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

[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.