Originally posted by NavyJackal

Originally posted by Ceridith

Originally posted by NavyJackal

Originally posted by saker

This is what you get with laissez-faire-style-capitalism. Vote for sanity, vote for your OWN self-interest -NOT- the interest of the corporate scum, or the ultra-rich.

 No, this is what you get when people pirate games or buy used games from retailers like Gamestop.  Game companies don't make any money when people pirate games or buy them used.  Gamestop doesn't share any of the revenue it earns on the sale of old games, and we are talking multi million dollars in sales.  Is it any surprise that the people who actually create, develop, and distrubute these games want some of that revenue that's being essentially stolen from them?

Yes game publishers are out to make money, they are a buisness after all.  They have bills to pay like everyone else.  That doesn't automatically make them scum.   If you call them scum you might as well be fair and call everyone who has purchased a used game to save a couple of bucks or pirated a game scum as well.  

What does pirating have to do with anything? It's not lost revenue when the people doing it wouldn't have even bought anything even if they couldn't pirate games. If anything, DLC just gives people more reason to pirate, because instead of paying $50 for a complete game, they have to pay $90+ for a complete game.

Buying used games is another issue altogether, but the industry has gone a few decades dealing with this "problem" and still managed to do just fine. Besides, the whole online authentication mechanic to link a CD-Key to a single account seems to be enough to force people to buy a game new rather than used.

Sorry, but the developers who skimp on content in the initial release just so they can sell the missing pieces at inflated values is and will continue to be a sleazy tactic.

 I don't see the point of your arguement.  That's like saying that walking into a department store and walking away with a thousand dollar piece of merchandise isn't lost revenue because I never planned to pay for it?  It's still theft, it doesn't matter if its electronic data or something tangible you can hold in your hand.   The company still loses out and the pirate gets to enjoy the game.   How is that fair to the developer?   I can understand why they would be upset, don't you?   Instead of pirating why don't you purchase it?  Also I'm not sure what game you are referring to.  Far as I am aware you get a full game when you purchase the product, the DLC is for if the game is resold and the new owner of the 'used' game has to pay to access the entire game.  That's not screwing over the original purchaser, it's so the game developer can recoup some of his losses from the 'new' owner of the game. 

I'm not saying it's the best idea for the game developers to charge for this DLC, I was just pointing out a couple of reasons why they do it.   Are there other options?  Yes, but this is one route they've taken.

I think your analogy is a bit flawed. A more accurate one would be if you went into a department store with some sort of futuristic cloning machine and literally copied a thousand dollar piece of merchandise. The original merchandise could still be sold. If piracy was theft, a million pirated copies would mean that those 1 million copies could not be sold. Piracy is still illegal though, just not theft but copyright infringement, there is a difference.

Also, DLC can be pirated. I don't see how DLC can be used to combat piracy and I think the game companies know this.

Originally posted by NavyJackal

Originally posted by saker

This is what you get with laissez-faire-style-capitalism. Vote for sanity, vote for your OWN self-interest -NOT- the interest of the corporate scum, or the ultra-rich.

 No, this is what you get when people pirate games or buy used games from retailers like Gamestop.  Game companies don't make any money when people pirate games or buy them used.  Gamestop doesn't share any of the revenue it earns on the sale of old games, and we are talking multi million dollars in sales.  Is it any surprise that the people who actually create, develop, and distrubute these games want some of that revenue that's being essentially stolen from them?

Yes game publishers are out to make money, they are a buisness after all.  They have bills to pay like everyone else.  That doesn't automatically make them scum.   If you call them scum you might as well be fair and call everyone who has purchased a used game to save a couple of bucks or pirated a game scum as well.  

 No this is what you get when you have a bunch of idiots who don't want long term growth and stability in compines but quick winfall profits so they can cut and run.

Originally posted by Malevil

 

AAA games might very expensive to make, but if they are half decent they almost always earn develpment money back from initial box sales . If they want to prevent secondhand sails, it's freaking easy - THQ for example uses Steam just for that fro their PC games.

Piracy reasons are simply bullshit. Noone is saying that it isnt theft. But using it as excuse to rip off customers who legaly buy your product is just plainly ridiculous.

