The Ethical Question Of Buying Used Games

So, I just bought Gears Of War 4 on ebay for 45 dollars. I tend to not buy used games, but that seemed like a good deal on a game that had just came out. I usually refrain from buying used games that are new since I know the money won't go to the development team, but I thought this was an okay exception since it's a Microsoft funded project and most people are going to be buying the game new anyway. So my question is, do you think there is an ethical quandary that comes with buying used games? Or do you always try to save as much money as you can, as alot of games can be expensive.

It's a personal preference thing, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with buying a game used. That's just part of the market. Developers and publishers are fully aware of this before they start a project. It's been that way for decades.

Digital sales are eating away at the used market anyway.

Used games are cheaper. For someone who can only find a 19 hour a week work contract, that's enough to tip the scales

I think it's bullshit when game journos call out people for buying used games. You don't know the buyers situation and IT IS COMPLETELY LEGAL. Yes, I think the dev's have every right to be pissed for lost revenue but then they should blame their publishers for whatever deal they came up with. Games are expensive, and honestly, if it wasn't for used games, I wouldn't have found stuff that was either discontinued or wasn't available in a certain region. Digital and steam sales will kill off the used market but no one should feel bad for doing this.

I play on PC only now so I can't really buy used, but my attitude towards used and piracy has always been a big 'do what you want'. Piracy and buying used games are basically the same thing as no money goes to the developers from your purchase or download but I'm certainly not going to act snobby about it.

Ultimately, if I can get a game cheaper I'll do it. That's why I buy most my games in Steam sales or from CD-Key websites which some people get pissy about. I don't care honestly, it's my money, not yours. My purchase is not going to make or break anything.

If companies see the used market as such a threat they should grow some courage and tie their game to a key or make it digital only. Until they do that, their whining is pointless. Physical boxed copies having just a key and a disc has been happening in PC games for almost a decade.

There is no ethical issue with buying used games but there is an ethical issue with a narrative that it is morally dubious or that paying for the product does not support the developers.

First sale doctrine is a consistent rule of product sales and the state-enforced legal protections of commercial transaction.

The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner. The right to distribute ends, however, once the owner has sold that particular copy.

The copy being purchased is legally that to do with as the purchaser wishes (under these restricted set of options). That is what they have purchased the right to. The government provides the exclusive rights of copyright to the creator of the work based on their following of the legal restrictions on those rights and so the legal rights for people who do business with them. If it was not legal and part of the expected life-cycle of a copy for it to be resold then we would have to go back to the very foundations of copyright and ask if this was still a valid protection (which we all pay for as the state protects copyright holders by providing the legal and enforcement mechanisms by which their grievances can be heard).

Everyone who creates works (which in the current economy is basically all of us, even outside of that most of us write for pleasure or have other creative outlets that create new works) relies on copyright. An attack on the right to resale is an attack on copyright itself. To try and paint a narrative that creators deserve to be paid for every sale of a single copy of a work goes against hundreds of years of copyright, the very design of the right.

Spend your money how you wish and if that's directly rather than indirectly paying developer then I advise not buying anything where the profits go to the publisher. Buy independent only, ideally via stores other than Steam etc where a 30% cut is being skimmed by the non-developer. If you're fine with indirectly supporting the ecosystem then used games are just as much of that (it generates additional value at the first sale if that product has resale value - without it the pool of people who will pay for new copies is lessened) so buy with a clean conscience.

Pay for your games, pay for all creative works not offered for you for free/via advertisement-supported streams. But pay for them however you wish and that absolutely includes paying for them used. That is a cornerstone of copyright. Don't pirate games (if you can afford not to), that's the opposite of upholding copyright.

I find it sort of strange why you would confine this to just games. Whenever you buy any sort of product secondhand, the money is not going to the manufacturer/creator. Would you say buying a used car, or furniture, or a book, or anything else is potentially unethical too? And if that's the case, then what do you think of services like eBay?

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with people selling things they've previously bought themselves. As mentioned above, that's just part of the market.

