Whelp, another reason to boycott Capcom.

[dsheinem]

Don't make me break out that George Carlin quote again...

that bit is so funny, it literally makes me shit my pants!

[Hobie-wan]

that bit is so funny, it literally makes me shit my pants!

*screech*

"Cleanup on aisle 4 please. Repeat. Cleanup on aisle 4."

[irixith]

If player A pays X, plays the game, and receives Y selling it, I find it pretty hard to see how you can say player A is supporting that publisher with X - the right amount is X-Y.

I probably shouldn't get involved with this, but it's getting more and more bizarre each time I read a new post about it.

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.

[flamepanther]

I keep seeing people assuming that the used game buyer is not giving money to the company. I disagree with that statement but as my posts go long many of you may not have read it.

THEOREM:
Player A buys new for X, sells to Player B for Y. This is equivalent to Player A gave the company X-Y and Player B gave the company Y. Player B IS SUPPORTING THE INDUSTRY (possibly more than Player A). I can't make it any simpler. Industry gets X for the game.

If you disagree with my "theorem" please justify your disagreement so that I can try to convince you. It doesn't matter at what time Player B buys the game - consider it an interest free loan that Player A gave to Player B if you want and you can shift Player B contribution to the initial date of purchase.

Middlemen (like Gamestop) can absorb some amount, but the players are both contributing. The middlemen may not be contributing directly, but they enable it.

Player A buys new for X, sells to Gamestop for Y, Player A contributes X-Y.
Player B buys from Gamestop for Z, Player B contributes Y, Gamestop absorbs Z-Y. Industry still gets the full X for the game.

Ivo.

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. 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. However, your hypothesis is still incorrect for at least two reasons, both of which are simple if you think about it--although I'll probably use many more words than necessary to show it.

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

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. 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. 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."

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. 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. 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.

It's a nice fantasy formula, but that's all. Even though I buy a lot of used games, I don't need something like this to make me feel better about it.

The used market supports the new. Many people sell off old games so they can buy newer ones. If there's no used market, they will buy fewer new games. And the cheapasses buying the used games would probably buy none at all.

You can make that argument, but there are problems with it. For one, the people selling games could easily use the money for something else entirely. I only sell games when I am between jobs or otherwise short on cash, so more games are the last thing I am likely to buy with the money--and it would have to be more used games if I did. I'm quite certain that I'm not an isolated case. The used games market supports the new games market only to the same extent that any other revenue-generating enterprise does--probably less. For instance, if I have steady work from the telecom industry with decent pay, the telecom industry supports the new games market--much moreso than if I'm broke and selling off my old games.

Also, since the markdown on used copies of recent games is usually $5 to $10, I doubt the "cheapasses" would just give up on buying the game.

[Ack]

If player A pays X, plays the game, and receives Y selling it, I find it pretty hard to see how you can say player A is supporting that publisher with X - the right amount is X-Y.

I probably shouldn't get involved with this, but it's getting more and more bizarre each time I read a new post about it.

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.

Player A paid X and therefore supported M company. If Player A sells to Player B for Y, but then a portal to planet Z opens up, sucking through players A, B, and the unwitting C, who was only stopping off at their location to use the bathroom, does company M receive the money, or does company M's long lost nega-universe planet Z parallel company, company N, receive the money?

And if company N receives the money, will it then create orbital laser O, powered by the brain of unlucky player C, who was dissected by evil doctors D and E, for the sole purpose of destroying company M and our planet along with it?

Following that, what will then stop players A and B from teaming up with the mechanical dog P and busty Amazonian in a chainmail or fur bikini Q, who in real life is head of tribe R on planet Z but denies it because she's unwilling to fulfill her destiny, mainly because she's fallen in love with player B but can't admit to it since he's not from planet Z? Will Company N have to bring out their super soldier F and his team of mutant ne'er-do-wells G, H, and I?

And after the destruction of mutant H by circular saw S wielded by player A and mutant I is killed by mechanical dog P's turbo missile K, then A, B, P, and Q must assuredly engage in a final battle with F, with G doing his henchmen cheers from the sidelines, while they battle over molten core J in the center of planet Z under the very heart of skyscraper L, which is the base of operations for company N. Once that happens, G will be pinned under metal girder W, while A, B, P, and Q escape using hover cycle T so they can trigger self-destruct sequence U to cause explosion V to bring down company N's skyscraper L, which will then tumble into planet Z's molten core J,with tribe R rejoicing and changing their rules to let player B marry Q. Meanwhile explosion V will also have killed doctors D and E and sent laser O hurtling into space while player C's brain screams incredulously at the shock of it all. And through none of this will company M gain any more than X money...and the possible annihilation of our entire planet.

And that is why you shouldn't pirate games.

[Czernobog]

Debate over. Ack declared winner. Flawless Victory.

[flamepanther]

[irixith]

And that is why you shouldn't pirate games.

[isiolia]

If player A pays X, plays the game, and receives Y selling it, I find it pretty hard to see how you can say player A is supporting that publisher with X - the right amount is X-Y.

You are making it more complicated than it is. You don't need to track what Player A does with the money or any other games, and this is a good reason to believe my method to be the correct way to evaluate the situation. Player B is retroactively supporting THAT game, not any other games that Player A buys after. How can anything else make sense consistently across the board?

So the game developers are buying back their games now?

The publisher gets their full cut when Player A buys the game. Period. Player B is not retroactively supporting anything in a direct sense.

What you're talking about is just a small part of a much larger picture. Typically just presented as Hatta did or whomever - some new sales are gained because the purchaser is assuming that they will get part of their money back by trading in/selling the game later. In turn, money gained from selling games may be what is used to buy yet more new copies.

Of course, you could also factor in marketing, promotions or price drops, replay value, length of the game, online play, or plenty of other things that might make the purchaser more willing to purchase the game without that reassurance, or not trade it in. Then consider that plenty of people may trade in games and buy used games.

Either way, I don't see it as the same thing.

The core fact is that for publishers to break even or make money, they need new copies to sell. They don't receive money from used sales. There's really no two ways around that.

Generating new sales is a related, but different issue. Used sales may well factor into it to an extent, but it's something that (for a publisher) would have a delicate balance for it work in their favor.

[DinnerX]

And that is why you shouldn't pirate games.

It all makes since when you explain it that way. I think I've been enlightened.

The morals of copyright law and the law itself are an almost hopelessly complicated mess when people start actually analysing them. But that couldn't possibly be an indication we need to revise the current law heavily and stop making new ones. Oh no. That would be unthinkable.