BTW So what if you use nick NAVYJackal asshat ? ... LOL anyone can do it, and if you think you might impress me more with something like US NAVY you are badly wrong, I'm not from US and I have served my years in military service and dont feel need to put that into my nick ... lol

 "Almost always"?  What the hell is that supposed to mean?  I can come up with all sorts of games that were very good, but didn't earn back the money to develop them.  I'm not saying that's entirely due to pirating and second hand sales, but I'm sure it played a role.  If your future was riding on the success of a game you developed I can wager you'd be trying to recover your losses anyway you could.  

Incidently I couldn't give a rat's fart about impressing you about my occupation.  I also don't give a flying pigs fart that you supposedly claim you are in the military as well (incidently I don't believe you, but if you are, yay for you).   I don't understand why you automatically assumed I am with the US Navy, or that I live in the USA.  I don't work for them and I don't live in the USA either, so....yay for us I suppose...

Originally posted by NavyJackal

Originally posted by Sulaa

 

Yeah yeah , actual video games industry is one of most dynamic industries in whole modern economy. It is continuessly growing at a fast pace. Piracy is getting loweer and lower. Potential market for gaming is rising and rising , especially PC is experiencing renessaince. Even with quite high piracy develoing markets are showing proofs that you can sell alot of legitimate copies of games there, f.e. some titles in Russia hits hundreads of thousands copies sold. With digital distribution some develoers get's bit bigger profit per copy.

So sorry but seeing annual reports from game companies - they certainly show that they are very proffitable and in good health.

So I show one of my fingers to  them , with this greedy 1-day DLC , monetarizing everything , raising games prices over and over ( Starcraft 2 as 3x60$ instead of 1x60$ and 2x40$ for them beign expansion packs , 150$ CE Swtor , levelling PC prices to console levels , using very unfair currency conversion rates on non-US markets - where price in pounds, australian dollars , or euro can be like 80-90$ when in US game costs 50-60$ ).

 

Aside of that in 2011 game industry is considered to have around 74 billion $ and growth is so fast than in 2015 it should be 115 $ billions. info by Gartner

95% of various industry branches would kill for this kind of growth. Many other industries are either in stagnancy or decline.

So feed your corporate talk to someone else who might be actually naive enough to believe.

 Alright, so big scale companies like Bioware, EA, Sony, Nintendo, and the like all post profits, even record profits.  Great, they are established.  They don't have to worry about secondhand sales, or folks pirating their games because their games sell enough units to cover the losses.

What about a small developer who sinks all their funds on single project?  To them lost revenue from second hand sales and pirates could very well be enough to sink the company and put everyone who works for them out of work.  A really nice thought in today's economy.   But I am sure someone who is so obviously not naive such as yourself doesn't bother yourself with thoughts like that. 

 You in the industry?

You sound very biased.

Every kind of business has a risk on investment. And most have to deal with theft of one type or another. The entertainment industry (including software) has one hell of a profit margin. I'm sure that the industry price's allow for loss's do to theft.

When you start dictating that your customer's can't sell their fully purchased and registered product's, well that's just going a little to far. Just because it's an electronic product and it didn't require any raw materials. It shouldn't make it exempt of the free market.

I have 10's of thousands of dollar's wrapped up in CAD-CAM software and I can legally sell my payed for and registered copies.

What makes the game industry so different from any other?

Originally posted by Kaerigan

 

I think your analogy is a bit flawed. A more accurate one would be if you went into a department store with some sort of futuristic cloning machine and literally copied a thousand dollar piece of merchandise. The original merchandise could still be sold. If piracy was theft, a million pirated copies would mean that those 1 million copies could not be sold. Piracy is still illegal though, just not theft but copyright infringement, there is a difference.

Also, DLC can be pirated. I don't see how DLC can be used to combat piracy and I think the game companies know this.

 Well, yes I suppose that's a good analogy, more accurate than mine.  The original copy of the game is still there to be sold.  Either way  it is illegal and costs developers money.   As for whether DLC can be pirated, I really can't say, I'm not a developer or skilled in programming, but I figure any kind of electronic medium is vulnerable to hacking.

