I agree...reality shouldn't be based only around pleasing developer's feelings and needs. They will however attempt to screw you over, they and publishers. First they tried EULA, now DD gives them a good opportunity for second attempt. And look at DLC, Epic said they are considering releasing games without ending, putting it as DLC instead. Ubi already did that with new PoP.also, this is why devs are devs and not businessmen... they have no idea how economies work... they should stick with what they know...
ogvampire
Used game sales nearly as bad as piracy?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
If you make a copy of your friend's game you pirated it. There's no difference for the developer whether you pirated the game from your friend or bought it from him.[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]
[QUOTE="ogvampire"]
same thing happens when i let my friend borrow a game... i must be a pirate!!! :cry:
ogvampire
who said anything about copies or pirating? my example is if i let my friend borrow a game
it makes zero difference for developer if you borrow it, copy it or buy it from your friend. The result for developer is exactly the same no matter which one of those you do.I agree...reality shouldn't be based only around pleasing developer's feelings and needs. They will however attempt to screw you over, they and publishers. First they tried EULA, now DD gives them a good opportunity for second attempt. And look at DLC, Epic said they are considering releasing games without ending, putting it as DLC instead. Ubi already did that with new PoP.[QUOTE="ogvampire"]
also, this is why devs are devs and not businessmen... they have no idea how economies work... they should stick with what they know...
AdrianWerner
yup. thats just ridiculous. not only that, but Modern Warfare 2 will have a map pack for sale as DLC on Day 1!!!
You once again show you have very little. if any knowledge of law. You constantly go with this "it's a crime, companies loose money on it, thus it's theft" broken logic. Nobody is denying piracy is bad and that it's a crime. However it's not a theft, by claiming it is you're showing you do not know what theft is in the first place.[QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"]
Hmm, companies not getting paid because of users downloading illegal copies is theft, or how do you define theft?
AdrianWerner
Let's get this straight here. By commiting theft you not only take something without owner's consent, but also devoid him of ability to use it, When I steal your car you can no longer drive it. if I steal a game from your shop not only you won't get money for it from me, you also will be prevented to making any money on it by selling it to somebody else. If I just pirate the game I only take away the possible profit from you, but you're still capable of using the game by playing it or selling it to someone else. As you see by pirating I only did one type of damage to your interests, by theft I would do two types of damage.
When you you do damage to ones's interests there are two possible outcomes of it. Damnum emergens and Lucrum cessans. The first is actual damage that occured, the second is lost oportunity for profit. Theft does both, piracy only does the latter.
Just because piracy is a crime doesn't mean we have to lump it together with completely different type of crime.
Please don't try to belittle me, or be condescening. This post just goes to show what little knowledge you have of the law. By your definition of theft, than Identity Theft cannot be considered a theft and should then be referred to Identity pirate, since you do not in fact devoid a person of the ability to use their own identity. Or are you saying when someone steals someone else's identity, they can no longer use it since it has been stolen? I mean just following your logic.
Theft as defined by NYS law:
Theft/larceny is typically defined as the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken. Most states recognize degrees of theft, such as "grand" or "petty," which usually relate to the value of the property taken.
Not to devoid the person of the ability to use it, but to permanently deprive them of the value! Every pirated game has value, correct...I mean this is logical...no? Every copy of a game has value, every copy of a software has value....Still with me on this one? You pirate a game, hence not paying for your copy of a game, you are depriving the company of the value of the property taken.....still with me on this one?
You should complete law school before insulting others of having no logic or no knowledge of the law. Don't try to throw around logic or "big: words to sound smarter than you actually are. Get through your first year of law school, then comeback.
[QUOTE="ogvampire"]
[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]If you make a copy of your friend's game you pirated it. There's no difference for the developer whether you pirated the game from your friend or bought it from him.
AdrianWerner
who said anything about copies or pirating? my example is if i let my friend borrow a game
it makes zero difference for developer if you borrow it, copy it or buy it from your friend. The result for developer is exactly the same no matter which one of those you do.yes, the result is the same. the dev got paid for a game i bought as new... what i do with it is none of their business as long as i dont make copies and give it out
Please, don't speak about things you have no idea about. Indentity Theft is also considered separate crime from theft. That's why it's called "Identity theft" and listed as separate crime. If it was the same crime it wouldn't need to be listed separately.This post just goes to show what little knowledge you have of the law. By your definition of theft, than Identity Theft cannot be considered a theft and should then be referred to Identity pirate, since you do not in fact devoid a person of the ability to use it. And it;s your logic that is broken.PS3Gamer_1
By pirating you do not take anything or deprive him peromanently of value of property taken. You do not "take" anything, the property still remains in his full possesion.Theft/larceny is typically defined as the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken. Most states recognize degrees of theft, such as "grand" or "petty," which usually relate to the value of the property taken.
