This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Which is worse on game creators: buying a used game or illegally pirating a game

#31hockeybub89Posted 11/11/2012 3:05:49 AM
I would venture to say that developers hate pirating more since that is illegal and no better than physically stealing a game.
---
http://fp.profiles.us.playstation.com/playstation/psn/pid/NIR_Hockey.png
http://www.last.fm/user/hockeybub89/ Bears Beets Battlestar Galactica
#32laszlo_olzsalPosted 11/11/2012 3:10:32 AM
the amount of rationalization on this thread is ludicrous! While neither puts money in the original developer's hands, piracy is far worse.

A used copy of a game began as a brand new copy that someone bought at full price near launch (not talking about store cracked open copies). The developer and publisher received a cut of the profits as that point. The original sale is recorded for that title's profitability.

A game pirate usually obtains a copy illegally (downloads, betas) runs it through emulation or some other means on a PC. The developer, publisher & retailer sees ZERO. Rationalizing about how pirates "spread good word of mouth" or "buy sequels" is just BS. I know pirates who haven't bought a hard copy of a game in years.


It's ironic how many game pirates trash gamestop as being evil when they obviously are blind to their own practices.
#33lambchipsPosted 11/11/2012 3:13:44 AM
people that pirate never intended to buy the game in the first place, so its not a loss sale...
while used games is a loss sale because the pople buying intend to spend money on it in the first place (hence, they buy used)
---
i7 3820@ 3.60GHz| 16GB Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz DDR3| Gigabyte GTX670 2GB OC| Intel 520 Series 120GB SSD| Antec EarthWatts 750W Green
#34laszlo_olzsalPosted 11/11/2012 3:31:53 AM
lambchips posted...
people that pirate never intended to buy the game in the first place, so its not a loss sale...
while used games is a loss sale because the pople buying intend to spend money on it in the first place (hence, they buy used)


The lost sales a company cares about are within 4-6 months of launch. EVERY title goes down dramatically in sales after that period. Only the rare AAA titles still see top 10 sales charts, 6 months after release. If you buy a used copy of a game 4-6+ months after release at a lower price, that type of "lost sale" is marginal percentage wise, compared to the loss from piracy when the game was new.


Logic folks. Business and logic rarely go hand in hand - unlike bad rationalization and piracy, which apparently are blood brothers.
#35RoastChickenYUMPosted 11/11/2012 3:42:38 AM
When a person pirates a game, there's no telling whether or not they ever had the intention of paying money for that game. For example, if that person had no money and pirated the game, there's no loss of potential revenue as the option of purchasing the game wasn't available to that person. There's a slim possibility that in the future they may have some spare money and could buy the game, but that's a slim possibility as someone who can't spare $60 obviously has more important issues on their agenda than playing video games.

When a person buys a used game instead of a new game, there's probably a 9/10 chances that there's a loss of revenue to the developers/publishers. Considering that the price gap between preowned and new games is pretty small these days (at least in Australia. The majority of preowned games are 5 to 10 dollars cheaper than their new counterparts), we can infer that even if the preowned option wasn't available, the customer would've purchased a new copy. Again, there is a chance that some customers wouldn't buy a new copy of a game because of the price difference, but if somebody is willing to spend enough time to travel to the store, 5-10 dollars extra for a game they want isn't likely to deter them.

There's a variety of reasons why a person could've pirated a game, such as no money, wanting to try out a game, or just wanting a game without paying for it. There's no telling what chance a pirate would pay for the game if piracy was unavailable.

When a customer is offered a preowned copy of a game for $5 cheaper by a store employee (which is store policy for most stores like EB Games, Gamespot and the like), then a near guaranteed source of revenue for the developer/publisher is stolen away by the retailer.

In conclusion, buying a used game is more detrimental to developers/publishers than piracy is.
#36CallmegePosted 11/11/2012 3:45:52 AM
They're both as bad as each other. Either way no money goes back to the people who made the game.

And the argument that piracy is worse because its illegal demonstrates something inherently wrong with modern society. Things shouldn't be bad because they're illegal... they should be illegal because they're bad. What if tomorrow your government decided it was illegal to be black... or Jewish. Would it then be morally wrong to be black or Jewish?

hockeybub89 posted...
I would venture to say that developers hate pirating more since that is illegal and no better than physically stealing a game.


That's some terrible logic you have there. A physical theft is actually depriving a company (the retailer) of a product they have payed for. Physically stealing things causes them to lose money, printing just means the developer hasn't made any money.
---
God save our gracious Queen, Long live our noble Queen, God save the Queen!
not changing this sig until we have a King - started: 30/8/2008
#37nonexistingheroPosted 11/11/2012 3:53:32 AM
Kind of a hard decision:

- Used can possibly be harder on game creators, because it encourages games stores to try to sell more used games and some stores will go pretty far with this. On the other hand, creators/publishers may be able to offer special deals with the store in the future (as in, sponsorship or events so that the stores will gain more customers).

- Pirated games are free. You aren't giving anyone any money with it. There's a decent amount of people that pirate a copy as a try-out version, then if they like it enough, they buy it. So in a way, it serves as a full-game demo for them. For good, quality games, this can actually improve retail sales. Aside from that, most pirates who pirate it, like it, but never buy the full copy, would never have bought it in the first place. The latter group can be hurtful to a developer, not in terms of money, but in terms of pride. Tons of people are downloading your game for free, enjoying it, but aren't supporting you. And many of them bash it as well. I can imagine that can be a pretty big blow. Especially if the actual sales are a bit low, like 20k or so, but you see torrents with 10 times as many seeders/leechers.
---
Read the mania: http://www.fanfiction.net/~nonexistinghero
In SA2, it's Super Sonic and Hyper Shadow.
#38RintonPosted 11/11/2012 3:54:33 AM
Callmege posted...
They're both as bad as each other. Either way no money goes back to the people who made the game.

And the argument that piracy is worse because its illegal demonstrates something inherently wrong with modern society. Things shouldn't be bad because they're illegal... they should be illegal because they're bad. What if tomorrow your government decided it was illegal to be black... or Jewish. Would it then be morally wrong to be black or Jewish?

hockeybub89 posted...
I would venture to say that developers hate pirating more since that is illegal and no better than physically stealing a game.


That's some terrible logic you have there. A physical theft is actually depriving a company (the retailer) of a product they have payed for. Physically stealing things causes them to lose money, printing just means the developer hasn't made any money.


I think you're framing this in the same way the TC is, and that's without looking at the whole story. Today games require online passes to go online, and offer DLC. Most games come incomplete, and practically require you to buy DLC to get the full experience. There are more opportunities these days to charge the consumer with used games than there are stolen games. The developers are better off with someone who bought used because DLC and online passes mean gamers WILL most likely (or are the very least more likely to) be charged after retail, regardless of whether it's used. Pirated games (unless piracy has come further since I stopped stealing) disallow the use of DLC (on consoles anyway) and online play. It's basically a dead end as far as future sales are concerned.

As to "theft versus piracy," you're not just stealing a disc and some packaging when you steal a video game out of a store. Developers spend MILLIONS of dollars on these titles, and rely on recouping costs via retail sales, DLC and online passes/gimmicks. On disc or not, you're still depriving that company of potential profit, and either way it's immoral.
#39gjc2007Posted 11/11/2012 3:55:05 AM
You buy the game, you support the industry regardless.

God, I just can't even wrap my mind around how this is even a topic. The fact that people can be so......ugh. It truly does baffle the right **** out of me.
---
Why used games don't hurt the industry and why content passes are bull****: http://www.gametrailers.com/users/Noobiablos/gamepad/?action=viewblog&id=563106
#40AsellusPosted 11/11/2012 3:56:18 AM
I would venture to say that developers hate pirating more since that is illegal and no better than physically stealing a game.

You would be wrong.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-05-17-lionhead-pre-owned-worse-than-pc-piracy

I'd go with used sales simply because a person who buys a used game is a lost customer, they're in the store, money in hand, buying the game for maybe $5 less than what it sales for new. You'd better believe that makes publishers see red.