Used Games != Piracy

[owsf2000]

Every time I see a story about publishers and developers going on about this and showing their entitlement issues, I throw up a little bit inside my mouth.

It's not even worth trying to defend this position of mine against the industry apologists anymore. That doesn't mean I think my position is pointless or wrong. Rather, it's because I know they won't listen to it and continue on with their foaming at the mouth.

I can honestly say at this point that I wouldn't mind seeing another video game crash. And that's rather sad, since I do actually care about the market. I just think at this point we need to clear the board and start fresh - but I suspect most of the gamers out there need to wait until they wake up and notice that they're paying 100-200 dollars for shitty bug ridden partial games with no replay value. We're not quite at that point yet (Or are we? How much does it cost on average to buy all the "optional" DLC for a typical game nowadays?) but rest assured we're moving towards it like the titanic in icy waters.

But I rant.

Comments

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

I just can't agree with that because to me, the games I'm buying nowadays have more replay value than anything I had for the SNES or NES or even the Playstation. I personally like DLC and do not share your concerns about it, and the prices for most games I buy are similar to what I paid in the SNES days. I'm quite happy with my PS3.

[owsf2000.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing you're disagreeing with my willingness to see a video game crash more so than my arguments about the whole secondhand-is-equal-to-piracy ranting issue.

DLC and bug concerns are only concerns to those who keep playing things after that generation of consoles has passed. If you're going to drop your PS3 and hook yourself up with a PS4 "soon" after it's released (2 years after it launches is still "soon" thus the quotations) then you're likely never going to realize you had buggy, unplayable games since the PS3 checks for and requires patches to be applied when it detects them. (Based on what I've seen happen with Heavy Rain.)

I'm still playing consoles all the way back to the 2600. If a console dies, I look to get a new one so I can continue to play the games I've amassed for it. For any patchable system, if my console dies after support for patches and DLC is pulled, I'll be up shit creek.

There wasn't nearly much of a backlash over the Xbox's support being pulled but then the patching and DLC was fairly minimal compared to what's being done this generation. We're going to see so many people bitching in 5-10 years and I'm just going to sit back and laugh at them. :)

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

Not so much your opinions on a crash (although I guess I wouldn't really like to see that happen), I just don't agree with your feelings on DLC and patches. In my experience those are mostly positive things; I like that the game companies have a way to fix bugs (which have always been in console games, they just had no way to fix them before). Of course these can be abused by companies, but companies have always been able to do crappy things to the consumers.

Patches have always been available for computer games as well, and a lot of them are still available on the web even if their companies went out of business -- some aren't, but I guess I don't mind having something that benefits current gamers but has the chance of inconveniencing people who play old consoles 10-15 years down the line.

[owsf2000.livejournal.com]

Very rarely did console games have huge, game breaking bugs that were readily apparent mere hours after release, as many current gen games do. The difference was, yes, the current gen games can be patched and, thus, it's not as big of a deal to the devs/publishers to rush out a completely broken game.

Also keep in mind that Xbox support was dropped closer to 5 years after it was replaced by the 360. A far cry from the 10-15 (I was being generous, and taking into account that the current gen won't be ending for another 5 years or so minimum.)

It sounds to me that you're the play and drop type of gamer. Congratz. You're the type of people that the console market wants. So long as you make sure you're willing to ditch your stuff before it's taken from you via hard drive, etc, you shouldn't be affected. Just make damned sure you don't go whining about being bitten in the ass over this stuff in the future - as I've already seen a couple people whine over being ripped off by these practices.

The difference with patches being available for PC games is that you can download and archive your patches. Toss them on a usb drive and they're available if you ever need to do a reinstall. That's not going to be possible for console patches as I've mentioned before.

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "play and drop"; I don't go as far back as the 2600 but this month I've played GBA, SNES, PSX, 360, and PS3 games. Last month I was playing Mega Man games so that included NES and original game boy.

I can see the potential problems, but at the moment they aren't a big concern to me and I really think the PS3 is a well designed machine with a lot of good features. I haven't played any games yet with horrible bugs that had to be fixed through patches. Sure, I might be annoyed if I try to play a game in 10 years and can't find a patch, but who knows if I'll even still be playing video games 10 years from now. I'm not going to avoid playing new games because of that.

Sure, it's not perfect -- I think they should allow you to download patches externally and transfer via usb (this is always something they could add in a future system software update, especially if they're thinking of disabling support).

I may whine if I get bitten by this later because there are ways that Sony can deal with the issue that would not leave gamers in a state where they could never update or add DLC to their games. I just think the benefits of DLC and patches outweigh the potential problems years down the line. Perhaps I'll feel differently when it actually is years down the line, who knows.

[owsf2000.livejournal.com]

Then you're going to get bitten in the ass by this thing later on if you fully expect to be playing your PS3 games just fine in 10 years time.