Not to devoid the person of the ability to use it, but to permanently deprive them of the value! Every pirated game has value, correct...I mean this is logical...no? Every copy of a game has value, every copy of a software has value....Still with me on this one? You pirate a game, hence not paying for your copy of a game, you are depriving the company of the value of the property taken.....still with me on this one?PS3Gamer_1
You're not taking something of value by pirating, you're using it without compensation. If I would use the house you rent for a day without your knowledge and consent and then move out before you realized without paying you a dime would it count as stealing your house? According to you it would.
or what if I sneak into a concert without a ticket? I've stolen the concert? :D Great logic :D
I managed to forgot more about law than you will ever know about it, so please drop the nonsense. Even as broken and ridiculous as american law system is, certain principles remain the same, you just don't have any idea about it.You should complete law school before insulting others of having no logic or no knowledge of the law. Don't try to throw around logic or "big: words to sound smarter than you actually are. Get through your first year of law school, then comeback.
PS3Gamer_1
You once again show you have very little. if any knowledge of law. You constantly go with this "it's a crime, companies loose money on it, thus it's theft" broken logic. Nobody is denying piracy is bad and that it's a crime. However it's not a theft, by claiming it is you're showing you do not know what theft is in the first place.[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]
[QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"]
Hmm, companies not getting paid because of users downloading illegal copies is theft, or how do you define theft?
PS3Gamer_1
Let's get this straight here. By commiting theft you not only take something without owner's consent, but also devoid him of ability to use it, When I steal your car you can no longer drive it. if I steal a game from your shop not only you won't get money for it from me, you also will be prevented to making any money on it by selling it to somebody else. If I just pirate the game I only take away the possible profit from you, but you're still capable of using the game by playing it or selling it to someone else. As you see by pirating I only did one type of damage to your interests, by theft I would do two types of damage.
When you you do damage to ones's interests there are two possible outcomes of it. Damnum emergens and Lucrum cessans. The first is actual damage that occured, the second is lost oportunity for profit. Theft does both, piracy only does the latter.
Just because piracy is a crime doesn't mean we have to lump it together with completely different type of crime.
Please don't try to belittle me, or be condescening. This post just goes to show what little knowledge you have of the law. By your definition of theft, than Identity Theft cannot be considered a theft and should then be referred to Identity pirate, since you do not in fact devoid a person of the ability to use their own identity. Or are you saying when someone steals someone else's identity, they can no longer use it since it has been stolen? I mean just following your logic.
Theft as defined by NYS law:
Theft/larceny is typically defined as the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken. Most states recognize degrees of theft, such as "grand" or "petty," which usually relate to the value of the property taken.
Not to devoid the person of the ability to use it, but to permanently deprive them of the value! Every pirated game has value, correct...I mean this is logical...no? Every copy of a game has value, every copy of a software has value....Still with me on this one? You pirate a game, hence not paying for your copy of a game, you are depriving the company of the value of the property taken.....still with me on this one?
You should complete law school before insulting others of having no logic or no knowledge of the law. Don't try to throw around logic or "big: words to sound smarter than you actually are. Get through your first year of law school, then comeback.
He is right though and have done a few courses in law. Also understand the statement you bolded, are you permanently depriving him of the value of the property taken? No you are just using it without consent or compensation. WORDING is everything in law.
[QUOTE="Senor_Kami"]From a business standpoint, if you don't buy DLC for your used copy then it's the same as piracy because the publisher and developer don't see any money from it at all. I buy all of my games new. I've never been one to be like, "I must have every game in the world day one or i'm a loser," so I can buy games for cheap even if they're new.ogvampire
its NOTHING like piracy. the Devs already got paid for their work when the used game was originally bought as new
Right.. you know that the original source file for pirated games come from legit copies right? Bought new and all!!! Picture the pirates as second hand users :)
Please don't try to belittle me, or be condescening. This post just goes to show what little knowledge you have of the law. By your definition of theft, than Identity Theft cannot be considered a theft and should then be referred to Identity pirate, since you do not in fact devoid a person of the ability to use their own identity. Or are you saying when someone steals someone else's identity, they can no longer use it since it has been stolen? I mean just following your logic.
