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

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

whatever on 24 October 2009
vlad321 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.

So if you don't have all the money to play the games why are you playing them? If you don't have the money just don't play the games.

If I buy something (including a video game), then I own it.  I have every right (legally and morally) to do what I want with it.  If I can convince someone else to give me money for it, then that is my RIGHT.  It's called free enterprise.  Anyone who disagrees with this (like you) is immoral.



Around the Network
ironman on 24 October 2009
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?



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

vlad321 on 24 October 2009
whatever said:
vlad321 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.

So if you don't have all the money to play the games why are you playing them? If you don't have the money just don't play the games.

If I buy something (including a video game), then I own it.  I have every right (legally and morally) to do what I want with it.  If I can convince someone else to give me money for it, then that is my RIGHT.  It's called free enterprise.  Anyone who disagrees with this (like you) is immoral.

And I have the right to share what I buy with anyone I want. Anyone who says otherwise ( like you) is immoral.

P.S. Sharing = Piracy

@ironman

Same thing with pirates, fewer people would be gaming if not for piracy, which is BAD for the entirer industry, so I guess piracy is good too.

Give up, you can't win this. Any excuse you give for used sales I can use with piracy.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

ironman on 24 October 2009
vlad321 said:
whatever said:
vlad321 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.

So if you don't have all the money to play the games why are you playing them? If you don't have the money just don't play the games.

If I buy something (including a video game), then I own it.  I have every right (legally and morally) to do what I want with it.  If I can convince someone else to give me money for it, then that is my RIGHT.  It's called free enterprise.  Anyone who disagrees with this (like you) is immoral.

And I have the right to share what I buy with anyone I want. Anyone who says otherwise ( like you) is immoral.

P.S. Sharing = Piracy

NO, Piracy = Piracy, you can lend your right to play the game to somebody, but at some point in time, that right to play is returned to you. This is not the case with pirating. With lending/used game market One game disc = one right to play. With pirating one game disc = many rights to play

@ironman

Same thing with pirates, fewer people would be gaming if not for piracy, which is BAD for the entirer industry, so I guess piracy is good too.

Yes, but even fewer new games are sold because of pirating. It is quite the opposite with the used game market.

Give up, you can't win this. Any excuse you give for used sales I can use with piracy.

lol, what? I have shot down every one of your sorry excuses for an argument about used games. You just keep digging yourself holes when you open your mouth...and I push you in and pile on the dirt. Seriously, I already have won this. You are just in a state of denial.

So, I'm getting tired of asking this, What Dev do you work for. I will not stop asking till I get an honest answer.

 



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

ZenfoldorVGI on 24 October 2009
vlad321 said:
 

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....

lol, don't tell me no one has mentioned the VGI economy yet? Money changing hands stimulates the economy and benefits the developer of every game indirectly, wheather they profit from said sale or not.

Not spending any money stimulates nothing, and thus piracy gives no contribution to the VGI economy.

You mean that argument, lol?

We'll I've made it so well, and so many times in so many other thread, I didn't think I needed to repeat myself here. We know the anwser to this question. It's been determined.

The other aspect of my epic theory is that the video game industry doesn't just consist of developers. It also consists of stores who sell games, new and used, and they benefit form the sale of used games, thus, used games sales benefit the video game industry. This isn't all about a games publisher or developer, that's a far too simplistic view in a black and white world where everything is "fair," and has nothing to do with the actual argument. This is an industry wide question. You might only care that a developer makes money off a particular game, but the used game market helps keep this industry afloat. Piracy helps sink it. Period.

There I go again, lol. Making my opinion sound like a fact. It's really not.

This thread is old now, but if I'd made that post right after the OP gave us this gem, I'da laid down some butthurt, lol.

You have to add a condition in this thread title, "legality." Thus, the issue of piracy's morality is hypothetical. Societies acceptable morals are determined by its laws, not is religious beliefs or opinions. In that sense, piracy is a much greater crime. Hypothetically though, since it doesn't stimulate the gaming economy, it boils down to a bunch of amoral tweens and internet nar-do-wells trying to get something for nothing, and I'll have none of it.

 

How's that for cornball?



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Around the Network
ZenfoldorVGI on 24 October 2009

You've got to hand it to Vlad though. He puts up a pretty tenacious defense there. I had a hard time coming to my conclusions before my discussion with him long ago.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

ironman on 24 October 2009
ZenfoldorVGI said:
vlad321 said:
 

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....

lol, don't tell me no one has mentioned the VGI economy yet? Money changing hands stimulates the economy and benefits the developer of every game indirectly, wheather they profit from said sale or not.

Not spending any money stimulates nothing, and thus piracy gives no contribution to the VGI economy.

You mean that argument, lol?

We'll I've made it so well, and so many times in so many other thread, I didn't think I needed to repeat myself here. We know the anwser to this question. It's been determined.

The other aspect of my epic theory is that the video game industry doesn't just consist of developers. It also consists of stores who sell games, new and used, and they benefit form the sale of used games, thus, used games sales benefit the video game industry. This isn't all about a games publisher or developer, that's a far too simplistic view in a black and white world where everything is "fair," and has nothing to do with the actual argument. This is an industry wide question. You might only care that a developer makes money off a particular game, but the used game market helps keep this industry afloat. Piracy helps sink it. Period.

There I go again, lol. Making my opinion sound like a fact. It's really not.

This thread is old now, but if I'd made that post right after the OP gave us this gem, I'da laid down some butthurt, lol.

You have to add a condition in this thread title, "legality." Thus, the issue of piracy's morality is hypothetical. Societies acceptable morals are determined by its laws, not is religious beliefs or opinions. In that sense, piracy is a much greater crime. Hypothetically though, since it doesn't stimulate the gaming economy, it boils down to a bunch of amoral tweens and internet nar-do-wells trying to get something for nothing, and I'll have none of it.

 

How's that for cornball?

Ah, I like your argument. It's very indepth. I have been trying to keep mine as simple as possible since simplicity is the best teacher.



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

vlad321 on 24 October 2009
ironman said:
vlad321 said:
 

And I have the right to share what I buy with anyone I want. Anyone who says otherwise ( like you) is immoral.

P.S. Sharing = Piracy

NO, Piracy = Piracy, you can lend your right to play the game to somebody, but at some point in time, that right to play is returned to you. This is not the case with pirating. With lending/used game market One game disc = one right to play. With pirating one game disc = many rights to play

@ironman

Same thing with pirates, fewer people would be gaming if not for piracy, which is BAD for the entirer industry, so I guess piracy is good too.

Yes, but even fewer new games are sold because of pirating. It is quite the opposite with the used game market.

Give up, you can't win this. Any excuse you give for used sales I can use with piracy.

lol, what? I have shot down every one of your sorry excuses for an argument about used games. You just keep digging yourself holes when you open your mouth...and I push you in and pile on the dirt. Seriously, I already have won this. You are just in a state of denial.

So, I'm getting tired of asking this, What Dev do you work for. I will not stop asking till I get an honest answer.

 

I'll demonstrate:

"People buy more games because they have more money when they get used games" = "Peaople have ore money when they pirate games to buy games"

"I wanna play the game but don't wanna play full price and the developer won't see my money and I won't have enough to buy other new games" (a.k.a entitelment) = "I don't have enough money but I wanna play the game anyway, I will save money for better games and pirate this one, developer won't see anything" (a.k.a entitlement) (why the fuck do you feel like you have to play the game at all without paying for it? In both cases you are cheating the developer out of money.)

Am I missing any other sorry arguments for me that I haven't summed up nicely?

@Zen

My theory is that game stores are becoming useless. Steam has shown that an independent, private studio can distribute its own games. I'm sure Valve has enough money to even open uup its own retail stores ala MS and Apple by now. General retailers and other such only leech money from developers, and while they are needed for the time being they will become obsolete in the future, hopefully sooner rather than later. Also if that retailer industry goes to hell then developers will hurry up with finding alternate ways of getting their games to people. I would gladly support anything that gets rid of the middleman.  When that happens piracy and used games will become equally damaging even on a wide scale. As it stands on the individual scale they are both equally bad. Hell even he arguments for/agaisnt are the same, see above.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

whatever on 25 October 2009
vlad321 said:
whatever said:
vlad321 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.

So if you don't have all the money to play the games why are you playing them? If you don't have the money just don't play the games.

