[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Are you assuming that people always act ethically, reasonably and in their best interest? If so, I beg to differ.

I'm saying that when even people who make their living off selling copyrighted work encourage you to ignore copyright, it shows a breakdown in legitimacy of the current regime.

And what does the point about your inventors and musicians prove, Snarky? It's not like they are forbidden to release their own work as a public domain!

It shows that many of the creative people who generate IP don't feel that the restrictions of patents and copyright are necessary, effective, or ethical. That doesn't mean that it's not sometimes in their best interest to exploit the system, even if they don't agree with it. Just like you might take a tax deduction that shouldn't exist, you might patent an "invention" that shouldn't be patentable, or collect royalties on a work that ought to have been in the public domain for a long time. The balance of convictions and pragmatism varies from person to person.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

Why is buying a used game any different than pirating it?

A used game resale keeps money circulating. If you buy a game for $50 and sell it for $20, chances are you'll roll that $20 over into your next purchase. It doesn't help the first developer, but it helps the next one. That's the theory, anyway.

[After a brisk nap]

Also, in theory a resale market should increase people's incentive to buy the game in the first place: "That game is $50, which is too much to pay ... but I can sell it for $20, so really it's only costing me $30."

It's probably not a major factor for computer game sales, but it is important when it comes to things like cars.

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by Jackal

A used game resale keeps money circulating. If you buy a game for $50 and sell it for $20, chances are you'll roll that $20 over into your next purchase. It doesn't help the first developer, but it helps the next one. That's the theory, anyway.

Originally Posted by Snarky

Also, in theory a resale market should increase people's incentive to buy the game in the first place: "That game is $50, which is too much to pay ... but I can sell it for $20, so really it's only costing me $30."

It's probably not a major factor for computer game sales, but it is important when it comes to things like cars.

But wouldn't that $20 be better to go back to the publisher/developer? Why won't they re-release them? and the companies often have to support these games that they've received no income from - isn't that incentive enough to re-release?

Lynsie

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

But wouldn't that $20 be better to go back to the publisher/developer? Why won't they re-release them? and the companies often have to support these games that they've received no income from - isn't that incentive enough to re-release?

Lynsie

And a lot of them re-release them. Midway has already 3 compilations of its classics, Lucasarts had bundles before, now Vivendi is releasing a Space Quest and King Quest compilation, Namco has a compilation, Capcom has a compilation, Atari has one. A lot of times the company that did the original game is dead so the franchise is dead. In other times, they don't see the demand large enough for re-releasing them.

But if it weren't for ebay and selling used games, I'd probably buy very few games, if any. 49.99 is a steep price to pay, however good the game is and now, prices are rising to 59.99.

[Tanukitsune]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

But wouldn't that $20 be better to go back to the publisher/developer? Why won't they re-release them? and the companies often have to support these games that they've received no income from - isn't that incentive enough to re-release?

Lynsie

Some companies don't even exist anymore, so they can't re-release them...

And other companies have no interest in re-releasing their old games...

The used games system works, people who can afford new games buy them full price and then sell them for less on Ebay or a used games store, and with the money they make they buy MORE games!

The same goes for renting games, stores rent them for a small fee and use that fee to buy more games!

Although there are some games that say that re-selling them is against their license...

EDIT: Some companies do offer their old games, sometimes for free as a download, sometimes as a payed download, and sometimes you get the "orignal" game...

I say "original" game since you usually only get the disquette (no box), which doesn't even look like the original, and a Xeroxed manual if you are lucky...

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

But wouldn't that $20 be better to go back to the publisher/developer? Why won't they re-release them? and the companies often have to support these games that they've received no income from - isn't that incentive enough to re-release?

What? It should be clear from the arguments made that the money does reach the developers (in theory), because the lower effective price point increased sales in the first place, and because people may spend the money they earn on buying another game.

Besides, when you buy something you get the right to sell it on. That's a fundamental tenet of capitalism. The idea that there should be anything wrong with reselling a game mystifies me. Do we chastise people for buying existing houses because they're not supporting the construction industry?

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by Snarky

What? It should be clear from the arguments made that the money does reach the developers (in theory), because the lower effective price point increased sales in the first place, and because people may spend the money they earn on buying another game.

Besides, when you buy something you get the right to sell it on. That's a fundamental tenet of capitalism. The idea that there should be anything wrong with reselling a game mystifies me. Do we chastise people for buying existing houses because they're not supporting the construction industry?

Boy, I can tell you don't live in Florida! LOL With the hurricanes here, we're always rebuilding! And with over 1000 people per day moving into Florida, we always need new homes.

I don't mean that it's wrong, Snarky, but when you compare it to pirating, there's little real difference. (Unless you have someone who makes 500 copies from one CD and sells them at full price to make money.) Sometimes people buy games on release, play them and sell them right away. The buyers of these are going back to the websites for support as much as those who bought it brand new. I've seen complaints from developers that this extra support causes a burden for them - who ultimately pays for this?

Lynsie

[Tanukitsune]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

Boy, I can tell you don't live in Florida! LOL With the hurricanes here, we're always rebuilding! And with over 1000 people per day moving into Florida, we always need new homes.

I don't mean that it's wrong, Snarky, but when you compare it to pirating, there's little real difference. (Unless you have someone who makes 500 copies from one CD and sells them at full price to make money.) Sometimes people buy games on release, play them and sell them right away. The buyers of these are going back to the websites for support as much as those who bought it brand new. I've seen complaints from developers that this extra support causes a burden for them - who ultimately pays for this?

Lynsie

How can they need extra support if the original owner no longer has it?

The only way this could happen is for there to be more copies of the games than the developers expected too, in other words, it must be people with illegal copies asking for support!

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by Tanukitsune

How can they need extra support if the original owner no longer has it?

The only way this could happen is for there to be more copies of the games than the developers expected too, in other words, it must be people with illegal copies asking for support!

It's extra if the original owner used it, then the second owner is using it as well.


Lynsie

[Tanukitsune]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

It's extra if the original owner used it, then the second owner is using it as well.


Lynsie

Wouldn't it only be extra if they both used it at the same time? For that to be possible the orignal owner must still have the game installed on his/her PC, which would be illegal....

Or do you mean it's extra work because the orignal owner called tech support once and after, when the second owner bought it, he had to call tech support as well?

If so, I don't see the problem, a developer's tech support should be able to handle as many calls as copies of the games issued...

[Jeysie]

Well, I can't say for sure what zee Godmother actually had in mind, but from my own logical perspective I can see this sort of situation being a problem:

You buy a game. While playing the game you run into some sort of problem. So you call tech support and get it fixed. You then are all set from then on because you know what fixes that particular problem.

One day you decide to sell the game. Someone else buys it. Now, that person ends up having the same problem now you did before. And they end up having to call tech support, etc, etc. Tech support essentially ends up solving the same problem twice for one copy of their media.

I have to agree that I see little difference between piracy and second-hand selling from the perspective of what the game company receives from the situation.

However, I still disapprove of the idea of game clerks encouraging customers to download games instead of buying them. IMHO when you choose to work at a job it is your moral duty to either support your job no matter what your own personal beliefs or find a new job.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Tanukitsune]

But if you buy a game, have a problem and call tech support, unistall it and play it again later, you will probably have forgotten how to fix the problem and you'll have to call them again....

I might have problems with the game if I buy a new graphics card and I'll need to call them AGAIN!

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with having to contact support more than once, they should have enough people/resources to handle this kind of thing...

I doubt that they are overwhelmed by hundreds of people asking for the same thing, on the contrary, if everybody called about the same problem, they'd just have it in their Tech Support FAQ or trouble shooting FAQ, or their automated responses...

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by Tanukitsune

But if you buy a game, have a problem and call tech support, unistall it and play it again later, you will probably have forgotten how to fix the problem and you'll have to call them again....

I agree there are a few variables, and it's possible you may forget the solution. It's only a possibility, though, whereas a new person owning the game almost certainly will not have ever heard of the solution before.

Originally Posted by Tanukitsune

I might have problems with the game if I buy a new graphics card and I'll need to call them AGAIN!

Yes, but that's a *different* problem. I'm certainly not saying that a single user can't have multiple problems with a piece of software, just if the tech is doing their job you shouldn't need to solve the same problem twice for the same person.

Originally Posted by Tanukitsune

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with having to contact support more than once, they should have enough people/resources to handle this kind of thing...

If it were me, it would be the principle of the thing. They may have enough resources to handle it, but it's still frustrating having to do more work than should be necessary.

Originally Posted by Tanukitsune

I doubt that they are overwhelmed by hundreds of people asking for the same thing, on the contrary, if everybody called about the same problem, they'd just have it in their Tech Support FAQ or trouble shooting FAQ, or their automated responses...

Things like FAQs and automated responses still consume resources, albeit less than full human responses.

Not to mention that for every one person who is diligent about reading Readmes, FAQs, and listening to the responses, there's at least 10 people who just dial the number and go straight to the operator.

Forgot to mention that reselling games also creates potential new problems, like missing manuals, missing or damaged disks, CD keys that are missing or can't be reused, etc.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Snarky

I'm saying that when even people who make their living off selling copyrighted work encourage you to ignore copyright, it shows a breakdown in legitimacy of the current regime.

