Which is moraly (not legaly) worse? Secondhand _ Pirating _ Renting_Lending

[ironman]

Onyxmeth said:

ironman said:

Onyxmeth said:

They're all equally moraly objectional, except for renting. We are talking about the individual moral responsibility right? Not the moral responsibility of the whole world? My moral responsibility is to purchase the game so the publisher gets money from me. Whether I borrow the game from a friend, pirate the game off the internet, or buy a used game, that publisher isn't seeing a dime. It isn't however immoral to lend a game, sell a used game or put your copy of a game online for others to download so long as your copy of the game was purchased new.That is your game. Do what you want with it.

The larger effects of used games vs. pirating don't mean jack shit to just me. Maybe a single copy can translate to many pirated copies and a used game can only translate to one at a time, but that only matters to the larger problem. It isn't a part of my personal moral responsibility. My moral responsibility is to not purchase that available used game, not borrow that available game from a friend, or not pirate that available game off the internet. In any of the three cases, I only need one copy, so it doesn't matter which way I don't pay a publisher.

The only moraly right thing to do as a single person is to purchase the game brand new.

I disagree, that is an immoral argument from a gamers perspective.

Not everybody has the ability to buy all the new games they want. To leave this as the only moral option is immoral because it is immoral to keep people from gaming when there are options that help the devs just as much, if not more, that people just buying new games.

What are these other options that help the publishers just as much?

The used market for one. It helps devs out in so many ways.

Lets say there is no used game market, and a new game is coming out next week, it looks pretty good, but you really don't know if it will be worth $60.00.

1: Do you buy the game and potentually waste your money because you know you can't sell it? Or

2: Do you pass?

Now lets say you choose sceanario one:

A new game is coming out next Month, it looks pretty good, you really want to buy it, but you don't have enough money, you DO have a bunch of games that you beat, and that last game that you decided to buy, then found out that you did indeed waste $60.00. Now, if you could sell those games, you would have enough money for the new game that is coming out. But since there is no used gaming market, you will have to pass on the new game.

Let's say you chose scenario two:

A new game is coming out next month, it looks pretty good, and you are sure you will like it, you have enough money for it since you didn't buy the first game, now you can buy this one!

In both scenarios, the devs made the same amount of money, $60.00.

OK, Now, lets say there is a used game market, and a new game is coming out next week, it looks pretty good, but you really don't know if it will be worth $60.00. You buy the game knowing you will be able to recoup some of that money down the road.

Now lets say you choose sceanario one:

A new game is coming out next Month, it looks pretty good, you really want to buy it, but you don't have enough money, you DO have a bunch of games that you beat, and that last game that you decided to buy, then found out that you did indeed waste $60.00. Good news! You can sell those games, you do, and now have enough money for the new game that is coming out.

Now, you could pass on the first game, but since you know that you can still get enough money from selling your used games, this is less likely to happen.

In this scenario, devs make $120.00 collectively.

So... do devs make more money with the used market? Or without it?

 

 

 

@ Vlad, then fewer people would be gaming, this is a BAD thing for the entirity of the gaming market. Btw, you still havn't answered my question, who do you work for?