Theft as defined by NYS law:
Theft/larceny is typically defined as the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken. Most states recognize degrees of theft, such as "grand" or "petty," which usually relate to the value of the property taken.
Not to devoid the person of the ability to use it, but to permanently deprive them of the value! Every pirated game has value, correct...I mean this is logical...no? Every copy of a game has value, every copy of a software has value....Still with me on this one? You pirate a game, hence not paying for your copy of a game, you are depriving the company of the value of the property taken.....still with me on this one?
You should complete law school before insulting others of having no logic or no knowledge of the law. Don't try to throw around logic or "big: words to sound smarter than you actually are. Get through your first year of law school, then comeback.
PS3Gamer_1
LOL
You even bolded a statement and then you demonstrate you didn't understood it. Adrian is right by the way, theft is a diferent crime.
By pirating you do not take anything or deprive him peromanently of value of property taken. You do not "take" anything, the property still remains in his full possesion.[QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"]Please, don't speak about things you have no idea about. Indentity Theft is also considered separate crime from theft. That's why it's called "Identity theft" and listed as separate crime. If it was the same crime it wouldn't need to be listed separately.
[QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"]
Theft/larceny is typically defined as the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken. Most states recognize degrees of theft, such as "grand" or "petty," which usually relate to the value of the property taken.
Not to devoid the person of the ability to use it, but to permanently deprive them of the value! Every pirated game has value, correct...I mean this is logical...no? Every copy of a game has value, every copy of a software has value....Still with me on this one? You pirate a game, hence not paying for your copy of a game, you are depriving the company of the value of the property taken.....still with me on this one?AdrianWerner
You're not taking something of value by pirating, you're using it without compensation. If I would use the house you rent for a day without your knowledge and consent and then move out before you realized without paying you a dime would it count as stealing your house? According to you it would.
or what if I sneak into a concert without a ticket? I've stolen the concert? :D Great logic :D
I managed to forgot more about law than you will ever know about it, so please drop the nonsense. Even as broken and ridiculous as american law system is, certain principles remain the same, you just don't have any idea about it.You should complete law school before insulting others of having no logic or no knowledge of the law. Don't try to throw around logic or "big: words to sound smarter than you actually are. Get through your first year of law school, then comeback.
PS3Gamer_1
If i were to go to the supermarket and take one grape and eat it, just one, not the bunch, takign into consideration that the missing grape will not change the overall weight or appearance of the bunch of grapes, simply stated the bunch of grapes would weigh and have the same appearance with or without the grape that was taken (Hypothetical of course)...am I stealing? According to your logic I am not...since the bunch is there and has value and can be sold....
And technically one can argue that you using my house with my permission or consent can fall under theft of services....It would take a creative lawyer, but it can be argued:
Absconding without paying for hotel, restaurant, or other services for which compensation is customarily paid immediately upon the receiving of them is prima facie evidence that the services were obtained by deception.
Other services here being paying rent for the use of my house....even if it was without my consent opr knoweldge...again would take a ver, very creative lawyer. But it would prob fall under B&E.
Maybe we got off on the wrong foot. I'll be the bigger person and not respond to your attacks or stupid arguments. In legal terms Piracy is not theft....Agreed? But in logically it is. remember, not all laws are logical, and not all logical arguments are laws.
If i were to go to the supermarket and take one grape and eat it, just one, not the bunch...am I stealing? According to your logic I am not...since the bunch is there and has value and can be sold....What about theft of company time...explain how that works.
Maybe we got off on the wrong foot. I'll be the bigger person and not respond to your attacks or stupid arguments. In legal terms Piracy is not theft....Agreed? But in logically it is. remember, not all laws are logical, and not all logical arguments are laws.
PS3Gamer_1
The value of the bunch would depreciate because the weight of the grapes has dropped... you have permanently dropped the value of the bunch of grapes.
I buy used games (from Ebay mostly). :\ $60 for a 7 hour game just isn't my cup of tea...sorry EA.killab2oo5
Why think like that? That mindset just screams fail.
