1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Other Piracy vs. Used Games

Discussion in 'Software' started by Yslen, 23 Sep 2010.

  1. Yslen

    Yslen Lord of the Twenty-Seventh Circle

    Joined:
    3 Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    48
    Yesterday I wandered into a Gamestation while in town and was struck by the number of second-hand games on sale, as well as the way in which they are now sold. There are rows upon rows of used console games, perhaps more than there are new games on display. The used games are in prime position and their low prices are made extremely obvious to anyone walking into the shop.

    I am aware that there has been some discussion on this matter around here before, mainly related to some news articles that were posted on bit-tech regarding complaints by games developers and publishers about the prevalence of the second-hand games market. I would like to outline my thoughts on the matter, as I would be interested to know if the bit-tech community agrees with me or not.

    As far as I can see, are two reasons not to pirate games. The first is that piracy is illegal, though I will largely be ignoring this here; copyright laws are created for a reason and I do not believe the attitude that something is automatically immoral because it is illegal (or for that matter that something is morally acceptable because it is legal) is a useful one. The second and most important reason that games should not be pirated is that the developers and publishers who worked to put the game on the market are not remunerated for their work. With all aspects of law being ignored for the time being and morality or common sense being our only basis for decision making, piracy could for our purposes be redefined as the act of acquiring a game without due payment being made to the copyright holders.

    By this definition, the entire second-hand games market can therefore be defined as piracy. I consider the situation that currently exists to be extremely strange. True piracy is both illegal and highly frowned upon, with many games developers blaming rampant piracy for poor sales on the PC platform. By contrast the sale of used games is perfectly legal and many people do not question the practice at all. By imagining four different situations and their consequences, I intend to explore this discrepancy.

    Would piracy be acceptable if the person downloading a game were to pay the uploader for providing it? If not, would it be acceptable if the uploader did in fact own the game they had uploaded? How about the hypothetical situation where someone buys a game new then sells it on to a friend? In the first of these three cases, the developer gets no money for the secondary "sales" of their games. In the second example, the developer gets no money for the secondary sales but does receive money for the initial sale of the game as a new product, when the pirate-to-be buys it. The same is true for the third case.

    Now the fourth example; a person buys a game new, giving money to those that developed and published it, then sells it on to a company. This company then re-sells the game to another user. In this case, the copyright holder does not receive any money from secondary sales, only from the initial sale of each game.

    Now, I know you've probably all spotted the glaring hole in my logic so I'll get right on to explaining why I think it doesn't matter. Obviously, the reason situations 1 and 2 are illegal is because the pirate can give away/sell as many copies of the game as they like despite only having bought the original game once (or not at all in the first case). Situations 3 & 4 are both legal, differing from the first two cases in that there is only one item to re-sell for each new item paid for. This means that the damage done to the market is limited to one item per actual sale that can be passed around with no profit to the copyright holder.

    I would argue that this rather traditional law does not fit with the games industry. A used car or item of clothing shows wear from use and therefore loses value over time; selling one of these second-hand at a lower price makes sense, because there is a clear difference between the new and used products. A game does not change over time and so there is no reason to buy a new copy over an old one, at least to the consumer not considering where their money ends up. When this is coupled to the availability of used games due to the actions of several large chain stores, not to mention the internet, I would not be surprised to learn that there are in fact more "lost sales" in the console markets because of people buying a used copy of a game they would otherwise buy new than there are due to piracy on the PC platform.

    If anyone knows of any figures comparing second-hand sales to estimates of piracy I would be very interested to see them. Copyright was invented as a concept when it became clear that it was required to safeguard various industries, because piracy would otherwise render them unprofitable. The second-hand market for games, supported as it is by companies looking for profit from it (and doing so successfully it would appear) is no different. Sales are being lost due to piracy we are told and so developers do not want to make games for the PC platform where piracy is such a problem. Why then do the same people accept the sales lost due to the used market on the console platform?

    There are many things that cannot be resold; a meal at a restaurant after one has eaten it, or the experience of watching a film in a cinema after the film is over. If these experiences could be resold (in some hypothetical future-world where memories are easily transferable) would they not fall under copyright law also? Should the re-sale of video games on a massive scale that undoubtedly leads to lost sales not be prohibited in the same way?

