By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Piracy or Used Games. Which one do you think hurts Developers more?

Tagged games:

 

Or make your pick here so you do not feel compelled to post!

Piracy is bad 68 49.28%
 
Used Games are the Devil 21 15.22%
 
See resultz 15 10.87%
 
Other option please. 18 13.04%
 
Both are equal. 15 10.87%
 
Total:137
UncleScrooge on 05 February 2012

The question is not "which hurts developers more". They are two completely different things.

Piracy is illegal and developers have every right to pursue it and to get upset about it.

Buying used games is your right as a consumer. EVERY industry has to deal with used copies. You can buy used cars, kitchens, houses, TV's, PC's, etc. But I don't see people from other industry bitching about people buying / selling used stuff.

Selling your games used is your right as a customer. I can't believe how often piracy and second hand sales are used in the same sentence, often like they are equally "bad" or anything. Piracy = bad, selling / buying used games = freedom guaranteed by our most basic rights.



Around the Network
steelabhold on 05 February 2012
binary solo said:
KylieDog said:
Used games.

I'm convinced especially from personal experience that most games that get pirated people were not likely to buy in most cases anyway, they get it because it is free.

Used games however are people willing to part with cash, but instead of buying a new game they buy used, so a sale is stolen everytime (and the cheaper argument does not come into it, price drops etc).

I disagree. Every used game I ever bought (and it's a few) I would never have bought new, and the likelihood of new copies of said games being at the price I bought them is extremely low. So the industry hasn't lost a cent off me, because with no used game market I wouldn't have bought the games. And knowing I can sell games at some future time to get back some money is sometimes is part of my personal justification for spending money on those games that I do buy new.

I borrow games off friends and family members and they borrow off me. Is that evil now too? I have 3 gamers in my house, should we each buy a copy of the same game to keep developers and publishers happy? After all game sharing is tantamount to used game trading. How many people do developers expect to play each copy of a game that's sold new? If I live a lone with no gamer friends and I buy a game that only I play, then sell it to someone else how is that different to me living in a house with 3 gamers who each play one copy of the game? Are developers going to put DNA tags on discs and in consoles so that only the person who first touches the disc gets to play the game without having to pay an extra fee?

I dispute the validity of both the revenue loss figures. (piracy and used game sales) The assumption being made is that every pirated game or used game sale = a new game sale lost. But as in my case it's simply untrue. Those games I bought used I bought because they were B or C list games for me: games that I may want to play one day, but only if I can get them cheaply.

Don't even get started on job losses. What crap. Video games are a non-essential industry, and skilled developers and other IT professionals can readily get jobs in IT industries that are far more important to our lives and well being. So I shed no tears for the number of people who could have found jobs in the gaming industry but had to "settle" for IT jobs elsewhere on the relatively small % of sales that the gaming industry are maybe losing due to used games. IT jobs have been pretty recession-proof from what I can tell. My friend owns a small IT company with 300 employees spanning 2 countries, and he wants to expand his workforce by at least 10% right now, but they aren't getting the skilled people applying.

People who ONLY buy used games are cheap arses. But I figure the gaming industry gets its pound of fles out of me, so I have no qualms about stacking my games library with a few used games.

And now they have online pass, and soon there will be online activiation required for all games, once activated the game won't be playable on any othe3r person's account without paying for another activation.

So companies can stop crying about used games.

 

My thoughts exactly.  With one exception.

Bolded: Some people are poor and can only afford used games.

But you pretty much nailed it there



Reasonable on 05 February 2012

While I don't think piracy has quite the impact developers like to paint, it definitely has more than used games.

Used games require people to buy new games then pass then on, meaning there has to be an initial purchase and money for the developer. Piracy requires no such thing.

TBH a proper used market is a healthy way of passing purchases through the food chain of consumers IMHO.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

NintendoPie on 05 February 2012

Piracy, of course.
With Piracy there is probably absolutely no chance in that person ever buying a game off the shelf. They might never do it, even. With used games if the person likes the certain game they are more likely to buy the second one or another game made by that developer. Even if they got the first game used they might want to pre-order the second or buy it in it's first week of coming out. Plus they might also buy DLC for the game which goes to the developer.