It shouldn't matter how long the game is. It's not like you're only allowed to beat it once and never play it again. What about the experience?
GTA4 is what, 15 hours? I'd rather pay $60 for a great game thats 7 hours than $60 for a game that is 30+ hours long but is so boring it makes you want to quit gaming (Blue Dragon)
It shouldn't be the length of a game, it should be the experience.
[QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"]
If i were to go to the supermarket and take one grape and eat it, just one, not the bunch...am I stealing? According to your logic I am not...since the bunch is there and has value and can be sold....What about theft of company time...explain how that works.
Maybe we got off on the wrong foot. I'll be the bigger person and not respond to your attacks or stupid arguments. In legal terms Piracy is not theft....Agreed? But in logically it is. remember, not all laws are logical, and not all logical arguments are laws.
Espada12
The value of the bunch would depreciate because the weight of the grapes has dropped... you have permanently dropped the value of the bunch of grapes.
Forgot to state that the weight would not change since the grape taken is so negligible in weight it does not change the total weight of the bunch. Completely forgot to add that to my argument....So what then? This is all hypothetical of course!Forgot to state that the weight would not change since the grape taken is so negligible in weight it does not change the total weight of the bunch.PS3Gamer_1That makes no sense. A grape less is a grape less. Even if it's a very minimal value, it's stilla value.
[QUOTE="ogvampire"]
[QUOTE="Senor_Kami"]From a business standpoint, if you don't buy DLC for your used copy then it's the same as piracy because the publisher and developer don't see any money from it at all. I buy all of my games new. I've never been one to be like, "I must have every game in the world day one or i'm a loser," so I can buy games for cheap even if they're new.Espada12
its NOTHING like piracy. the Devs already got paid for their work when the used game was originally bought as new
Right.. you know that the original source file for pirated games come from legit copies right? Bought new and all!!! Picture the pirates as second hand users :)
there is a difference between selling your 1 copy of something you bought and making many copies of said game to give out for anybody to take
if i buy a game, it is my right to do anything i want with it short of making copies and selling them or giving them out for free
[QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"]
Please don't try to belittle me, or be condescening. This post just goes to show what little knowledge you have of the law. By your definition of theft, than Identity Theft cannot be considered a theft and should then be referred to Identity pirate, since you do not in fact devoid a person of the ability to use their own identity. Or are you saying when someone steals someone else's identity, they can no longer use it since it has been stolen? I mean just following your logic.
Theft as defined by NYS law:
Theft/larceny is typically defined as the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken. Most states recognize degrees of theft, such as "grand" or "petty," which usually relate to the value of the property taken.
Not to devoid the person of the ability to use it, but to permanently deprive them of the value! Every pirated game has value, correct...I mean this is logical...no? Every copy of a game has value, every copy of a software has value....Still with me on this one? You pirate a game, hence not paying for your copy of a game, you are depriving the company of the value of the property taken.....still with me on this one?
You should complete law school before insulting others of having no logic or no knowledge of the law. Don't try to throw around logic or "big: words to sound smarter than you actually are. Get through your first year of law school, then comeback.
glez13
LOL
You even bolded a statement and then you demonstrate you didn't understood it. Adrian is right by the way, theft is a diferent crime.
How so. Do you have the consent of the owner to make a copy of the software? Do you not deprive the owner the value of that copy, not the software code but that copy? It is a stretch, but nonetheless a logical conclusion one can come to....
And yes I know it's a different crime, but one can make a logical argument. It's all in the wording and if you can interpret them in a logical manner, one can argue for or against something. It's a stretch, and is still being argued to this day by software companies.
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
[QUOTE="ogvampire"]
its NOTHING like piracy. the Devs already got paid for their work when the used game was originally bought as new
ogvampire
Right.. you know that the original source file for pirated games come from legit copies right? Bought new and all!!! Picture the pirates as second hand users :)
there is a difference between selling your 1 copy of something you bought and making many copies of said game to give out for anybody to take
if i buy a game, it is my right to do anything i want with it short of making copies and selling them or giving them out for free
I understand that but this is exactly how the devs see it, either way they make no money from it, so they deem it just as bad as piracy, except of course it's *legal* piracy. In either scenario the dev loses, which is why this was brought up in the first place. Maybe they should make it used game sales need say.. 10% of the sale price given back to the dev or something.
[QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"]Forgot to state that the weight would not change since the grape taken is so negligible in weight it does not change the total weight of the bunch.IronBassThat makes no sense. A grape less is a grape less. Even if it's a very minimal value, it's stilla value.
You stated it makes the bunch less valuable, correct. I didn't hurt the gorcery store by making the bunch less valuable, did I? All I did was remove one less grape he could have sold...but did nothing to the overall money they made on the bunch...so where is the theft?
Fruits and vegetables are usually sold by their weight and if you go to a store and eat one grape, you are stealing at least 2 grams of good merchandise.If i were to go to the supermarket and take one grape and eat it, just one, not the bunch...am I stealing? According to your logic I am not...since the bunch is there and has value and can be sold....
PS3Gamer_1
That makes no sense. A grape less is a grape less. Even if it's a very minimal value, it's stilla value.[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"]Forgot to state that the weight would not change since the grape taken is so negligible in weight it does not change the total weight of the bunch.PS3Gamer_1
You stated it makes the bunch less valuable, correct. I didn't hurt the gorcery store by making the bunch less valuable, did I? All I did was remove one less grape he could have sold...but did nothing to the overall money they made on the bunch...so where is the theft?
Yo this makes no sense and you know it. Yes you did hurt the grocery store and you depreciated the overall value of the bunch of grapes. It's like stealing a carton of milk from the factory and saying lol they have tons more I didn't steal anything.
[QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"]
[QUOTE="IronBass"] That makes no sense. A grape less is a grape less. Even if it's a very minimal value, it's stilla value.Espada12
You stated it makes the bunch less valuable, correct. I didn't hurt the gorcery store by making the bunch less valuable, did I? All I did was remove one less grape he could have sold...but did nothing to the overall money they made on the bunch...so where is the theft?
Yo this makes no sense and you know it. Yes you did hurt the grocery store and you depreciated the overall value of the bunch of grapes. It's like stealing a carton of milk from the factor and saying lol they have tons more I didn't steal anything.
I know this is theft...hence I put the hypothetical that it does not change the overall value of the bunch...so how is it theft under those conditions. Not the same argument as stealing one carton of milk....that it outright theft.
Theft/larceny is typically defined as the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken.
I didn't permanently deprive the grocery of the vlaue of the property taken...in my hypothetical situation, of course. So in essence there was no theft....
[QUOTE="ogvampire"]
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
Right.. you know that the original source file for pirated games come from legit copies right? Bought new and all!!! Picture the pirates as second hand users :)
Espada12
there is a difference between selling your 1 copy of something you bought and making many copies of said game to give out for anybody to take
if i buy a game, it is my right to do anything i want with it short of making copies and selling them or giving them out for free
I understand that but this is exactly how the devs see it, either way they make no money from it, so they deem it just as bad as piracy, except of course it's *legal* piracy. In either scenario the dev loses, which is why this was brought up in the first place. Maybe they should make it used game sales need say.. 10% of the sale price given back to the dev or something.
i can see a red shirt and say that its blue... hey, its how i see things. in the end, i am wrong. much like the devs that complain about used games
they are trying to fight consumer rights AND basic economics
[QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"]Fruits and vegetables are usually sold by their weight and if you go to a store and eat one grape, you are stealing at least 2 grams of good merchandise.If i were to go to the supermarket and take one grape and eat it, just one, not the bunch...am I stealing? According to your logic I am not...since the bunch is there and has value and can be sold....
RK-Mara
Thanks, I didn't know this.
I was placing a hypothetical, if you read further on where the loss of that one grape was so negligible that it did not affect the total weight of the bunch....hence the bunch of grapes would have weighed the same with or without said missing grape.