    Personally, I am unsure where to stand on the matter. When I buy a product I expect to be able to re-sell it should I choose to do so, however given the "immortal" nature of digital information, combined with the highly temporary nature in which video games are consumed, I can see an argument for a change in the law. If I were to sell my car, I would have to buy another or find some other means of getting around. If I sell a game I have finished playing, I would not miss it. It could be argued that a game is more like a service than a product; the provision of entertainment to a single person for an appropriate fee, not to be re-sold. If this were made the case by law, profits from new console game sales would undoubtedly rise.

    What mystifies me the most, however, is the fact that developers can often be seen to complain about piracy on the PC and how it hurts their sales, yet they never mention (at least in anti-piracy discussions) the similar (presumably) impact of the used market on their console sales. As was suggested the other day, I am inclined to believe that PC gamers are simply a more discerning bunch who are not as easy to sell to as console gamers, leading to fewer sales per potential customer. Blaming piracy seems to have become fashionable, yet to me it seems glaringly obvious that the games industry faces similar hurdles in all of their markets. Just because those hurdles have grown from a practice that is considered legal is no reason to ignore them.

    As I said above I am unsure which way to go here, but it should certainly be one way or other other. The industry should either take a stand against the large-scale re-sale of games that is eating into their profits, or else admit that piracy on the PC is no worse a problem than one they are already living with on the consoles. It would be nice to certain developers and publishers to realise that all they need to do well on the PC is to make a good game the people want to buy, not smother everything in DRM that does nothing to deter pirates but annoys the pants of legitimate gamers.

    Anyway, that's everything I have to say for now, I hope I managed to keep it coherent throughout. My apologies for not being less concise; it's a curse.

    I'm looking forward to hearing some opinions, though hopefully without being flamed for any unusual views I might hold! :D

    Yslen
     
  2. Jedra

    Jedra Supermodel

    Joined:
    11 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    44
    I don't see any problem with a second-hand market at all. At the end of the day, you are not really buying a game, just the right to use it and selling on that right should not be an issue (as long as you cease to play it).

    I can see from the game publisher's point of view that they would rather the second hand market di dnot exist at all, that way everyone would have to buy the game to play it therefore in theory for every second hand sale, there would have been a new purchase and therefore more income (of course in reality this would not happen). I can see they have attempted to kill off any PC second hand market by adding copy protection which has an activation limit - this has had mixed success and a lot of bad press. No such protection happens with console games - you just put the disk in and play - hence the disk itself is easier to sell on as second hand.

    Piracy is definitely wrong in my opinion whichever way you try and justify it. The 'only' situation I would say it was OK was if a game is no longer published and therefore there is no-one who could legitimately benefit from the sale.

    Nothing wrong with the used market though - long may it flourish!
     
  3. Booga

    Booga Cuppa tea anyone?

    Joined:
    28 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    767
    Likes Received:
    30
    Piracy = Bad mkay
    Second Hand = Good
     
  4. Bungletron

    Bungletron Minimodder

    Joined:
    25 May 2010
    Posts:
    1,171
    Likes Received:
    62
    Nise essay briefcase, hope bit-tech forum members get an acknowledgement when you hand it in.

    Your argument seems unbalanced to me, you are able to offer evidence as to why second hand games sales is piracy and not much to the contrary.

    I think one way to look at the sale of a game is to ask: am I buying a commodity or a service? In your example you can rightfully resell a commodity item such as a car but it is wrong to resell a service, you are stealing the service. The fact is the gaming industry have more all less decided games are to be treated as commodities regardless of their statements to the contrary because they are already adding the service elements to protect their revenue. Payable monthly subscriptions and exclusive/downloadable contact are evedence of this. My view is the game publisher's accountants are well aware of the second hand market and have factored this into their targets, a company will attempt to extract as much profit as possible so obviously they will denounce the second hand market.
     
  5. sparkyboy22

    sparkyboy22 Web Tinkerer

    Joined:
    3 May 2010
    Posts:
    738
    Likes Received:
    35
    Agreed.

    My main gripe is that if the majority of games produced were worth what was being charged then piracy would certainly be lower.

    There are sooo many games that arent good enough and yet are still priced at £40!
     
