Whelp, another reason to boycott Capcom.

[flamepanther]

I see my used purchases as "supporting" the developer symbolically. "Hey, I care enough about this game to have a physical copy and display it in my room!" It shows off my stripes as a fan, but it doesn't really help the developer any more than if I were wearing a fan-made shirt, posting a desktop theme or wallpaper on DeviantArt, or engaging in game-related cosplay. However, if the game is no longer available new, that's the best I can really do for them.

When possible though, it's better to give money and buy new--unless they do some crap like not allowing the save memory to be rewritten, anyway.

[dsheinem]

I send a check for $40 directly to game companies for each of their games that I buy used (including retro games). I do it because it is the right thing to do.

[Hobie-wan]

busty Amazonian in a chainmail or fur bikini Q

I'm scared what gadgets are hidden in that fakery. I'm not sure if it would have been better or worse if that was M.

[flamepanther]

I send a check for $40 directly to game companies for each of their games that I buy used (including retro games). I do it because it is the right thing to do.

"Sweet! I finally got around to buying a vintage copy of Renegade! Now here's my $40 check to send off to Techn--aww, crap. "

[Jamisonia]

I don't think this thread will ever end. So Resident Evil Mercenaries 3D will only allow 1 save per copy per lifetime. Either decide to buy it or to not.

[Ivo]

You guys are being too close-minded and not paying attention to the simple fact that money is fungible. I'll see if I can reply to everyone...

Irixith:
Player A paid X, and therefore supported with X. If Player A sells to Player B for Y, he is simply recouping a portion of X -- which still all went towards the publisher. The original transaction doesn't change -- it can't possibly be X-Y.

That is precisely the point. Player A recoups a portion of X, PASSING it on to Player B. The company still gets X, I never said THAT changes. It is just that Player A is now only supporting the company with X-Y, PRECISELY because he recouped Y from Player B. So you are already even using the right terminology (recouping). If he recoups that portion, it is inconsistent to consider he still is supporting the company with that same portion. By selling the game and passing it on, he also passed along that portion of "support".

[DinnerX]

I send a check for $40 directly to game companies for each of their games that I buy used (including retro games). I do it because it is the right thing to do.

You're joking right? I mean that would make a used copy more than new in most instances.

Well, anyway, I don't see why a company should be entitled to more money every time a game changes hands. They sold the game already. They made their money, why should they be entitled to more money from something they already sold? They don't own it anymore.

[flamepanther]

You guys are being too close-minded and not paying attention to the simple fact that money is fungible. I'll see if I can reply to everyone...

It's fungible, but it can't be sent back through time just yet. Doing things "retroactively" is strictly an imaginary exercise. With money, it's useful for things like understanding company ledgers in a simplified way, but it still isn't a real thing that actually happens. Right now, everything except particle physics has to obey Time's Arrow.

[Ivo]

Flamepanther, I believe that you sort of see it.

I think I see what you're getting at here. You seem to be suggesting that Player A and Player B indirectly share the cost of the game, with the reseller acting to enable this.

Yes, in fact I said such in the previous posts when I wasn't using "Player A" and "Player B". The middlemen are not necessary for the reasoning and do not affect the important results.

My brother and I used to split the cost of games and consoles that we would have had a hard time buying on our own when we were kids.

In fact I made that very comparison in my first thread on this topic. The only distinction is that in that case the pooling of resources (and division of support into fractions) occurs initially, which means everyone can see it easily.

Problem 1
Your formula relies on knowing the exact history of our hypothetical game.

No it doesn't.

In real life, this is never the case. Player A might have bought the game new. He might also have bought it from another reseller after it has been passed on by any number of previous players.

Whatever the scenario, each entity that has owned the game has partially contributed towards it costs in the amount obtained by subtracting what "they sold it for" to "what they bought it for". You can even generalise it into a "negative contribution" (which is what middlemen like Gamestop do) as long as you allow more than one entity receiving support (and why not, when that happens in reality).