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
[QUOTE="ogvampire"]
there is a difference between selling your 1 copy of something you bought and making many copies of said game to give out for anybody to take
if i buy a game, it is my right to do anything i want with it short of making copies and selling them or giving them out for free
ogvampire
I understand that but this is exactly how the devs see it, either way they make no money from it, so they deem it just as bad as piracy, except of course it's *legal* piracy. In either scenario the dev loses, which is why this was brought up in the first place. Maybe they should make it used game sales need say.. 10% of the sale price given back to the dev or something.
i can see a red shirt and say that its blue... hey, its how i see things. in the end, i am wrong. much like the devs that complain about used games
they are trying to fight consumer rights AND basic economics
The thing is they aren't wrong and it affects them. If someone buys a game new and lends it or trades it away at that point the devs stop making money. That used game can go from hand to hand to hand and make the devs lose sales, because these people were actually willing to pay for the product but got it cheaper. Now if someone buys a new game and uploads the image on top a site and people download it, the devs may be losing sales but they don't see the MAJORITY of these as potiential buyers, most of them pirate everything and won't spend a dime on any game, but used game buyers are willing to spend the money, but since they can get it extremely cheaper and very quickly to the release date of the games(sometimes within the first two weeks), and still get all the features of the game(console) they go that route and make the dev lose a sale.
Erm..you took the grape. Sure it's small and all, but that is one grape they will never be able to sell. Thus you lowered the value, it cannot be sold. Just because the value was low doesn't mean there was no value at all. Of course plenty of law systems have rules that wouldn't make such small theft a crime in the first place as it's not socially damaging enough (it's done for convienience, but leads to silly things, like one of my professors used to say "you can't steal...well unless you steal only a little that is" :D )If i were to go to the supermarket and take one grape and eat it, just one, not the bunch...am I stealing? According to your logic I am not...since the bunch is there and has value and can be sold....What about theft of company time...explain how that works.PS3Gamer_1
And technically one can argue that you using my house with my permission or consent can fall under theft of services....It would take a creative lawyer, but it can be argued:PS3Gamer_1
No, it wouldn't be creative lawyer, it would be a lawyer that shouldn't get his diploma in the first place. Not to mention it would be pretty silly idea on his part, as it wouldn't benefit you as a client, trying to squeeze it into theft would only make it much harder for you to get good recompensation for damages done to you.
In legal terms Piracy is not theft....Agreed? But in logically it is. remember, not all laws are logical, and not all logical arguments are laws.Nah. it's not theft neither law-wise nor logic wise. The whole "piracy is a theft" is nonsense companies made up to try to paint piracy in more negative way early on when people didn;t truly grasp all this digital market. Piracy is damaging enough that we don't need to mess with definitions of older crimes just to make it look wrong. It's pretty wrong on it's own right.PS3Gamer_1
[QUOTE="ogvampire"]
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
I understand that but this is exactly how the devs see it, either way they make no money from it, so they deem it just as bad as piracy, except of course it's *legal* piracy. In either scenario the dev loses, which is why this was brought up in the first place. Maybe they should make it used game sales need say.. 10% of the sale price given back to the dev or something.
Espada12
i can see a red shirt and say that its blue... hey, its how i see things. in the end, i am wrong. much like the devs that complain about used games
they are trying to fight consumer rights AND basic economics
The thing is they aren't wrong and it affects them. If someone buys a game new and lends it or trades it away at that point the devs stop making money. That used game can go from hand to hand to hand and make the devs lose sales, because these people were actually willing to pay for the product but got it cheaper. Now if someone buys a new game and uploads the image on top a site and people download it, the devs may be losing sales but they don't see the MAJORITY of these as potiential buyers, most of them pirate everything and won't spend a dime on any game, but used game buyers are willing to spend the money, but since they can get it extremely cheaper and very quickly to the release date of the games(sometimes within the first two weeks), and still get all the features of the game(console) they go that route and make the dev lose a sale.
um... thats how economy works :roll:
i can buy whatever product i want and give it to a friend... that friend can then give it to whoever they want and so forth
if they dont like the reality of economics, then i suggest they go into the food service industry or something that isnt affected by this
with their idea, you might as well say goodbye to giving used clothes to the needy ... those people are getting stuff for free that they didnt pay for! how dare those poor people try to steal money from people with well-paying jobs!!!!
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
[QUOTE="ogvampire"]
i can see a red shirt and say that its blue... hey, its how i see things. in the end, i am wrong. much like the devs that complain about used games
they are trying to fight consumer rights AND basic economics
ogvampire
The thing is they aren't wrong and it affects them. If someone buys a game new and lends it or trades it away at that point the devs stop making money. That used game can go from hand to hand to hand and make the devs lose sales, because these people were actually willing to pay for the product but got it cheaper. Now if someone buys a new game and uploads the image on top a site and people download it, the devs may be losing sales but they don't see the MAJORITY of these as potiential buyers, most of them pirate everything and won't spend a dime on any game, but used game buyers are willing to spend the money, but since they can get it extremely cheaper and very quickly to the release date of the games(sometimes within the first two weeks), and still get all the features of the game(console) they go that route and make the dev lose a sale.
um... thats how economy works :roll:
i can buy whatever product i want and give it to a friend... that friend can then give it to whoever they want and so forth
if they dont like the reality of economics, then i suggest they go into the food service industry or something that isnt affected by this
with their idea, you might as well say goodbye to giving used clothes to the needy ... those people are getting stuff for free that they didnt pay for! how dare those poor people try to steal money from people with well-paying jobs!!!!
