O that makes sense. Where did the pirates get that copy to beginwith? Hmmm... unless it wass stolen out of the publisher's warehouse  I'm pretty sure some retailer had to originally buy i from them. Yes they'll lose potential sales but they will still get something for that first individual copy.

The difference is that in a used game sale, the seller loses the game, and it goes to one person. In a pirating, the seller keeps the game, and thousands of people play the game without giving a penny/cent to the publisher/developer.

On the individual scale it doesn't matter, the developer doesn't get his money from me. I doubt they can give a flying damn about whether the copy is still on my PC or not.

P.S. Where is zenfolder when you need him. He provided a much more interesting debater about this issue....

1. Agreed, people shouldn't get something they don't pay for.

2. Piracy has not been shown to effect the market in a major way. It does not hurt a developer if 90% of the people who download a game never would of bought it in the first and many will probably never use it.

3. I think many people who pirate would disagree with you.

4. Makes no sense sounds like a person who takes this stuff personally.

People who pirate than sell a game are infinitely worse these are the people who actually take money from developers or hurt a developers income...Oh and I knew people in the industry who used to pirate games including artists and programmers(they also bought games but they also pirated Dreamcast games like crazy(and considering the company I worked for was closely tied to Sega makes you realize if what you said was true it woudl be self defeating). I also know people who worked at Sony and EA and Ubisoft who did the same thing.) Of course this was five years ago when I was in the industry...Are they really trying to destroy themselves.

Since then I have worked on 2 cases that involved Piracy one was a Sony case the other was one that was a DVD Consortium case against a machine that could rip catalogue and store your DVD's and even extract your favorite scenes(For a 12 grand machine that was really pricey). The issue has more to do with licensing fees then anythings else and the fact of the matter is that to the people this stuff actually matters to it is a known fact that Piracy is not that big of a deal but there is still a loss that is worth it to go after but nothing that will result in loss of jobs.

I am not saying Piracy is right, it isn't. But it is always funny looking at people taking a blind black and white view of something that they are emotional about. Relax Twesterm your job and your friends jobs are fine. If you want to talk abotu what is more harmful talk about Madden seizing p the NFL license that did more damage then Piracy....One that can be shown in actual figures to boot.

Ah very nice.  It seems you are good at the arts of imitation.  Although a valid point, it is definitely a hackneyed one as you leave out very important information.  That being the spread of one digital copy can reach anyone who has the ability to get it while one used copy theoretically couldn't do the same... or if it did then that would be quite impressive itself.  But even more so... you and I both know your statement isn't the norm.  For the most part the people that put those games up don't actually buy them but instead find other ways to get them up there.  Now maybe you are speaking for some of the time but that doesn't necessarily put it on the same magnitude of that of used games where it always has to be bought by the retailer first... unless they steal it directly from the publisher.

Now if you want to commit fallacies of withheld information then you go right on ahead... but your argument isn't going to get past me.  Trying to relate pirates to used game is not a good enough analogy and really will fail everytime.  Publishers lose a lot of money from used games... no doubt about that, but they are always guaranteed a sell on that copy and that copy can't be distributed to large magnitudes of people.  Maybe your wording lack of words will fool others... but know who you are dealing with.

That's not the point. The point is that in a used game sale, there are only as many used games available as people who returned the game, and in a pirating, there is an unlimited supply of copies of the game which are readily available.

Exactly.  Which is why his argument fails as the analogy can't be made due to the diffeence in scenario.  Nice point Kantor.

I thought we were talking individual scale here. As for the broad scale, one used copy theoretically CAN reach the same audience as a pirated copy though that is unlikely. Also people who put them up there DO buy a copy, then crack it. They don't go and steal the copy and they don't jsut manufacture it out of thin air. That copy is then dissected by The Scene and cracked then uploaded. There is an initial transaction.  Individually, as i cocncerns you and me, when you buys used games you are no better than me if I pirate them. On the grandscale, sure piracy is more damaging, but used game market has jsut the same effect, just on a smaller scale.

But once again even if you argument was without flaw and fallacy to begin with and this what you are stating is right... you are still forgetting one problem.  And it comes with these statements that I've bolded:

First you argument problem comes still in fallacy of analogy.  Buying something and downloading something for free surely aren't on the same magnitude in effect towards a developer... WHY?  Well if you didn't already know used games on the market still have to compete with that of new games.  You have a choice... you pay a little bit less for a copy that has already been owned or you get a fresh new copy with potential bonuses for a little bit of money.  So no it can't have the same effect as something where your choice is between a free and SAME GAME than a full price SAME GAME.  With piracy the new game has nowhere to compete while with used game it can compete. 

So on that individual level you keep bringing up... the circumstances AREN'T the same.  Nor where the circumstances before that.  You can't logically make the analogy.  Problems are all used games have been bought ONCE, publishers still compete with used games with the new ones, and used copys have a very unlikely chance of being distributed to a large magnitude of people.  I'd even throw out there that used games still keeps it within the gaming market.  The analogy physically can't work thus by buying used games, although hurtful to the industry, it is in no way the same magnitude as that of pirating.  Even on the level of individual copy because when you buy that one copy you take it off the market leaving one less used option.  You can't do any of that with a pirated copy.

Selling used Games is the same as seeling used Books.

Isnt it obvious ? If you copy a game the developer can loose Everything infact not ONE (except the first one) single Copie has to be sold. And still everyone could get it.

But you cant resell a game 1 Million Times. Infact the worth decreases and a game in best cases 3-4 times reselled. That means that the Developer would still get 1/3 of the Price. If its pirated it a Million people could play this game with buying one Copy so the Developer would get just 1/1000000 per Game. He earns still money with used games.


Its perfectly fine to resell Games because you have earned the right on this ONE Copy and you can do with it what you want. You can even resell MP3s you bought. (But there are already licenses which dont allow this).


A sold used Game makes the developer still a Profit. And no game will be reselled 1000 times thats just impossible because the people want the games on the beginning. And if a lot of people want the games at the same time there simply cant be bought used Games.