  6. AstralWanderer

    AstralWanderer What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    17 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    749
    Likes Received:
    34
    The copyright holder received payment when the game was originally purchased. As such, the second-hand market is both moral and legal, despite these seemingly contradictory statements.
    Games depreciate in value far more quickly than cars or clothing, whether new or used, and most include physical elements (packaging, manual) that show wear and tear as well as perishable media (CDs being vulnerable to scratches and tending to fail over time unless carefully looked after).
    These are services rather than items so cannot be compared to physical (or digital) goods.
    Games are luxuries rather than essentials for most people and have limited lifespans due to (a) the longevity of the media they are sold on; (b) an incredible rate of development rendering even the best games obsolescent within a year and (c) the lifespan of the computers/consoles (and operating systems) they are designed to run under.
    To blame the second-hand market publicly would be utter hypocrisy - which developer has not purchased second-hand goods at time some or other? Furniture, cars, books and other items are routinely sold this way with none of the proceeds going to the original creator (carpenter, auto-worker or author). So why should the games industry be given special treatment?
    Some mainstream publishers are trying to kill off the second-hand market via methods like online activation.
    This I would agree with - the Hexus List of DRM-Free PC Games thread provides some useful details on the more enlightened developers/publishers, as does ReclaimYourGame's DRM-Free News page.
    And thanks for a "thought-provoking" post! I would posit a contrasting view that the problems of the games industry are due to the following:
    • Over-production resulting in ruthless price-cutting for most games after the first month - I know of no other industry with such savage depreciation. Not only does this result in lower profits directly but any new releases have to compete against heavily discounted older games that may offer 80-90% of the fun at 50% or less of the cost.
    • Buggy initial releases - it's common wisdom that gamers should wait for the first patch of a game. Not only can they get the game cheaper (due to discounting) but patience often provides a less frustrating gaming experience.
    • Older games can have their lifespans greatly extended by user-made mods. While such mods clearly help the sales of the games they are designed more, they can also reduce the attraction of newer games.
    • Free games - it's widely said that the most played game is Windows' Solitaire. However there are plenty of other free games available, some (like NetHack) having decades of development behind them.
    • Annoyances - modern games have many features that can irritate purchasers including intro videos (Nvidia's TWIMTBP being the worst in my view), Start Menu advertising, DRM/media checks, overlong or illegible keycodes, software conflicts and performance problems.
    For myself, I pirated heavily in my youth (though I'm dating myself when I mention it involved swapping floppies for an Apple ][) but "grew up" when I started university and had an income of sorts (and was able to purchase legitimately).

    Now I do purchase every game I have, but due to DRM concerns I only select those that are either DRM-free or have a no-cd patch available from GameCopyWorld. That means I spend far less than I would have done, had publishers treated customers with more respect.

    I know of no other industry which seeks to inconvenience its customers more - though you could argue that the major music/film publishers show more contempt.
     
  7. Daedelus

    Daedelus What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    7 May 2009
    Posts:
    253
    Likes Received:
    12
    Maybe if they didn't charge £50 for a console game in the first place there wouldn't be such a big second hand market.
     
  8. Jedra

    Jedra Supermodel

    Joined:
    11 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    44
    This is a contentious issue with all forms of entertainment media. I remember the same argument when games were £4.99 and they then made the leap to £9.99. There is no doubt that the publishers will try and 'get what they can' for a game. A good example of this is with the price difference between PC titles and console titles. The same game is consitently RRP'd at a tenner more on the consoles than on the PC. At best they are the same game, but in a lot of cases they are actually 'bigger' and 'better' on the PC. Is this an attempt to reduce piracy on the PC which traditionally has been easier to pirate on or is it pure marketting knowing that console owners are likely to pay more?

    In the end, I think the price does find the right mark as currently retailers (especially the supermarkets) are discounting like mad when a new game comes out.

    Back on to the issue of the used market, if you look at some of the 'big' products like Adobe Master Collection, they have no problem with you selling on your licence key as there is a mechanism for de-authorising the software first.

    I think if Games publishers want to encourage people to buy new then they need to insentivise the purchase of new games rather than trying to block the sale of second hand games.

    The sale of second-hand books has gone on for years and years and years and it does not seem to have damaged the print publishing world, there is no reason to think it should damage the game publishing world.
     