Patches are around because they're possible with a harddrive attached to your console. Harddrives aren't exactly the most reliable piece of computer equipment ever developed. Buggy games exist as a result of patching being available. If you couldn't patch, the developers would be forced to deliver finished products.

"I don't like paying $60 to be a beta-tester."

DLC is mostly a case of them ripping stuff out of a game that would have normally come with the game, just so they can charge you an extra 5-10 bucks per "extra".

Your idea that they would allow external patching is laughable at best btw. They're not doing it already because it can be seen as a security breach or a way for hackers to inject customized "patches" through that system to jailbreak it. Hell, that's how that new usb method for jailbreaking the PS3 that Sony is dead set on killing currently works.

The most I'm holding hope on is that in the dying days of the console they'll start selling cheap dvds that will be filled with bug patches from as many games as possible. And I don't think they'll do that. There's more money in leaving the games as broken as possible so they can offer it for sale again on the next system as a digital download, etc.

If you see me laughing at you when you whine about it in the future, don't take it too hard, just take it as a "I told you so." You have no reason whatsoever to expect them to do what's in the best interest of gamers at the end of the day if they haven't already started doing it now. There's too much potential for reselling the same product to people with their current set up.

[haroldu.livejournal.com]

Technically, I endorse piracy.

*My brother bought a used car
*I gave away some old stuff to charity
*Houses are pirated. Do the right thing - demolish and rebuild
*5 years ago, I bought a used laptop.
*The statewide library system endorces piracy, they have a big ass used book sale each year to raise funds to buy new books! OH NOES!!!
*College students buy used textbooks, they are t3h s4t4n!
*I sort plastic bottles and aluminum cans for recycling! They need to mine more metal and drill for more oil!!!111!!111!!

I IZ 3vil!!!111oneone!!

[kane-magus.livejournal.com]

At least those things that you bought and sold used don't come with artificially introduced "wear and tear" on them the way that video games are starting to these days. Sure, of course, you're STEALING FROM THE ORIGINAL CREATORS, YOU FIEND, but at least you're not totally evil yet.

That car, for instance? It didn't come with a code that enabled the first, new buyer to use the radio, which then got disabled when your brother bought it, unless and until he sent some money to the original manufacturer in order to get a new code for the radio.

Seriously though, as stated in the article (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/buying-used-games-developers-publishers-dont-care-about-you.ars) that Mord posted (though, Mord, you need to remove the extraneous quote at the end of the url because it leads to a 404 otherwise), some guy on Penny Arcade (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/8/25/) said the following:

What other customers expect a used product be be identical to a new product? Buying a used car comes with increased wear (and thus decreased function). Buying a used book means you are risking page damage or a broken binding. Buying anything used means that you get a cheaper price for decreased function or increased risk. It also requires a little more awareness on the part of the customer to make sure they are aware of what they are getting. In the video game case, if you know the game wont have multi-player used, you can adjust what you are willing to spend on it, the same way you might offer a few hundred dollar less for a used motorcycle due to rust.

The following is my response to that guy, in an email that I sent to Gabe (mailto:gabe@penny-arcade.com) and Tycho (mailto:tycho@penny-arcade.com) (to which, of course, I haven't received and don't expect to receive a reply or acknowledgment):

Yes, and when you buy a used video game, you run the risk of not getting an instructions manual, or even the box it originally came in. Sometimes you just get a disc that is scratched up to nigh unusability. I, personally, have bought used games from EB Games/Gamestop that I then had to return for a replacement because they simply did not work at all. I've then sometimes gotten replacements that also did not work at all. In some cases, the game was so old that they didn't have any more copies on hand and had to issue me a refund. And there was certainly no option to buy said games new (outside of paying outrageous prices on eBay or something similar), or I would have done so in a heartbeat. So, the gist of my point in response to that person is simply "Yeah, you're right. So what's your point?" Also, if I buy a car or a book or whatever, and then I sell it to you a day or two later, then you can be reasonably sure that said car won't be all rusted out with a stripped transmission or that the book won't have a broken spine or missing pages or whatever. Yet, for some reason, it is supposedly perfectly okay to introduce artificial "wear and tear" on a video game that is only a few days old? Why is this the case? Why are people accepting this as a good thing?

The underlying point is this: I simply do not understand where this unfounded sense of entitlement on the part of devs and publishers comes from. Why do they feel that they have a right to interfere with second hand sales in any way? How did this come about? These "original buyer codes" are pure bullshit, in my not so humble opinion. Buying a used copy of Final Fantasy is the equivalent to stealing from Square-Enix as buying a Taurus from Joe Random's Used Cars is the equivalent to stealing from Ford. That is to say, it isn't equivalent. At all.