Kasz216 on 05 February 2012

Neither.

Neither actually hurts in a scientifically significant measurable way.

There aren't enough pirates who would actually qualify to buy the products their buying to fight off the positive advantages of extra exposure to cause a net loss.  Extreme example of how piracy can help some games here... posted by someone who clearly doesn't want said advantages to be true.

http://amitay.us/blog/files/piracy_doubled_my_app_sales.php

While the used market actually causes MORE sales. It doesn't cost sales!




Around the Network
Kasz216 on 05 February 2012
Jumpin said:
thetonestarr said:

Anybody saying piracy is most likely biased and/or uneducated on the matter. 

People who pirate the games would probably not have purchased it if the game wasn't available to be pirated. 

This point has already been refuted with a simple comparison to the collapse of the music industry due to piracy. perhaps you're the one who needs the education.

Except you know... your chart actually lacks al context... because it's revenue.

CD prices have been STEADILY declining, and Digital media prices songs individually.

The "Collapse" of industry is because you can pay 99 cents a piece for a few songs you like instead of having to dole out 25.99 for a CD with 15 tracks on it.

Most people only ever wanted the hits, but were forced to buy entire albums. 

Now people can JUST get the hits, and cut out the other 10-13 songs.

In otherwords, people are buying the 3 Katie Perry Singles instead of the entire Katie Perry.

Not counting things like Spotify.

 



Galaki on 05 February 2012
Jumpin said:

Piracy,

When it comes to used games, selling off an old version of an annual sports title makes a player more likely to buy a newer more up to date version.

 

Saying piracy doesn't damage the industry is complete bullshit, look at how the music industry colapsed as a result of piracy.

 

I call bullshit on that source because multiple other sources shows the entertainment industry has been growing. It's just the way we consume them that changes. Who wants to own 100 CD's and can only play 1 at disc at a time when you can store all of that on a media player the size of a thumb drive?

Piracy has an affect but no where near a fraction of what they actually caused.



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

thetonestarr on 05 February 2012
Jumpin said:
thetonestarr said:

Anybody saying piracy is most likely biased and/or uneducated on the matter. 

People who pirate the games would probably not have purchased it if the game wasn't available to be pirated. 

This point has already been refuted with a simple comparison to the collapse of the music industry due to piracy. perhaps you're the one who needs the education.


I love how you pick on that but blatantly ignore the part of my post that actually addressed your "refute", thereby nullifying your argument. And, y'know, Galaki and Kasz covered the rest.



 SW-5120-1900-6153

Kasz216 on 05 February 2012

Oh, and also interesting is that revenue seems to have peaked in the heyday of Napster, which was supposed to be the biggest and baddest of all the file sharers...

and that business decreased right after Napster was forced to shut down.

Maybe Radiohead wasn't an anomaly.

http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2000/radiohead.html



HappySqurriel on 05 February 2012
Jumpin said:

Piracy,

When it comes to used games, selling off an old version of an annual sports title makes a player more likely to buy a newer more up to date version.

 

Saying piracy doesn't damage the industry is complete bullshit, look at how the music industry colapsed as a result of piracy.

 


Take CD sales and remove the portion of people who were buying albums they already owned on Cassette or Record and compare that to the sales of music today. The reason this is an important control is that moving from CD to digital could be done in an entirely legal and moral way by ripping your CD to MP3.


While you may not believe/accept it, one of the main driving factors of producing new formats has been to re-sell content to people that they already own. A large portion of people's Blu-Ray collection will be made up of movies they owned on DVD, and their DVD collection will be made up of a lot of movies they owned on VHS, their CD collection is made up of albums they owned on Cassette, and their cassette collection is made up of albums they owned on vinyl. The problem with this strategy is that you will eventually produce a high enough quality (probably digital) medium that completely eliminates the need to upgrade to a new format again.

Last time I saw the analysis the deciline in sales associated with "piracy" could just as easily be explained by people having no need to re-buy albums they owned on CD.