  9. reggie50

    reggie50 Minimodder

    Joined:
    24 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    337
    Likes Received:
    9
    as far as I was aware, most EULAs, certainly on the PC, specifically prohibit the re-sale of the game to any other party. This would make the act of selling the game to a shop illegal.

    It is possible that the 2nd-hand shops do pay an amount to the publisher but nothing near the price of a full game.
     
  10. Niftyrat

    Niftyrat Dremel overpriced like EA games

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    95
    Likes Received:
    1
    I remember when I would never have purchased a £9.99 game as it was classed as too pricy I was very much a 1.99 spectrum man

    Now I wait till it drops to £20 before as I can't justify paying more for short games. I would make an exception if they did a proper baldurs gate dark alliance sequel (in the original multiplayer style) for the ps3 (and included the 1st two in the box updated to use ps3 proper format)
     
  11. Sloth

    Sloth #yolo #swag

    Joined:
    29 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    5,634
    Likes Received:
    208
    CDs indeed will, and that argument is certainly pertinant to the console market which Yslen mainly targets, but building off of our other discussion on digital distribution, a digital copy of a game (or even a physical copy which has been ripped and saved as a nice shiny ISO) will not depreciate. A simple unprotected .exe for example could spread infinitely. It makes matters a bit more troublesome. It could effectively be resold at full retail price with no disadvantage, or just given away. The moral dilemma Yslen seems to be highlighting fits well with the GoG discussion. What's the moral difference between me buying a GoG game and selling you the installer then deleting it off my own PC, me giving you a copy for free, or even me charging you for a copy? Using the tried and true pirate's excuse, if you'll "never buy the game at retail price anyway" what does it matter? Just a ponderable for how the second hand market may change as digital copies become more prevalent.

    To expand on that a bit, EA and THQ if memory serves have both implemented this on their sports games. Singleplayer content may be accessed readily by anyone by simply putting the disc in your console of choice. Multiplayer, however, requires an account. A release copy of the game gets a free account, any later owners must create a new account at a fee of $10.

    It's a bit unfair to claim they're killing the second hand market. It's your own opinion about whether what they're doing is right or if it makes them greedy pigs, but they are certainly not trying to kill it. One could safely say that they wish for it to continue, that way more people will be paying them that $10 fee.

    The term "online activation" is also misleading at best. The game will run without being activated in any way, as described by both THQ and EA. Unless someone has first hand experience and can say elsewise, the fee is to create a new online account which is required to access the multiplayer content. My own way of picturing it is like an MMO. The client is basically free, WoW is DRM free last I checked. However, accounts must be paid for to access them.

    Unless some other publisher really is doing an online activation, then I apologize. :hehe:
     
  12. AstralWanderer

    AstralWanderer What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    17 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    749
    Likes Received:
    34
    By depreciation I was thinking more about the rapid drop in prices for PC games - case in point, I purchased a copy of TitanQuest seven months after its release. The price? Just £7. Now this is an extreme example (doubtless influenced by Iron Lore's decision to have the game crash if it detected that it was a pirated copy, leading many to believe the game to be extremely buggy) but even the most popular games command lower prices as time passes.

    As for GOG, it should be perfectly OK to sell a copy of one of their games as long as you deleted it from your system and did not re-download it - being DRM-free they depend on purchasers' honesty, but then the dishonest would hardly buy from them in the first place! The only downside for the new owner would be not having the ability to download it from GOG themselves later. Ideally GOG could create the option to transfer (or gift) a game from one account to another (as you can with Steam I believe) but I don't know how much demand there would be for such a feature.
    You seem to be discussing multiplayer and downloadable content (DLC) which have been marketed as anti-piracy measures by some publishers. However by "online activation" I was considering systems like SecuROM Online where you have to connect to a server as part of the installation, used by publishers like 2KGames (Bioshock, etc) and UbiSoft (Far Cry 2).
     
  13. M7ck

    M7ck Ⓜod Ⓜaster

    Joined:
    28 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    3,600
    Likes Received:
    167
    EULAs are not legally binding.
     
  14. Nealieboyee

    Nealieboyee Packaging Master!

    Joined:
    14 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    3,821
    Likes Received:
    456
    If i pay for a game, buy a car, a pack of smokes or anything else, THEN IT IS MINE. I will do with it as i please. Selling it is my decision.