It might have been a free demonstration or sample copy. He might have stolen it from the publisher, the original retailer, or another player. We don't know, Player B doesn't know or care, and neither does the reseller. Player B's money cannot contribute to the developer by way of Player A if player A never contributed to the developer in the first place--and that's always a possibility.

Incorrect. As long as you generalize into allowing negative contributions, anyone that has stolen it (or otherwise) and has paid 0 for it, selling it for a positive amount simply means the thief is (unsurprisingly) acting as a "super-middleman" and is an entity that is receiving support (possibly the sole entity). Player B can still claim he supports the industry with whatever he paid. Player A (the thief) is once again responsible - so it is actually fully consistent.

More importantly, since Player B buys the game for the same price from the reseller regardless of whether the copy's history involves payment to the developer, this is proof that Player B's purchase is a wholly separate transaction from the purchase Player A may or may not have originally made.

Already addressed, all you need to do is allow for a completely reasonable generalisation.

Problem 2
Even if we assume omniscience and can guarantee that we know exactly where this copy of our hypothetical game comes from, Player A never had a guarantee of what happens after he bought it new at retail.

Once again, not required.

At the point of the original purchase, Player A may not ever decide to sell the game. Even if he has an inkling that he will probably sell the game, he most likely doesn't know what the reseller will pay him.

Of course.

Even if Player A knows the buy-back rate for the game in advance of his purchase, that rate could change the very next day, and will very likely change by the time he gets around to selling it. There's also always the chance that by the time Player A takes his game to the reseller, they'll say "sorry, we're not taking this one right now."

Indeed.

In other words? Player A buys the game new for X on the merits of that transaction alone. When Player A pays X, it is a done deal. The future is not yet determined and is not a part of the transaction. The publisher already gets X, minus retail markup. Period.

I never disputed that the publisher gets X.

Whatever happens later does not change this, unless Gamestop has a way to send Player B's money back in time to Player A at the time of the original purchase.

This is not required. At the moment player A sells the game for amount Y (regardless of the possibility he may or may not have had of selling it for a different amount), at that moment he is retroactively passing on the responsibility of support to Player B. At the instant the game is sold, Player A becomes not the owner but merely someone who has rented the game for X-Y.

I haven't yet seen a TARDIS, phone booth with an antenna, or tricked-out Delorean pop up when I'm shopping for games, so I'll assume that's not the case. The second transaction contributes nothing to the first transaction, and therefore nothing to the developer. Whether this hurts the developer is a separate argument.

You don't need time travel. You only need to know that money is fungible. The only possible association you can make is the X and Y at the times of the transactions.

Ivo.

[Ivo]

You guys are being too close-minded and not paying attention to the simple fact that money is fungible. I'll see if I can reply to everyone...

It's fungible, but it can't be sent back through time just yet. Doing things "retroactively" is strictly an imaginary exercise. With money, it's useful for things like understanding company ledgers in a simplified way, but it still isn't a real thing that actually happens. Right now, everything except particle physics has to obey Time's Arrow.

Ok so a bank buys "my house" and I repay the loan slowly. After I pay the loan would you still say the house was purchased by the bank and that I have not contributed to the real estate market - just because money can not travel back in time? Gosh!

Imagine my Mom needs to be operated and I don't have money to help pay for it right now but will when I get my paycheck. My brother has enough so I don't need to get a loan from the bank. I get my paycheck and give my brother half the money. Now, AFTER I pay him half the money, is he right if he says he was the only person paying for the operation?

Is that just an imaginary exercise, or can I rightfully claim that I helped my parents in such a case (note: this case is fictional, fortunately).

Just wondering what you think about those. There is NO violation of causality. The transfer of the support / responsibility only occurs at the time I pay. Just like it happens with Player A and Player B. I'm not claiming Player B can start gloating about supporting the industry before he buys the respective game, I'm just saying that it is incorrect for Player A to continue to gloat he contributed fully AFTER he sold the game.

Ivo.