Ughh, I don't think I've ever denied that, but what they are saying is that it's bad as piracy because people play their game without them getting any profit from it, while others make a profit from it, UNDERSTAND THAT. Also giving clothes to the needy is in no way like the used video game industry, what a silly example.
[QUOTE="ogvampire"]
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
I understand that but this is exactly how the devs see it, either way they make no money from it, so they deem it just as bad as piracy, except of course it's *legal* piracy. In either scenario the dev loses, which is why this was brought up in the first place. Maybe they should make it used game sales need say.. 10% of the sale price given back to the dev or something.
Espada12
i can see a red shirt and say that its blue... hey, its how i see things. in the end, i am wrong. much like the devs that complain about used games
they are trying to fight consumer rights AND basic economics
The thing is they aren't wrong and it affects them. If someone buys a game new and lends it or trades it away at that point the devs stop making money. That used game can go from hand to hand to hand and make the devs lose sales, because these people were actually willing to pay for the product but got it cheaper. Now if someone buys a new game and uploads the image on top a site and people download it, the devs may be losing sales but they don't see the MAJORITY of these as potiential buyers, most of them pirate everything and won't spend a dime on any game, but used game buyers are willing to spend the money, but since they can get it extremely cheaper and very quickly to the release date of the games(sometimes within the first two weeks), and still get all the features of the game(console) they go that route and make the dev lose a sale.
I don't know about your legal piracy argument...but I do agree that used games are hurting the developers more than piracy. While most people who pirate games usually pirate everything, meaning music, movies, etc. (notice I said most, not all), the devleopers don't see them as potential customers because of this. The used game market is poaching the sales from developers from "real" potential customers. This can be a blessing and a curse. it may expose people to their games and brand names, but at this point which gamer is truly ignorant to the developers and what types of games they put out. So in reality it is a curse for the developers. I do have my problems with gamestop and their practicies, but they have just done what everyone in a free economy does, make money. The developers need to implement contracts with the big corporations who are selling used games, they can't sell used copies until afterm say a reasonable time frame 6 months or more...Gamestop is really what is hurting the developers. They push used games on customers who are willing to pay retail and give money to the developers. There is a need to support the developers, since wihtout them we have no games. I rather support the developers than gamestop. I also send my message to the developers for crappy games by not buying said game, or waiting for the price drop.
I was going to purchase Ghostbusters, but after the reviews for ps3 version I am bocotting the full reatail price, and waiting for that price drop. I know I am one person, but if we all did this, imagine the message that would be sent to the developers.
I for one am loathe to buy used games. I usually wait for a price drop, or if I really can't wait and must do so, I go to ebay, again because of my feeling about Gamestop and their shady business practices (too many for me to list).
But you can't judge people who buy used, hey economy is bad and we are all strapped for cash.
Anyways, my $0.02
[QUOTE="ogvampire"]
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
The thing is they aren't wrong and it affects them. If someone buys a game new and lends it or trades it away at that point the devs stop making money. That used game can go from hand to hand to hand and make the devs lose sales, because these people were actually willing to pay for the product but got it cheaper. Now if someone buys a new game and uploads the image on top a site and people download it, the devs may be losing sales but they don't see the MAJORITY of these as potiential buyers, most of them pirate everything and won't spend a dime on any game, but used game buyers are willing to spend the money, but since they can get it extremely cheaper and very quickly to the release date of the games(sometimes within the first two weeks), and still get all the features of the game(console) they go that route and make the dev lose a sale.
Espada12
um... thats how economy works :roll:
i can buy whatever product i want and give it to a friend... that friend can then give it to whoever they want and so forth
if they dont like the reality of economics, then i suggest they go into the food service industry or something that isnt affected by this
with their idea, you might as well say goodbye to giving used clothes to the needy ... those people are getting stuff for free that they didnt pay for! how dare those poor people try to steal money from people with well-paying jobs!!!!