    On the other hand, if i sell it, it is no longer mine. I cannot continue to use the number/license plate for my own benefit (I.e. make a copy of the game and keep playing it).

    Its either black or white in my book. There is no grey area.
     
  15. Sloth

    Sloth #yolo #swag

    Joined:
    29 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    5,634
    Likes Received:
    208
    Ah, that one is quite true!

    Well, unless you're talking about MW2, that will probably be release price for its whole life span. :rolleyes:
    With basic concepts of right and wrong that should be okay, you're just passing on the item you recieved essentially. It takes the idea of the game as a product and applies basic product ownership morals. But as has been a major theme in all of these threads: are games products or experiences? As an experience, does it matter if you sell the game and keep a copy on your PC, provided you strictly never play it? Afterall, one experience was purchased and only one experience at a time is being used. Though I don't advocate it, that opens the door for many piracy-esque arguments much like the ones that hit the music industry. The concept of borrowing or broadcasting could hit the gaming market, that would cause a real stir. If I purchase a real legit copy of the game, how is letting anyone on the internet play it for a period of time any different than having a friend come over and try it? Much like Grooveshark, could I not upload a copy of my game for anyone to play? It's a scary future to me if it goes that way.


    We are indeed on different pages, my mistake, but mine isn't just about DLC. As far as I understand, EA Sports games will come with a code which the first user inputs to get multiplayer access along with DLC access as an extra. Second hand buyers must purchase a new code to get these rights, or else they are in single player forever. It's described as a way to get more profit off second hand sales, with anti-piracy as an added feature.

    "Online activation" threw me for a loop! Most DRM of any sort like to lock out second hand sales. Account based games particularly, where the game client itself means nothing without a registered account. Good luck selling an MMO second hand.
     
  16. Yslen

    Yslen Lord of the Twenty-Seventh Circle

    Joined:
    3 Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,966
    Likes Received:
    48
    Well there didn't seem much point in writing a fully fleshed-out counter argument as that view is almost universally held already. I wasn't trying to write a balanced critique, it was just supposed to generate some interesting debate. :)
     
  17. quack

    quack Minimodder

    Joined:
    6 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    5,240
    Likes Received:
    9
    One factor many customers think about before putting down their hard-earned $59.99 or whatever on the latest and greatest game is the possible resale value. If they know they can get some of that cash back again on the second hand market, then it's a better deal for them to buy it legally in the long run.

    Without a healthy second hand game market, piracy is a much more attractive option.

    You don't see book publishers trying to shut down second hand bookstores and libraries, neither of which actually create profits for them.
     
  18. Mork

    Mork What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    9 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    72
    Likes Received:
    1
    Maybe if the developers charged like half of what they do now, pirating probably wouldn't be such a big issue.. Personally I only buy around 2 games a year at full price because the games are so expensive imo. I often buy slightly older games on sale for a good price, but the new games are just too expensive for me to justify buying them.
     
  19. SlowMotionSuicide

    SlowMotionSuicide Come Hell or High Water

    Joined:
    16 May 2009
    Posts:
    835
    Likes Received:
    20
    I doubt that. I recall an event in which you could download a game, and pay whatever you deemed fit for it. The outcome was that I still got pirated the crap out of it. I'm sorry but I can't remember the name for the game, it was mentioned in Penny Arcade column at some point methinks.

    I believe most people simply pirate games because they can, and there's very low risk of getting caught. It's not like one needs games for living, and the price for a legal copy drops soon after the release.
     
  20. memeroot

    memeroot aged and experianced

    Joined:
    31 Oct 2009
    Posts:
    1,215
    Likes Received:
    19
    the statement is incorrect

    the money spent on a second hand game goes to 2 parties - the shop and the seller

    the seller is (at some point in the chain) a new game buyer - he has more money now to spend on new games - as he has proven willing to buy new games in the past he is the bes person to distribute money to.

    The shop provides retain space for this interchange and also for the purchase of new games it is also a good place to have the money sent

    having said that - if the market did stand at 90% new and 10% old game purchases and switched to 50% 50% that would be worse than if it were 60% new and 40% pirate if the market did not increase in size the difference being in that the former would likely increase the market size overall for the reasons above.
     

Share This Page