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

#71jammiesPosted 11/11/2012 4:46:23 AM
These have probably already been said, but I don't feel like reading through the topic.
Pirating is worse for the dev. Why?
-every used unit required 1 new sale, while pirated copies require 1 at most(if not stolen in a leak situation where it didn't even take 1 sale)
-online passes and DLC are sold for used copies
-used copies move money through the economy which can result in money spent on the dev, such as someone buys used games at GameStop and GameStop orders new games from the dev(this isn't limited to buying from stores)
---
I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book.
Groucho Marx
#72RagoraPosted 11/11/2012 4:47:52 AM
Paying 40 / $60 for a re-skin of a game you already own, no thanks.

Heres to you, game companies that haven't done anything original for the past 10 years and just keep throwing out sequels every year (or re-skins as I like to call them these days).

I refuse to pay a penny for all these damn reskins of the last few years.

Something amazing and original comes out, take my damn money and use it to fuel more original titles.

Otherwise, Pirate of Duty 4, Pirate of Duty: Pirate Ops, Pirate of Duty: Pirate Ops 2: the Pirating

Funny thing is Black Ops 2, the thought bored me so much I actually refused to waste my time trying to pirate a copy. Cant help but laugh at that.
---
GT: RagorA
#73hyjinx17Posted 11/11/2012 4:48:23 AM
Rinton posted...
Ah. Well, I haven't traded in a 3DS to Gamestop, but for the average new game (I generally buy new) I trade in I'll get between $25 and $35. If I but something old maybe it'll trade back at a lower price (sports game after a year or something) but generally if I'm trading a game back it's a 6 hour single player title (dishonored, for instance) that I've recently completed. Beyond that I can't comment as I don't trade in a lot of old games. My experience has been at or just under half-price, which I think is pretty fair. They're still trying to make a profit afterall.



they have a thing where if you trade a game back within a month they give you half what you payed, which is great for the consumer, but their motivation is that they want used games to push while the buzz for said game is still high. After that first month 9/10 game's trade-in value plummits to ~$15 barring the few and far between huge titles that hover around $20-25 for another month or 2, like I'm sure Halo 4 and Blops 2 will do.
---
Rainbow Dash is best pony. The only arguement I will accept is for Twilight Sparkle.
#74RintonPosted 11/11/2012 4:50:21 AM
Asellus posted...
Problems with your logic:

-Used games have already been purchased by 1 person and sold back to gamestop. This means that every used copy is one that the developer has already made money off of. It's not perfect, but it's better than a copy they never made a dime off of.


True but after being purchased once they can go on to be sold / resold a dozen times over. All it really takes is for enough used copies to proliferate which is why in this console era new game sales typically dry up after about two months - at that point there's enough used copies out there that stores will never need to order new copies again.

So you've got two months of regular revenue then it's all down to selling DLC and online passes. That's good, is it? It's not the way things are in pc-gaming space where there is no used game market and games have a very long sales life. It's not even the way it used to be in the console market in just the previous generation.

-Online Passes. I've never seen an online pass available to pirated copies of games. Online passes and DLC present the opportunity for developers to make sales to gamers even after they've bought used. This alone makes used copies potentially better for developers than getting robbed.

Mmm, DLC's problematic since it's usually not any more difficult to crack than the game regular but theoretically at least there's no reason you couldn't try selling online passes to pirates.


It depends on the DLC and the developer to a large extent. Remember that PC piracy isn't the only form, and that console games are ripped from the internet as well. Neither console's online network is workable with pirated games, or with consoles that play pirated games. Not as far as I'm aware anyway.

As to PC gaming - I was a contributor to that market dying. Years ago PC gaming was the superior market. Better games were made on the PC, and developers preferred working on the PC. The problem was piracy. As a pirate, and I realized this far too late, I helped PC gaming come to a stand-still. Whereas before games were developed for the PC, they're now ported if they show up at all. Piracy ended profitability on the PC, and developers had to move to console gaming. Many companies (Bethesda is a great example) had to start developing for consoles because they simply couldn't make any kind of money making PC games.