Originally posted by laserit

 

 You in the industry?

You sound very biased.

Every kind of business has a risk on investment. And most have to deal with theft of one type or another. The entertainment industry (including software) has one hell of a profit margin. I'm sure that the industry price's allow for loss's do to theft.

When you start dictating that your customer's can't sell their fully purchased and registered product's, well that's just going a little to far. Just because it's an electronic product and it didn't require any raw materials. It shouldn't make it exempt of the free market.

I have 10's of thousands of dollar's wrapped up in CAD-CAM software and I can sell my payed for and registered copies.

What makes the game industry so different from any other?

 No, I'm not in the industry and truth be told I don't have an shred of programming skill.  I'm not related to the industry in any way shape or form.   Incidently I've never worked for a retailer like Gamestop  either.   Am I biased?  I think everyone's biased to a degree, I just happen to think that piracy is wrong, very wrong.   And the worst part is that people come up with all sorts of lame excuses to justify doing something they know is wrong.   I guess I am upset about the unfairness of it.   The developers work hard to make the games, they deserve to reap the rewards for it.    Pirates and companies like Gamestop cheat developers out of their revenue. 

Lost revenue means less money to develop new games, which leads to less innovation, less creativity, and more of having the same old titles put out year after year with nothing more than a fresh coat of paint.  I want to see the medium's boundaires pushed to it's limits.  I want to see how far it can go.  I want to see something new!   Is that wrong?

Originally posted by NavyJackal

Originally posted by Malevil

 

AAA games might very expensive to make, but if they are half decent they almost always earn develpment money back from initial box sales . If they want to prevent secondhand sails, it's freaking easy - THQ for example uses Steam just for that fro their PC games.

Piracy reasons are simply bullshit. Noone is saying that it isnt theft. But using it as excuse to rip off customers who legaly buy your product is just plainly ridiculous.

BTW So what if you use nick NAVYJackal asshat ? ... LOL anyone can do it, and if you think you might impress me more with something like US NAVY you are badly wrong, I'm not from US and I have served my years in military service and dont feel need to put that into my nick ... lol

 "Almost always"?  What the hell is that supposed to mean?  I can come up with all sorts of games that were very good, but didn't earn back the money to develop them.  I'm not saying that's entirely due to pirating and second hand sales, but I'm sure it played a role.  If your future was riding on the success of a game you developed I can wager you'd be trying to recover your losses anyway you could.  

Incidently I couldn't give a rat's fart about impressing you about my occupation.  I also don't give a flying pigs fart that you supposedly claim you are in the military as well (incidently I don't believe you, but if you are, yay for you).   I don't understand why you automatically assumed I am with the US Navy, or that I live in the USA.  I don't work for them and I don't live in the USA either, so....yay for us I suppose...

When you get done here could you please work on world hunger, racism, and cancer. Because you know going on about piracy not only steered this whole conversation in the wrong direction but it's absolutely asinine to put that as a major factor for DLC. What you do is, check this out, is call that company and ask them why they are doing that. Do you think the guy is going to give you a list like is being compiled here? Or a more comprehensive list that actually makes sense, like, they just want to make money off suckers who want to pay the money.

And I can promise you there isnt a guy sitting at a computer that yells " CRAP THERE GOES ANOTHER! " each and every time some website downloads their game for free ( pirated ).

Originally posted by moguy1

 

When you get done here could you please work on world hunger, racism, and cancer. Because you know going on about piracy not only steered this whole conversation in the wrong direction but it's absolutely asinine to put that as a major factor for DLC. What you do is, check this out, is call that company and ask them why they are doing that. Do you think the guy is going to give you a list like is being compiled here? Or a more comprehensive list that actually makes sense, like, they just want to make money off suckers who want to pay the money.

And I can promise you there isnt a guy sitting at a computer that yells " CRAP THERE GOES ANOTHER! " each and every time some website downloads their game for free ( pirated ).