Ughh, I don't think I've ever denied that, but what they are saying is that it's bad as piracy because people play their game without them getting any profit from it, while others make a profit from it, UNDERSTAND THAT. Also giving clothes to the needy is in no way like the used video game industry, what a silly example.
my example was how giving clothes away is like letting your friend have a game, not the used videogame industry (notice the bolded part of your previous quote)
also, the 'others that make profit from it' are also the ones that sell those same devs NEW games, plus push their soon-to-be-released games with advertisement and pre-sales. funny how they forget about that...
Erm..you took the grape. Sure it's small and all, but that is one grape they will never be able to sell. Thus you lowered the value, it cannot be sold. Just because the value was low doesn't mean there was no value at all. Of course plenty of law systems have rules that wouldn't make such small theft a crime in the first place as it's not socially damaging enough (it's done for convienience, but leads to silly things, like one of my professors used to say "you can't steal...well unless you steal only a little that is" :D )[QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"]
If i were to go to the supermarket and take one grape and eat it, just one, not the bunch...am I stealing? According to your logic I am not...since the bunch is there and has value and can be sold....What about theft of company time...explain how that works.AdrianWerner
And technically one can argue that you using my house with my permission or consent can fall under theft of services....It would take a creative lawyer, but it can be argued:PS3Gamer_1
No, it wouldn't be creative lawyer, it would be a lawyer that shouldn't get his diploma in the first place. Not to mention it would be pretty silly idea on his part, as it wouldn't benefit you as a client, trying to squeeze it into theft would only make it much harder for you to get good recompensation for damages done to you.
In legal terms Piracy is not theft....Agreed? But in logically it is. remember, not all laws are logical, and not all logical arguments are laws.Nah. it's not theft neither law-wise nor logic wise. The whole "piracy is a theft" is nonsense companies made up to try to paint piracy in more negative way early on when people didn;t truly grasp all this digital market. Piracy is damaging enough that we don't need to mess with definitions of older crimes just to make it look wrong. It's pretty wrong on it's own right. We can go days with this. I guess we'll agree to disagree. Good day sir, and good chat!PS3Gamer_1
it's cheaper to blame piracy than to sell at reasonable rates. if games were cheaper they would sell more copies. if people can't afford then they will trade them. if a company doesn't like that then do something about it. do anything... and it will backfire.
all that will happen is the smaller companies will dissapear and the bigger companies will complain, and then turn on eachother a few years later. but the customer will remain unchanged.
a first game in a series will sell less, later games with established characters sale more... a big reason for this is because people trade good games and it builds the reputation.
i don't condone piracy, but i won't pay more than what something is worth to me. if i miss out on mediocrity then so be it. a lot of money is made on mediocrity and companies feel it is the consumers responsibility to pay for it.
IT IS NOT MY JOB TO BUY WHAT YOU WANT TO SELL, IT IS YOUR JOB TO SELL WHAT I WANT TO BUY.
[QUOTE="poptart"]There actually is a solution: digital distribution. Let's say that you were able to resell your copy of a Steam game and the developer would get a slice of that money. You as the seller will have more money to buy a new game, which again helps the developer and everyone wins.Of course the perception is that the resale of a particular item - gaming or otherwise - will affect the revenue the manufacturer of that particular item generates, however there's really no solution. If to prohibit the sale of games 2nd hand is to generate greater profits for the publishers, then likewise it is to make the consumer just a little poorer as their gaming collection will no longer be assets, with a collective worth of zero.
It's not like EA are poor, although maybe they bought Bioware for a premium price just as the economy was slowing and they're concerned about getting a decent return from their (pretty expensive) investment...
RK-Mara
Well, EA are perhaps the worst culprit of promoting disposable games, their annual sports franchises being the epitome. A partial solution is to perhaps attempt to make games a little more durable, for instance place a greater emphasis on sustaining an active, evolving online community (which of course we're shifting towards anyway). Maybe provide free DLC after 6 months, access to exclusive demos after a certain number of hours play - all things to entice the consumer to cling on to their product. As it stands, its no wonder people trade in EA games if they encourage people to get the latest installment of Fifa or whatever on an annual basis... Anyway...
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment