NOT AGAIN!!! People stop with this topic seriously there are enough threads over this EXACT same topic.
Long Live SHIO!
Akvod said:
Wut? Lol, you're defining consent as me literally going to the creators (which include hundreds of workers) and asking can I buy this? No, we have a complex economic system, with money, and retailers. If you're going to argue that Best Buy sells games without the consent of the creator, or that there isn't implicit and understood consent between me and the dev when I bought from Best Buy is to destroy our modern economy. And what do you mean I wouldn't get it? If I ask the devs if I can buy their product, they want to make money, they offer a price, and I accept, where is the obstacle? Fuck it, if you're going to argue that my transaction wasn't consensual, about the most fundamental and unanimously agreed upon beliefs, if you're questioning basic economics, I give up, you can't be convinced.
|
I din't say creators I said publishers I think most devs would like you to experience the game and I didn't say ask for permission to buy the game where they get money I said get permission to buy the game from a second hand retailer.
the only reason that publishers don't shut all the places that sell second hand games down or at least try is because it is legal, I am not arguing it is illegal I am arguing that it is immoral.
@TheVoxelman on twitter
| Kasz216 said: The used market actually helps new sales. A lot of people buy games knowing they can sell them back a week after release and get back about half their money. If it wasn't for the used market... these people wouldn't buy new. It also takes away a lot of risk from people buying a new game, knowing you can get some money back and it has value. Used sales help the market. Piracy appears to be a nuetral factor. So used sales are better then piracy. |
yes.
also used sales show the price that the market is willing to pay for a game. If the game is selling for $30 used on ebay and gamestop with a decent supply yet still selling for $60 new the publisher should have relized by now the consumer doesn't think the product is worth $60.
Piracy doesn't help with the price because when that is done it shows a willingness to pay nothing for it.
zarx said:
I din't say creators I said publishers I think most devs would like you to experience the game and I didn't say ask for permission to buy the game where they get money I said get permission to buy the game from a second hand retailer.
the only reason that publishers don't shut all the places that sell second hand games down or at least try is because it is legal, I am not arguing it is illegal I am arguing that it is immoral. |
So basically buying anything second hand is immoral?
zarx said:
I din't say creators I said publishers I think most devs would like you to experience the game and I didn't say ask for permission to buy the game where they get money I said get permission to buy the game from a second hand retailer.
the only reason that publishers don't shut all the places that sell second hand games down or at least try is because it is legal, I am not arguing it is illegal I am arguing that it is immoral. |
what about buying a house from someone else instead of the developer? a used car? a used text book? a movie? at what point is it "moral" to buy something used and at what point is it "immoral"
vaio said:
So if someone downlods a game and likes it and then decides to buy it, that doesnt help the market? |
| superchunk said: I 100% disagree with you as the big difference in pirating and renting/buying used is that money is still transfering hands and that allows the original purchaser GAMESTOP to buy another new game. Thus, while renting/buying used is not as desirable to devs as everyone buying their own unique copy, its still not theft LEGAL and in the long run the devs GAMESTOP still profit something. |
i fixed a few points (and i use gamestop as a representative of all used game sales).
Rentals ok (licencing)
Used... for the dev it's the same as piracy really.
I buy a game 60€ and sell it for 30€... then reinvest the 30.... ok that part fits your theory.
The guy who buys it for 30€.... sells it for 30€ and on and on .... the dev sees no money there and the game has been played with one licence by 4-5 individuals. (who are willing to make an investment... albeit thinking they'll recover it).
lending to friends -> no money exchanged (but technically it is still wrong but it stays private).
Piracy -> lending the game to all your internet friends.... Imagine all the people.. (though they do retain the copy)
this discution will never end anyways. Legality is based on law and law is only what we voted... Copyright was invented in the 18th century, before that... well you could copy legaly.
OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO
This is one of the oldest, dumbest, and most overused arguments on the internet.
They're different, you're wrong, and you're only making yourself silly by trying to be clever and falling flat on your face.
/thread
Wonktonodi said:
what about buying a house from someone else instead of the developer? a used car? a used text book? a movie? at what point is it "moral" to buy something used and at what point is it "immoral" |
AWWW I was gonna make that point lol!
Wonktonodi said:
what about buying a house from someone else instead of the developer? a used car? a used text book? a movie? at what point is it "moral" to buy something used and at what point is it "immoral" |
imagine if someone built a hose based on the same design by them selves lol
@TheVoxelman on twitter
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