 

 Oh gee, I don't know if I can fit fighting world hunger in my schedule, or cancer (I'm not a doctor).  I'm already so busy trying to stop global warming, helping Scotland Yard figure out who Jack the Ripper actually was, and solving the secret of how they get the caramel into the caramilk bar.   But I'll take it under advisement.   I can't do much about racism though...Haters are gonna hate no matter what you say.

And yes, game publishers do have guys that sit at the computer and tracks illegal downloads.  They are called lawyers...

Originally posted by NavyJackal

Originally posted by laserit

 

 You in the industry?

You sound very biased.

Every kind of business has a risk on investment. And most have to deal with theft of one type or another. The entertainment industry (including software) has one hell of a profit margin. I'm sure that the industry price's allow for loss's do to theft.

When you start dictating that your customer's can't sell their fully purchased and registered product's, well that's just going a little to far. Just because it's an electronic product and it didn't require any raw materials. It shouldn't make it exempt of the free market.

I have 10's of thousands of dollar's wrapped up in CAD-CAM software and I can sell my payed for and registered copies.

What makes the game industry so different from any other?

 No, I'm not in the industry and truth be told I don't have an shred of programming skill.  I'm not related to the industry in any way shape or form.   Incidently I've never worked for a retailer like Gamestop  either.   Am I biased?  I think everyone's biased to a degree, I just happen to think that piracy is wrong, very wrong.   And the worst part is that people come up with all sorts of lame excuses to justify doing something they know is wrong.   I guess I am upset about the fairness of it.   The developers work hard to make the games, they deserve to reap the rewards for it.    Pirates and companies like Gamestop cheat developers out of their revenue. 

Lost revenue means less money to develop new games, which leads to less innovation, less creativity, and more of having the same old titles put out year after year with nothing more than a fresh coat of paint.  I want to see the medium's boundaires pushed to it's limits.  I want to see how far it can go.  I want to see something new!   Is that wrong?

 Your one of the one's talkining sense.

Piracy is wrong, it's theft plain and simple.

I have a problem when people consider buying, selling or trading, legally purchased game's to be on the same level as pirating.

Originally posted by NavyJackal

Originally posted by Sulaa

 

Yeah yeah , actual video games industry is one of most dynamic industries in whole modern economy. It is continuessly growing at a fast pace. Piracy is getting loweer and lower. Potential market for gaming is rising and rising , especially PC is experiencing renessaince. Even with quite high piracy develoing markets are showing proofs that you can sell alot of legitimate copies of games there, f.e. some titles in Russia hits hundreads of thousands copies sold. With digital distribution some develoers get's bit bigger profit per copy.

So sorry but seeing annual reports from game companies - they certainly show that they are very proffitable and in good health.

So I show one of my fingers to  them , with this greedy 1-day DLC , monetarizing everything , raising games prices over and over ( Starcraft 2 as 3x60$ instead of 1x60$ and 2x40$ for them beign expansion packs , 150$ CE Swtor , levelling PC prices to console levels , using very unfair currency conversion rates on non-US markets - where price in pounds, australian dollars , or euro can be like 80-90$ when in US game costs 50-60$ ).

 

Aside of that in 2011 game industry is considered to have around 74 billion $ and growth is so fast than in 2015 it should be 115 $ billions. info by Gartner

95% of various industry branches would kill for this kind of growth. Many other industries are either in stagnancy or decline.

So feed your corporate talk to someone else who might be actually naive enough to believe.

 Alright, so big scale companies like Bioware, EA, Sony, Nintendo, and the like all post profits, even record profits.  Great, they are established.  They don't have to worry about secondhand sales, or folks pirating their games because their games sell enough units to cover the losses.

What about a small developer who sinks all their funds on single project?  To them lost revenue from second hand sales and pirates could very well be enough to sink the company and put everyone who works for them out of work.  A really nice thought in today's economy.   But I am sure someone who is so obviously not naive such as yourself doesn't bother yourself with thoughts like that. 

Nice try. Won't work though as DLC's are used most frequently and in most extensive way by big comanies not small ones.

Not to mention that there are loads of small developers who made succesful releases , in last years. Some won't , in every industry there are unsuccesful stories.

Do you see movie industry blaming second hand sales for their 'misfortune'?

