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

#411Garfield64(Topic Creator)Posted 11/11/2012 5:42:39 PM
Super EASY way to prove buying a Used game is worse.

You are a game developer.

1 million kids buy your game used.

1 million kid pirate and steal your game.

You have been granted a wish. You can go back in time and make it so either

1. Buying used games is illegal so kids who bought used are forced to buy new.

2. Your game become unpirateable so they were never able to steal it.

Which WISH would you rather be granted 1 or 2? Remember if you choose 1 then your saying buying USED is worse. If you choose 2 your saying pirating is worse and losing 60 million dollars because of your ego.
---
WARNING: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/user.php?=2426382
Is a very well known Troll, please do not fall for their shenanigans!
#412monkeypahngPosted 11/11/2012 5:49:44 PM
Garfield64 posted...
Super EASY way to prove buying a Used game is worse.

You are a game developer.

1 million kids buy your game used.

1 million kid pirate and steal your game.

You have been granted a wish. You can go back in time and make it so either

1. Buying used games is illegal so kids who bought used are forced to buy new.

2. Your game become unpirateable so they were never able to steal it.

Which WISH would you rather be granted 1 or 2? Remember if you choose 1 then your saying buying USED is worse. If you choose 2 your saying pirating is worse and losing 60 million dollars because of your ego.


As you can see, this is a perfect example of a leading question.
---
The console with the greater spec generally loses.
FC: 1719-3458-5336 Follow me on twitter @Jamyfang
#413agrissaPosted 11/11/2012 6:03:08 PM
Garfield64 posted...
Super EASY way to prove buying a Used game is worse.

You are a game developer.

1 million kids buy your game used.

1 million kid pirate and steal your game.

You have been granted a wish. You can go back in time and make it so either

1. Buying used games is illegal so kids who bought used are forced to buy new.

2. Your game become unpirateable so they were never able to steal it.

Which WISH would you rather be granted 1 or 2? Remember if you choose 1 then your saying buying USED is worse. If you choose 2 your saying pirating is worse and losing 60 million dollars because of your ego.


Terrible, fallacious logic. Just because used games becomes illegal does not mean every used game buyer will become new game buyers.
---
I had faith in humanity until I discovered Internet Message Boards.
#414AsellusPosted 11/11/2012 6:17:34 PM
Terrible, fallacious logic. Just because used games becomes illegal does not mean every used game buyer will become new game buyers.

Sure but offhand I'd wager it'd be a far higher percentage than of pirates who would on the opposite choice. These are paying customers to begin with, after all.
#415Jinzo 111887Posted 11/11/2012 6:48:38 PM(edited)
From: Garfield64 | Posted: 11/11/2012 8:42:39 PM
Super EASY way to prove buying a Used game is worse.

You are a game developer.

1 million kids buy your game used.

1 million kid pirate and steal your game.

You have been granted a wish. You can go back in time and make it so either

1. Buying used games is illegal so kids who bought used are forced to buy new.

2. Your game become unpirateable so they were never able to steal it.

Which WISH would you rather be granted 1 or 2? Remember if you choose 1 then your saying buying USED is worse (and saying you would like to risk everything you got for what could end up being nothing). If you choose 2 your saying pirating is worse and losing a (potential) 60 million dollars because of your ego.


Make it impossible to pirate. I'd rather have some sales over everyone pirating and possibly get nothing at all.
---
I miss the Golden Age of gaming that died in the last few years. Yeah, we got better graphics, but it's not worth recent changes if you ask me.
#416ShinXaguraPosted 11/11/2012 6:51:51 PM
None.
---
You must defeat my SCREAMING DRAGON BULLET to stand a chance.
#417shawnmckPosted 11/11/2012 7:17:05 PM(edited)
Your "used games are worse" analogies are not valid, because they don't take into account what games are bought & sold as used compared to others.

For example, lets take two games....Skyrim & Operation Raccoon City...
Skyrim might get traded in 10 out of a 100, whereas ORC would get traded in 60 out of a 100.

The point being is that some games (the really good ones) get bought & sold as used FAR less than the crappy or mediocre ones.
So how is it a crime that a Developer gets "screwed" by used games when they are the ones screwing over the gamers by releasing a shoddy or crappy product.?

Seems to me that they get what they deserve.
If you are a Developer and want your game to sell more copies NEW as opposed to used...then make a better game.
Stop defending the crappy games by arguing that the Devs somehow deserve more money for releasing garbage product.
The market dictates what they should get by allowing people to trade in the games that they don't like and keeping what they do.
Good games are traded in less and thus are bought used less often.
Crappy games are traded in more often and thus bought used more often.

Furthermore, I expect that all you anti-used game zealots from now on buy everything NEW.
That is, only buy a car new...no more movie or game rentals, and no checking out books at the library, and etc.
otherwise, you are a HYPOCRITE !
You cannot say that its bad for video-games to be sold as used, but then not care about used cars, & everything else sold, traded, or rented as used.

I really don't understand how some people can complain about used games as being hurtful of an industry, but don't care about used cars, rented movies, and so-on.
You never hear anyone complaining that..."oh yeah, used cars are screwing over the car manufacturers"...or any such things.
But a used game is somehow equated with a crime (piracy).
#418Gigahart_gaylorPosted 11/11/2012 7:17:19 PM
They are both equally as bad for game developers, because both outcomes are the same. Developers get no money either way, and word spreads about their video games either way. The only difference is how it affects the user. And if you say used is better because the used copy was originally bought new, that's the case regardless of if somebody buys the used copy or it stays on the shelves forever.
---
Breaking Bad, great show or greatest show?
Anybody who says Dark Souls gameplay sucks is factually incorrect.
#419Jinzo 111887Posted 11/11/2012 7:24:39 PM(edited)
From: shawnmck | Posted: 11/11/2012 10:03:09 PM
1.)The point being is that some games (the really good ones) get bought & sold as used FAR less than the crappy or mediocre ones.
2.)So how is it a crime that a Developer gets "screwed" by used games when they are the ones screwing over the gamers by releasing a shoddy or crappy product.?

3.)Seems to me that they get what they deserve.
4.)If you are a Developer and want your game to sell more copies NEW as opposed to used...then make a better game.
Stop defending the crappy games by arguing that the Devs somehow deserve more money for releasing garbage product.
The market dictates what they should get by allowing people to trade in the games that they don't like and keeping what they do.
5.)Good games are traded in less and thus are bought used less often.
Crappy games are traded in more often and thus bought used more often.

6.) Furthermore, I expect that all you anti-used game zealots from now on buy everything NEW.
That is, only buy a car new...no more movie or game rentals, and no checking out books at the library, and etc.
otherwise, you are a HYPOCRITE !


1.) Exactly. It's natural selection the strong survive, the weak die.
2.) It's not. This is how capitalism works.
3.)The companies using online passes sure are. EA got a bad rep., THQ's in financial trouble, Sony's PSVita's been hacked already. It's Karma.
4.)They need to remember games are supposed to be about fun and not "Ooo... pretty colors." It worked for Nintendo.
5.) Which is part of the reason Earthbound cost an arm an a leg while Bubsy 3D's dirt cheap. The other is Nintendo can't offer a re-release until copyright issues are fixed.
6.)Not to mention lending to or borrowing from friends. All these things go together.

From: Gigahart_gaylor | Posted: 11/11/2012 10:17:19 PM
They are both equally as bad for game developers, because both outcomes are the same. Developers get no money either way, and word spreads about their video games either way. The only difference is how it affects the user. And if you say used is better because the used copy was originally bought new, that's the case regardless of if somebody buys the used copy or it stays on the shelves forever.

Except used games can be traded in towards the purchase of new games. Without that option to get extra cash for those old games, less games would be selling for the prices they are asking for. (Only reason Steam works well is they have huge discounts on games during sales.)
---
I miss the Golden Age of gaming that died in the last few years. Yeah, we got better graphics, but it's not worth recent changes if you ask me.
#420AsellusPosted 11/11/2012 7:24:42 PM
You cannot say that its bad for video-games to be sold as used, but then not care about used cars, & everything else sold, traded, or rented as used.

But game data is a digital thing, unlike say a used car it doesn't degrade (barring say an abused disc but Gamestop'll trade you if you wind up with one of those no problems so non-issue). A used copy is functionally identical to a new copy barring perhaps some of the steps devs have taken to lately to try and make the new copy superior (one-time use online passes or dlc codes included with the new copy, say).