It's a sad thing really - I'd love to build another gaming rig, but I don't feel there's any reason to yet. All the top quality games being created today are created for consoles. There are some great indy games on the PC, but AAA titles just aren't developed on PC anymore unless they're multiplayer-centric and not easily pirated (Diablo III.)
#75hyjinx17Posted 11/11/2012 4:51:29 AM
killak posted...
From: hyjinx17 | #067
If you sell millions of games, you can be considered a company and then yes


So it's not the act of profiteering of used games, but rather the amount.

You have strong convictions, I must say.


If you are a consumer attempting to get more revenue to buy more new games I don't see a problem. I could be wrong, but i believe if you buy a new copy of a game with store credit the developer still gets the same amount of money as if you bought with cash.

When you are a large company who does everything in its power to promote used sales which the developer, the one who put in all the work on the product, sees no part of it is wrong. Not illegal, just immoral
---
Rainbow Dash is best pony. The only arguement I will accept is for Twilight Sparkle.
#76Hi CPosted 11/11/2012 4:53:57 AM
70.8% participators in this poll are sheep.
---
You'll be my John G.
#77RintonPosted 11/11/2012 4:53:57 AM
hyjinx17 posted...
Rinton posted...
Ah. Well, I haven't traded in a 3DS to Gamestop, but for the average new game (I generally buy new) I trade in I'll get between $25 and $35. If I but something old maybe it'll trade back at a lower price (sports game after a year or something) but generally if I'm trading a game back it's a 6 hour single player title (dishonored, for instance) that I've recently completed. Beyond that I can't comment as I don't trade in a lot of old games. My experience has been at or just under half-price, which I think is pretty fair. They're still trying to make a profit afterall.



they have a thing where if you trade a game back within a month they give you half what you payed, which is great for the consumer, but their motivation is that they want used games to push while the buzz for said game is still high. After that first month 9/10 game's trade-in value plummits to ~$15 barring the few and far between huge titles that hover around $20-25 for another month or 2, like I'm sure Halo 4 and Blops 2 will do.


Remember that as time passes the retail AND used prices drop substantially as demand for the title does. It makes sense that what they're willing to pay for a used title would go down, especially if they're only going to sell it for 30 bucks.
#78killakPosted 11/11/2012 4:55:39 AM
From: hyjinx17 | #075
If you are a consumer attempting to get more revenue to buy more new games I don't see a problem. I could be wrong, but i believe if you buy a new copy of a game with store credit the developer still gets the same amount of money as if you bought with cash.

When you are a large company who does everything in its power to promote used sales which the developer, the one who put in all the work on the product, sees no part of it is wrong. Not illegal, just immoral


that's really not helping your argument in my eyes.

You either despise a dev losing profit out of a game sale, or you don't. If you're going to quantify such a thing, you may as well not even bother trying to argue it.

You can argue that GS and others don't give the fairest trade prices, but that's just their business model and it keeps them afloat. Regardless of price, they legitimately bought copies from consumers and resold them The dev is irrelevant at that point.

Adding to that point, all GS are doing is trying to get maximum profit back from their purchase, which is exactly what the consumers are doing when they say "don't sell to GS, go to best buy or Craigs list"......so really, the only difference is the quantity, and that's not enough to invalidate that point.
---
I believe in Jesus Christ, the exclamation.........
#79stawg007Posted 11/11/2012 4:56:32 AM
Garfield64 posted...
thesnoopmeister posted...
Garfield64 posted...

So when you're saying pirating is worse you're saying a victimless crime is worse then a crime with a victim.


No I'm not.....?


Buying used takes money out of gaming market that could of went to a real game developer instead of some scum sucking company taking advantage of game makers.

While pirating takes nothing from any game company other then spreading the word of its product to more people.


Please tell me you're joking?
#80RintonPosted 11/11/2012 4:57:23 AM
hyjinx17 posted...
killak posted...
From: hyjinx17 | #067
If you sell millions of games, you can be considered a company and then yes


So it's not the act of profiteering of used games, but rather the amount.

You have strong convictions, I must say.


If you are a consumer attempting to get more revenue to buy more new games I don't see a problem. I could be wrong, but i believe if you buy a new copy of a game with store credit the developer still gets the same amount of money as if you bought with cash.

When you are a large company who does everything in its power to promote used sales which the developer, the one who put in all the work on the product, sees no part of it is wrong. Not illegal, just immoral


I like this actually. I've never traded a game in without putting that money towards another game. I guess you could put it towards a used game (I buy new) but this is a great point and another way the developer potentially gets paid out.