked 'would you rather pay $70 for a new game or keep paying $60 and have used game players have to pay $10 to reactivate online' ... how would THAT survey turn out?
-- Mike
Catch my stuff at GearDiary,com!
I fully agree that the devs should be compensated for their work. I think everyone should be compensated for their work. I have an issue with some of the methods proposed to get that done. I feel strongly (which is obvious from the amount of posting I've done here today) that attacking the consumer is absolutely not the way to get what you want. If you want more money you go to the poeple who are making all the money.
When you want a raise at your job, who do you ask? I'm willing to bet you don't contact your customers and say "Hey I want a raise and you need to give it to me" No. You go to your boss and say "Hey you're making more money off my hard work and I want some of it". All this "hit the consumer" talk is just full on backwards thinking. But no one apparently has the guts to stand up to the retailers and the game companies who are making all the money off the hard work of the devs. So until that happens, the game companies will continue screwing over their dev teams.
txa1265: I-Weapon-X: txa1265:Thoughts on piracy aside (and remember that I got a warning for jumping on someone for what I thought was a piracy-related thread), how is that something that is even debatable? I imagine because piracy is illegal, while bartering, selling, trading your personal property is not? See - this is exactly the problem: you pulled part of a quote out of context to be self-serving and change the meaning, same as was done on page 1 by BlackCoyote. I completely agree that "piracy is illegal, while bartering, selling, trading your personal property is not" ... BUT could you please answer the ORIGINAL question IN CONTEXT? Because what I said was that NEITHER ONE TRANSFERS MONEY TO DEVELOPERS.
In retrospect I meant to quote more of that; and what i said was actually geared more towards your "people taking this too personally" stance; people don't like being called crooks plain and simple and that is what comparing the practice to piracy implies
Since when did PA's opinion matter on anything?