If I buy something (including a video game), then I own it.  I have every right (legally and morally) to do what I want with it.  If I can convince someone else to give me money for it, then that is my RIGHT.  It's called free enterprise.  Anyone who disagrees with this (like you) is immoral.

And I have the right to share what I buy with anyone I want. Anyone who says otherwise ( like you) is immoral.

P.S. Sharing = Piracy

@ironman

Same thing with pirates, fewer people would be gaming if not for piracy, which is BAD for the entirer industry, so I guess piracy is good too.

Give up, you can't win this. Any excuse you give for used sales I can use with piracy.

Now your just sounding like an idiot.  You don't have any counter to my statements, so you just make a statement that you have a right to pirate?  Yeah, nice comback.



ironman on 25 October 2009
vlad321 said:
ironman said:
vlad321 said:
 

And I have the right to share what I buy with anyone I want. Anyone who says otherwise ( like you) is immoral.

P.S. Sharing = Piracy

NO, Piracy = Piracy, you can lend your right to play the game to somebody, but at some point in time, that right to play is returned to you. This is not the case with pirating. With lending/used game market One game disc = one right to play. With pirating one game disc = many rights to play

@ironman

Same thing with pirates, fewer people would be gaming if not for piracy, which is BAD for the entirer industry, so I guess piracy is good too.

Yes, but even fewer new games are sold because of pirating. It is quite the opposite with the used game market.

Give up, you can't win this. Any excuse you give for used sales I can use with piracy.

lol, what? I have shot down every one of your sorry excuses for an argument about used games. You just keep digging yourself holes when you open your mouth...and I push you in and pile on the dirt. Seriously, I already have won this. You are just in a state of denial.

So, I'm getting tired of asking this, What Dev do you work for. I will not stop asking till I get an honest answer.

 

I'll demonstrate:

Your fail? Ok!

"People buy more games because they have more money when they get used games" = "Peaople have ore money when they pirate games to buy games"

And I retorted with "Well, no actually, most people who primerily purchase used games will, in most cases, purchase a new one once in a while, and they are freeing up capital that will eventually be used by other people to purchase new releases. There is a differance between pirates and people who purchase used games...and that is money, One is more willing to spend it, the other one is more willing to keep it"

Of course this post was earlier before I adopted the rights argument (see below) so technically, money is not the only differance. 

"I wanna play the game but don't wanna play full price and the developer won't see my money and I won't have enough to buy other new games" (a.k.a entitelment) = "I don't have enough money but I wanna play the game anyway, I will save money for better games and pirate this one, developer won't see anything" (a.k.a entitlement) (why the fuck do you feel like you have to play the game at all without paying for it? In both cases you are cheating the developer out of money.)

What? I want whatever you are smoking? You fail on so many levels, try taking what I say in context. I never said those exact words, and when I said anything close to that, it was paired with equally important wording which you conveniantly missed. Secondly, thank you for pointing out that piracy would skyrocket without the used market. I actually didn't think about that before your post. If I can't afford a game, and I can't sell used games, I WILL pirate said game.

People who buy used games are PAYING for the right that the origional owner of the game gave up, the right to play the game. Pirates don't pay anything, for the right to play, which has NOT been given up by the origional owner of the game.

Am I missing any other sorry arguments for me that I haven't summed up nicely?

XD, you havn't summed up anything I havn't DESTROYED with a good argument.

@Zen

My theory is that game stores are becoming useless. Steam has shown that an independent, private studio can distribute its own games. I'm sure Valve has enough money to even open uup its own retail stores ala MS and Apple by now. General retailers and other such only leech money from developers, and while they are needed for the time being they will become obsolete in the future, hopefully sooner rather than later. Also if that retailer industry goes to hell then developers will hurry up with finding alternate ways of getting their games to people. I would gladly support anything that gets rid of the middleman.  When that happens piracy and used games will become equally damaging even on a wide scale. As it stands on the individual scale they are both equally bad. Hell even he arguments for/agaisnt are the same, see above.

Yes, game stores are useless, that is why their business is booming...XD get a clue dude. Also, used game are GOOD for the gaming industry, how many times must we go over this? You get an F for not reading.

 



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!