Well, not necessarily. It can mean something's wrong with the system, but also that there is something wrong with those people. Or both.

It shows that many of the creative people who generate IP don't feel that the restrictions of patents and copyright are necessary, effective, or ethical. That doesn't mean that it's not sometimes in their best interest to exploit the system, even if they don't agree with it. Just like you might take a tax deduction that shouldn't exist, you might patent an "invention" that shouldn't be patentable, or collect royalties on a work that ought to have been in the public domain for a long time. The balance of convictions and pragmatism varies from person to person.

Precisely. So it can work the other way round, too: a person who is against piracy in principle (or would be if s/he gave more thought to the problem) or doesn't see the current copyright system as flawed, may still practice dowloading illegal copies, or convince others to do so.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

Boy, I can tell you don't live in Florida! LOL With the hurricanes here, we're always rebuilding! And with over 1000 people per day moving into Florida, we always need new homes.

That makes absolutely no difference. If anything, it makes the analogy more exact.

I don't mean that it's wrong, Snarky, but when you compare it to pirating, there's little real difference. (Unless you have someone who makes 500 copies from one CD and sells them at full price to make money.) Sometimes people buy games on release, play them and sell them right away. The buyers of these are going back to the websites for support as much as those who bought it brand new. I've seen complaints from developers that this extra support causes a burden for them - who ultimately pays for this?

Is it really a burden that people visit their website? Now, I have personally never called tech support for a game, but I suppose some people might. Aren't they far more likely, though, to look for an answer to their problem on the website, Google for a solution, or ask a question in the game's forums? Seems to me that game companies have achieved a highly efficient support system where each additional person needing help adds very little to the load.

Anyway, I find this whole question somewhat offensive. It's part of a shift in thinking from the idea that when we buy something it's ours, to do with as we please, to the idea that we're only renting it from the publishers, and only on their terms. Put more starkly: We're moving from a world where we own things made by corporations, to a world where corporations own us.

Maybe game companies would prefer it if we couldn't resell games. Maybe publishers would prefer it if there were no public libraries. Maybe record companies would prefer it if instead of buying the new Franz Ferdinand album, I had to pay every time I wanted to listen to one of the songs. However, everything doesn't have to be exactly the way that's best for them. All laws are not supposed to be made exclusively for their benefit.

[AFGNCAAP]

As for the reselling games argument, I am lost for words. Iif you guys really see no difference between this and piracy because the money doesn't go straight to the developer, by extension you should name buying games in stores equally wrong, too.

Tech support? Excuse me, but in an ideal world, a game I buy should run perfectly on my computer as long as it meets the system requirements. I pay for the experience of playing the game, not for the CD & a box. So, when something goes wrong, the support is something I deserve as a customer, rather than an act of kindness from merciful company's side. In other words, I don't give a damn if I cause more work to tech service people because of the product's malfunctioning. The malfunctioning shouldn't have happened in the first place!

[ILoveYou]

LOL, so your saying reselling the game should be illegal? LMAO! The person who bought the game in the first place PAID for it and that way he OWNS it. I don't see anything wrong with selling it after you've played it through. The game company ain't losing anything when you resale your game. They've already gotten the money for it.

Ps. Who even uses the support today?! I have NEVER used it. Google gives me the answer to almost everything.

[Jeysie]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally don't think that reselling games should be illegal, far from it. It is simply that I can see that if someone is going to take the notion that someone pirating a game harms a game company, then second-hand purchases cause the exact same harm.

In both cases the game company loses out on profiting from the new "sale" because the new customer is getting an existing copy for their own, instead of a new copy from the game company.

IOW, in both cases the company *does* lose money - the money they would have received if the new customer had bought a new copy instead of getting an existing copy.

When you bring other factors into it, such as the right in (I presume) most places to make money reselling merchandise, then the two situations do start to differ, obviously.

As for tech support, you'd be surprised how many people use it. I know from experience that people not using tech support is the exception, not the rule.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

It is simply that I can see that if someone is going to take the notion that someone pirating a game harms a game company, then second-hand purchases cause the exact same harm.

It doesn't necessarily. It increases the purchasing power of the person selling the used game, to go and put more money into the game industry.

On the other hand, why do you assume that if a person is willing to pay 20 dollars for a used game, he is willing to pay 50 dollars for it new. If there are no used games, the new person might just decide not to buy at all. So in that case, instead of ending with 70 dollars being payed for the game industry you only end up with the 50. Circulation of money is always a good thing in any capitalist country, because the higher the purchasing power of an individual, the more probable he is willing to use it to buy merchendise.