Used Games - As Bad as Piracy?

So, on Gamespot, there was a thread attacking the rationalizations used by people who pirate video games.

Then, one person chimes in, saying that the used game market is worse, saying that not only is money not going to the publishers, but you're giving money to a "corrupt" institution.

I've noticed that in recent years, there's been a lot of hate on the used games market, particularly Gamestop. Penny Arcade seemed to articulate the viewpoint that buying/selling used games was bad.

Personally, my problem with the argument is that this has never seemed to be a problem with:

Comic books

Cars

Books

Movies

Other electronics

or anything, really. Buying/selling "used" only seems to be a problem in the game industry. Person arguing says that games are software and that it's "completely" different from physical objects like cars or books. Also that buying the game doesn't give you a game, just the license to play it.

But the thing is, I'm really not seeing the difference. If I buy a graphic novel, read it, and then sell it, and there isn't a problem with that, why is there a problem if I buy a video game, play it, and then sell it?

What the fuck is that bullshit? It's a disk, when you buy it, it's yours, and you're free to sell the physical media how you please because you own it.

You might not own the property rights to the digital media stored on it, and thus have no authority to create and distribute copies, but that's not the point.

Heh, no. Reselling your property is a right. The publisher/developer/retailer have no claim to any money made from resale, they've already been paid.

edited 28th Feb '11 6:48:09 PM by Talby

Honestly, without the ability to buy used games, I never would have gotten into buying new games.

Yeah. I mean, if I trade in my game... I don't own the game anymore.

I've seen this argument before to which I say it is mine and I will sell it and buy used games just like I buy used DV Ds, books, textbooks, C Ds and so on. I have a right to do so. They already got paid.

edited 28th Feb '11 6:49:10 PM by Aondeug

The software industry really needs to have the Doctrine of First Sale beaten into its head, preferably by federal law. Sadly, its not likely anytime soon.

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOimstealingajokefromyahtzeeOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

edited 28th Feb '11 6:51:03 PM by GuyInWhite

I'm not sure what the rationale us for the OP's sentiment, i can only imagine that V Gs seem to be putting in a lot more for less but then I don't really know, but It always seemed to be that Video Game companies get less in return for the cast amount of resources put into their actual games so used games just exacerbates the issue and makes it harder for them to continue to make and sell quality games.

But I'm just spit balling, it's just a theory based off of things I barely remember heard.

If selling used games was A-Okay with the developers why are more and more companies using DRM that prevents Reselling of used games?

Oh yeah, DRM that prevents resale needs to be taken care of, to protect consumer rights. Lawmakers will get around to it eventually, I hope.

Money, Dear Boy

Well, it is true that you can't resell a software license. If you buy computer software, you cannot legally resell it. (Which doesn't stop people from selling it on used computers, but it is still illegal.)

The sale of used video games, however, is not currently cut-and-dry illegal. However, there is legal precedent that could make it so.

From F.B.T. Productions, LLC v. Aftermath Records:

"Under our case law interpreting and applying the Copyright Act, too, it is well settled that where a copyright owner transfers a copy of copyrighted material, retains title, limits the uses to which the material may be put, and is compensated periodically based on the transferee's exploitation of the material, the transaction is a license."

And in MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entm't Inc., the court ruled that World of Warcraft was licensed materials.

However, I think video game companies should tread carefully here. Many gamers fund future game purchases by selling their old games. If a person can no longer do this, a $60 price tag is suddenly a lot steeper than it used to be, which in turn can mean fewer sales. It may be in their best interest not to pursue making video games licensed materials.

In the meantime: Not illegal and not equivalent to piracy.

edited 28th Feb '11 6:57:27 PM by ccoa

I also see it setting up a severe Double Standard with other media - like, you're not selling a movie anymore, you're selling a license to watch a movie... repeat with books, comics, music...

World of Warcraft is a slight difference, though, as technically, they're the ones running the game, on their own servers. Pretty much all the money they make is through the subscriptions and not copies of the game, anyway.

edited 28th Feb '11 7:00:21 PM by Pannic

True. Although the full court ruling was that game players were licensees who were permitted to copy the game client software only in conformance with the game's terms of use. So that can still be applied as precedent to physical copies if someone really wants to make video games licensed since it had to do with local copies of the client software, not anything on the servers.

edited 28th Feb '11 7:05:12 PM by ccoa

Eh, this is one of those cyclical arguments gamers tend to get in, along with "(insert genre here) is dying!" and "WRP Gs vs. JRP Gs," amongst others. The bottom line is that games are expensive, and as long as they remain expensive, there'll be a used games market. I'm not sure there's a moral right or wrong in this when you come right down to it.

Eh, I can see both sides of the issue. Yes, by buying a game it is both ethical and legal to resell it. Yes, the used game industry is exactly the same as piracy from the developers' perspective: people play their games without giving them a dime. You're free to do what you want, and unlike piracy it's not actually illegal, but it is a process that hurts the people who make the games.

Oh, and the difference between software and non-software is that the product doesn't notably degrade with use. If you lend a book to someone, they'll crease the cover or something. Used cars are likely to break down and need repairs. With discs though, it's relatively simple to remove all but the worst scratches, and whether it works or not is a binary problem. There's practically no reason not to buy used, other than wanting games on their release dates.

edited 28th Feb '11 7:12:24 PM by Clarste

@Topic: I vehemently disagree. Those used copies were once new. They already got their cash from it.

It's okay as long as it's an Activision game to me.

edited 28th Feb '11 7:17:35 PM by miru

You do realize that the CEOs will deal with the loss of profits by firing the devs rather than lowering their own salaries, right?

Used games aren't pirated. Most game companies understand this. However, they have been making incentives for people to buy their games new by providing DLC available to new copies for free, using one-time codes.

Used games don't come with those one-time codes, as they're already used up. You can sometimes buy the DLC afterwards to get access to that content, though.

There shouldn't be a problem with used games but I think the devil is in the legal details here. Virtually anything else on earth is mine once I paid for it provided I'm not making profit off it. You do not lease the right to read copywritten text when you buy a book, it's yours provided you don't copy the text and start selling it. Yet that's the gaming market in a nutshell.

It can't be technically illegal, or Gamestop would have been put out of business a decade ago. But there is a unique situation here were a second-hand retailer is hurting the market. Perhaps the laws need to be changed, no more EULA agreement warning me that I merely rent that $50 game, and maybe Gamestop should pay royalties for their resells.

Hell, I'm the same as Scardoll. I buy a used game from a series, decide that I enjoy it, and decide to buy the next installment on release day, new.

Most EULA sets I've seen allow for reselling of the product, as a transference of rights from one individual to another.

Scardoll raised a good point early on; the fact that you can buy and sell used games makes taking the hobby up more feasible for a lot of people. And even if they rely on used games most of the time, they'll still have to buy their systems and some will probably get new games now and then anyway.