Maybe creating games that provide literraly few hours of gameplay have something to do with people trading their games?

Taking aside simle thing that digital distribution is becoming more and more imortant when retail gets less, with digital places like gamestop selling second hand games are getting less relevant for revenue 'loss'.

So I will say again. We talk in this topic about things like DLC's and those things are used most extensively and in most offending manner (like 1-day DLC's) by big companies. I am following smaller productions and even many indie ones and I've bought some of them. It is RARE that those companies resort to that kind of low 'blows'.

Originally posted by NavyJackal

Originally posted by Ceridith

Originally posted by NavyJackal

Originally posted by saker

This is what you get with laissez-faire-style-capitalism. Vote for sanity, vote for your OWN self-interest -NOT- the interest of the corporate scum, or the ultra-rich.

 No, this is what you get when people pirate games or buy used games from retailers like Gamestop.  Game companies don't make any money when people pirate games or buy them used.  Gamestop doesn't share any of the revenue it earns on the sale of old games, and we are talking multi million dollars in sales.  Is it any surprise that the people who actually create, develop, and distrubute these games want some of that revenue that's being essentially stolen from them?

Yes game publishers are out to make money, they are a buisness after all.  They have bills to pay like everyone else.  That doesn't automatically make them scum.   If you call them scum you might as well be fair and call everyone who has purchased a used game to save a couple of bucks or pirated a game scum as well.  

What does pirating have to do with anything? It's not lost revenue when the people doing it wouldn't have even bought anything even if they couldn't pirate games. If anything, DLC just gives people more reason to pirate, because instead of paying $50 for a complete game, they have to pay $90+ for a complete game.

Buying used games is another issue altogether, but the industry has gone a few decades dealing with this "problem" and still managed to do just fine. Besides, the whole online authentication mechanic to link a CD-Key to a single account seems to be enough to force people to buy a game new rather than used.

Sorry, but the developers who skimp on content in the initial release just so they can sell the missing pieces at inflated values is and will continue to be a sleazy tactic.

 I don't see the point of your arguement.  That's like saying that walking into a department store and walking away with a thousand dollar piece of merchandise isn't lost revenue because I never planned to pay for it?  It's still theft, it doesn't matter if its electronic data or something tangible you can hold in your hand.   The company still loses out and the pirate gets to enjoy the game.   How is that fair to the developer?   I can understand why they would be upset, don't you?   Instead of pirating why don't you purchase it?  Also I'm not sure what game you are referring to.  Far as I am aware you get a full game when you purchase the product, the DLC is for if the game is resold and the new owner of the 'used' game has to pay to access the entire game.  That's not screwing over the original purchaser, it's so the game developer can recoup some of his losses from the 'new' owner of the game. 

I'm not saying it's the best idea for the game developers to charge for this DLC, I was just pointing out a couple of reasons why they do it.   Are there other options?  Yes, but this is one route they've taken.

When did I ever say it was fair to the developers or that pirating is okay? I didn't.

But if someone pirates a game, the developers aren't losing money, they just aren't making it from the person... who arguably would not have even paid for the game. In other words, said persons pirate the game, or they don't... either way the developers neither make nor lose money from these people, because they were never potential customers in the first place.

Stealing software isn't like stealing a tangible physical good. Sure there was effort in making the original piece of software, but replication of said final software is arguably free and near infinite. Stealing a physical good on the other hand does incurr an actual loss, because that physical product took resources to duplicate, so it's a loss in inventory.

Again, I'm in no way defending or encouraging piracy. Rather simply pointing out that the entire premise that piracy actually costs developers money is nonsense. The only way piracy costs developers anything, is in their frivilous attempts to add copy protection, which will always be cracked.

The sad truth is that the intellectual property related industries use piracy as a scape goat for poor sales of low quality products that are priced far too high for what most would be willing to pay.

Originally posted by laserit

 

 Your one of the one's talkining sense.

Piracy is wrong, it's theft plain and simple.

I have a problem when people consider buying, selling or trading, legally purchased game's to be on the same level as pirating.

 Ok, I don't think I've said that selling/buying new games is illegal, I just pointed out that by buying used games from companies like Gamestop means that the developer doesn't make any money from the transaction, which to me is wrong.    I'm putting the blame for such actions on companies like Gamestop who have built their buisness model delibrately to exclude the game developers and publishers.  Charging for second hand DLC is the game developers fighting back. 

I'm not saying you can't sell your games, you bought them, they are yours.   Am I saying I would rather people paid the extra five dollars for the new game rather than buy the used copy?  Yes.   Who makes the games;  Gamestop or the developers?  Who would you rather see making profits?  I don't know about those who read these forums, but I'd rather see the developers get it.  They are the ones who make us the games. 

Originally posted by NavyJackal

Originally posted by laserit

 

 Your one of the one's talkining sense.

Piracy is wrong, it's theft plain and simple.

I have a problem when people consider buying, selling or trading, legally purchased game's to be on the same level as pirating.

 Ok, I don't think I've said that selling/buying new games is illegal, I just pointed out that by buying used games from companies like Gamestop means that the developer doesn't make any money from the transaction, which to me is wrong.    I'm putting the blame for such actions on companies like Gamestop who have built their buisness model delibrately to exclude the game developers and publishers.  Charging for second hand DLC is the game developers fighting back. 

I'm not saying you can't sell your games, you bought them, they are yours.   Am I saying I would rather people paid the extra five dollars for the new game rather than buy the used copy?  Yes.   Who makes the games;  Gamestop or the developers?  Who would you rather see making profits?  I don't know about those who read these forums, but I'd rather see the developers get it.  They are the ones who make us the games. 

 But why should the gaming industry be treated differently then any other?

You can go to a bookstore and buy a second hand book. The author and the publisher get nothing, they lose the sale of a new book.

Should we ban the sale of used books?

Originally posted by Ceridith

 

When did I ever say it was fair to the developers or that pirating is okay? I didn't.

But if someone pirates a game, the developers aren't losing money, they just aren't making it from the person... who arguably would not have even paid for the game. In other words, said persons pirate the game, or they don't... either way the developers neither make nor lose money from these people, because they were never potential customers in the first place.

Stealing software isn't like stealing a tangible physical good. Sure there was effort in making the original piece of software, but replication of said final software is arguably free and near infinite. Stealing a physical good on the other hand does incurr an actual loss, because that physical product took resources to duplicate, so it's a loss in inventory.

Again, I'm in no way defending or encouraging piracy. Rather simply pointing out that the entire premise that piracy actually costs developers money is nonsense. The only way piracy costs developers anything, is in their frivilous attempts to add copy protection, which will always be cracked.

The sad truth is that the intellectual property related industries use piracy as a scape goat for poor sales of low quality products that are priced far too high for what most would be willing to pay.

 If someone does pirate a game then yes, developers loose money.   Saying that the only people who pirate games are those who wouldn't buy them to begin with is nonsense.   Naturally people will gravitate toward the 'easy' or 'free' option.   Seriously, what's easier; downloading it illegally off the net, or going to the store and purchasing it?   People pirate simply because they can do so.  If there is something in place like a DLC to discourage pirating a game then it's entirely possible they might buy it instead.  

I honestly can't believe that you feel piracy is a non issue when it comes to revenue loss.  Hell if only ten percent of pirated versions of a game were actually purchased rather than stolen  think of how much revenue that represents. 

Originally posted by laserit

Originally posted by NavyJackal

Originally posted by laserit

 

 Your one of the one's talkining sense.

Piracy is wrong, it's theft plain and simple.

I have a problem when people consider buying, selling or trading, legally purchased game's to be on the same level as pirating.

 Ok, I don't think I've said that selling/buying new games is illegal, I just pointed out that by buying used games from companies like Gamestop means that the developer doesn't make any money from the transaction, which to me is wrong.    I'm putting the blame for such actions on companies like Gamestop who have built their buisness model delibrately to exclude the game developers and publishers.  Charging for second hand DLC is the game developers fighting back. 

I'm not saying you can't sell your games, you bought them, they are yours.   Am I saying I would rather people paid the extra five dollars for the new game rather than buy the used copy?  Yes.   Who makes the games;  Gamestop or the developers?  Who would you rather see making profits?  I don't know about those who read these forums, but I'd rather see the developers get it.  They are the ones who make us the games. 

 But why should the gaming industry be treated differently then any other?

You can go to a bookstore and buy a second hand book. The author and the publisher get nothing, they lose the sale of a new book.

Should we ban the sale of used books?

I agree. Its absurd that the gaming industry (Hollywood as well) wants its product to be treated diffrently. I really love how when buying a digital version of the product (no box/shipping/DVD nothing...but...bandwidth) I save very little over buying retail. I love all the outsourcing which saves them money as well, and the tax breaks...

Why are games not getting any cheaper when the cost is going down? 

Games sell more today than ever, are becoming very mainstream  and generally are being purchased via download- And the rice is still high, now they want us to pay for every little thing that used to come with the game.

-Tired of being nickle and dimed.

Piracy USED to bother me...

Originally posted by Picklebeast

Originally posted by laserit

Originally posted by NavyJackal

Originally posted by laserit

 

 Your one of the one's talkining sense.

Piracy is wrong, it's theft plain and simple.

I have a problem when people consider buying, selling or trading, legally purchased game's to be on the same level as pirating.

 Ok, I don't think I've said that selling/buying new games is illegal, I just pointed out that by buying used games from companies like Gamestop means that the developer doesn't make any money from the transaction, which to me is wrong.    I'm putting the blame for such actions on companies like Gamestop who have built their buisness model delibrately to exclude the game developers and publishers.  Charging for second hand DLC is the game developers fighting back. 

I'm not saying you can't sell your games, you bought them, they are yours.   Am I saying I would rather people paid the extra five dollars for the new game rather than buy the used copy?  Yes.   Who makes the games;  Gamestop or the developers?  Who would you rather see making profits?  I don't know about those who read these forums, but I'd rather see the developers get it.  They are the ones who make us the games. 

 But why should the gaming industry be treated differently then any other?

You can go to a bookstore and buy a second hand book. The author and the publisher get nothing, they lose the sale of a new book.

Should we ban the sale of used books?

I agree. Its absurd that the gaming industry (Hollywood as well) wants its product to be treated diffrently. I really love how when buying a digital version of the product (no box/shipping/DVD nothing...but...bandwidth) I save very little over buying retail. I love all the outsourcing which saves them money as well, and the tax breaks...

Why are games not getting any cheaper when the cost is going down? 

Games sell more today than ever, are becoming very mainstream  and generally are being purchased via download- And the rice is still high, now they want us to pay for every little thing that used to come with the game.

-Tired of being nickle and dimed.

Piracy USED to bother me...

You DO know that game developments costs haver gone up, right? cause you sure are acting like games cost the same to develop now as they did 10 years ago, they dont.

Originally posted by laserit

Originally posted by NavyJackal

Originally posted by laserit

 

 Your one of the one's talkining sense.

Piracy is wrong, it's theft plain and simple.

I have a problem when people consider buying, selling or trading, legally purchased game's to be on the same level as pirating.

 Ok, I don't think I've said that selling/buying new games is illegal, I just pointed out that by buying used games from companies like Gamestop means that the developer doesn't make any money from the transaction, which to me is wrong.    I'm putting the blame for such actions on companies like Gamestop who have built their buisness model delibrately to exclude the game developers and publishers.  Charging for second hand DLC is the game developers fighting back. 

I'm not saying you can't sell your games, you bought them, they are yours.   Am I saying I would rather people paid the extra five dollars for the new game rather than buy the used copy?  Yes.   Who makes the games;  Gamestop or the developers?  Who would you rather see making profits?  I don't know about those who read these forums, but I'd rather see the developers get it.  They are the ones who make us the games. 

 But why should the gaming industry be treated differently then any other?

You can go to a bookstore and buy a second hand book. The author and the publisher get nothing, they lose the sale of a new book.

Should we ban the sale of used books?

 No, I imagine that second hand book sales do hurt authors and publishers.   But I don't think we are talking nearly the same volume of sales when you compare used video games to used books.   Really this is a whole different topic because you have to look at a lot of different factors such as writing a book doesn't cost alot of money compared to designing and programming a game.   

Originally posted by NavyJackal

Originally posted by laserit

Originally posted by NavyJackal

Originally posted by laserit

 

 Your one of the one's talkining sense.

Piracy is wrong, it's theft plain and simple.

I have a problem when people consider buying, selling or trading, legally purchased game's to be on the same level as pirating.

 Ok, I don't think I've said that selling/buying new games is illegal, I just pointed out that by buying used games from companies like Gamestop means that the developer doesn't make any money from the transaction, which to me is wrong.    I'm putting the blame for such actions on companies like Gamestop who have built their buisness model delibrately to exclude the game developers and publishers.  Charging for second hand DLC is the game developers fighting back. 

I'm not saying you can't sell your games, you bought them, they are yours.   Am I saying I would rather people paid the extra five dollars for the new game rather than buy the used copy?  Yes.   Who makes the games;  Gamestop or the developers?  Who would you rather see making profits?  I don't know about those who read these forums, but I'd rather see the developers get it.  They are the ones who make us the games. 

 But why should the gaming industry be treated differently then any other?

You can go to a bookstore and buy a second hand book. The author and the publisher get nothing, they lose the sale of a new book.

Should we ban the sale of used books?

 No, I imagine that second hand book sales do hurt authors and publishers.   But I don't think we are talking nearly the same volume of sales when you compare used video games to used books.   Really this is a whole different topic because you have to look at a lot of different factors such as writing a book doesn't cost alot of money compared to designing and programming a game.   

Got to disagree, buying/selling second hand can create a new revenew stream.  If someone is uncertain enough not to buy full price, buy secondhand for cheaper and find they like it(book, game or whatever) then aren't they more likely to buy new next time round?

Also the excuse for dlc being to combat piracy is complete bollox, don't believe it.  It's essentially the same sort of excuse used by the pirates just from the opposite end.  Truth is if you want to cut down on piracy you should charge less not more.  DLC is usually by big companies trying to create greater short term profit.  It's likely to cost them in the long term.

Originally posted by NavyJackal

Originally posted by laserit

Originally posted by NavyJackal

Originally posted by laserit

 

 Your one of the one's talkining sense.

Piracy is wrong, it's theft plain and simple.

I have a problem when people consider buying, selling or trading, legally purchased game's to be on the same level as pirating.

 Ok, I don't think I've said that selling/buying new games is illegal, I just pointed out that by buying used games from companies like Gamestop means that the developer doesn't make any money from the transaction, which to me is wrong.    I'm putting the blame for such actions on companies like Gamestop who have built their buisness model delibrately to exclude the game developers and publishers.  Charging for second hand DLC is the game developers fighting back. 

I'm not saying you can't sell your games, you bought them, they are yours.   Am I saying I would rather people paid the extra five dollars for the new game rather than buy the used copy?  Yes.   Who makes the games;  Gamestop or the developers?  Who would you rather see making profits?  I don't know about those who read these forums, but I'd rather see the developers get it.  They are the ones who make us the games. 

 But why should the gaming industry be treated differently then any other?

You can go to a bookstore and buy a second hand book. The author and the publisher get nothing, they lose the sale of a new book.

Should we ban the sale of used books?

 No, I imagine that second hand book sales do hurt authors and publishers.   But I don't think we are talking nearly the same volume of sales when you compare used video games to used books.   Really this is a whole different topic because you have to look at a lot of different factors such as writing a book doesn't cost alot of money compared to designing and programming a game.   

 I beg to differ:

Originally posted by laserit

 No, I imagine that second hand book sales do hurt authors and publishers.   But I don't think we are talking nearly the same volume of sales when you compare used video games to used books.   Really this is a whole different topic because you have to look at a lot of different factors such as writing a book doesn't cost alot of money compared to designing and programming a game.   

 I beg to differ:

 On which point?  That used video game sales vastly outnumber used book sales?  Or that video games cost more to develp and publish than writing a book?  Or that banning the sale of used books is a whole different topic?