I mean it's in the same boat as renting, i say if a game is good enough to pay full price for then people will pay full price for it. I think if used sales are hitting too hard then it's time to lower prices or have more sales, you can't blame customers for buying used and they shouldn't feel bad about it.

I don't really see the problem. We buy used cars, houses, boats, books, movies, etc, but when it comes to used games this discussion always comes up and I have no earthly idea why. Maybe there are personal issues you have, for whatever reason, but in reality this market has been around since there were video games to buy. If someone tries to make a "moral" or "ethical" argument that developers aren't getting paid for x, y, z you should realize they aren't getting paid when you buy the new copy either. They don't work on commission and they don't work on quota. Trying to convince someone to not buy used because of any of the things previously mentioned is tantamount to fear mongering.

Is there really a difference in buying a game used around the few weeks it was released and waiting until a game is new at $20-30?

you do you- but no one really has a leg to stand on if they think buying new is the only defensible option. one could argue that you have an obligation to support the dev team, but simultaneously by buying new products all the time you're also contributing to landfilling and material waste.

i purchase games exclusively through steam- so it's sort of a non-issue (for me) anyway. but i will pay the full $60 if it's a product that reviews well and a dev team i want to support.

When you buy a product, no longer want it in your possession and make a deal with another human being to exchange ownership of that product and someone comes in and says: 'No! That's mine! Give me money!' that person is a dick. It's none of your business what people do with the product you sell them, that part concluded when the transaction was completed. If they want to resell it, that's their business.

I never hear anyone jumping down anyone's throat for buying a used car... It shouldn't be any different with other products! You're not stealing the game from a shelf for God's sake! Ebay, craiglist, and a free market in general allows this to be an option. Developers and publishers allow their games to be sold at GameStop while they know GameStop sells their games used the very next day sometimes.

If you feel so compelled to buy the game at full price to give money to the development team that is totally your prerogative. If not, then so be it. Anyone who ridicules the purchase of used games better not have ever traded in a game by that logic.

Buying used games is not only ethically correct, it is essential for preserving the history of gaming. The courts have already ruled on this issue when book publishers tried the same trick by including EULAs inside books to prevent their resale.

It's fine. You're good.

Besides indy stuff, I almost exclusively buy used. One, maybe 2 at most new a year.

Someone creates a product, someone buys that product, the ownership of that product has shifted from the creator to the buyer. If the buyer then wants to sell it on, the original creator has nothing to do with that. He has been paid. There is no ethical concern here.

I have no issue with it, personally. It's how the market works. The developer isn't left *completely* in the lurch, anyway. DLC sales, and more importantly, fan retention, count for a lot. (fan retention also being a reason why even piracy can have its place, but that's a can of worms I don't want to get into)

One thing I'd like to see is a "tip cup" option on dev websites. With older games that don't have DLC or aren't available new anymore, abandonware, etc., sometimes I want a way to contact the devs and say "Hey, I'm playing your thing, and I really like it." beyond just shooting them an email. (although I do love it when I send those emails and get a happily surprised response in turn)

I haven't bought used since I was a kid with no money, but I couldn't give a shit if others did. Also comparing buying a used car (something that gets objectively less good the more it's used) to buying used media is so far past relevant it's hilarious.

Nope, I'd say around half my last-gen console games are secondhand. Got Fallout 3 GOTY & Fallout New Vegas GOTY for under £3 each including postage :)
I will buy new if the difference is only a couple of £, but if it's £5 or more (and in good condition) then that's usually what I'll go for.

I buy story-related DLC for games I love and if a series/developer proves themselves to me then I'm more likely to check out their other games and buy future releases new at/near launch -shrug-

There is no question. There's nothing wrong with anyone exchanging some money for a used game, no more so than me exchanging money for furniture, movies, books, cars, and so on.

@alexw00d: I don't quite agree that the car comparison isn't relevant. While you are entirely correct when saying that something like a car may have degraded from previous use while a game disc either works or it doesn't, that has nothing to do with the what the original poster asked. The question was whether or not there is an ethical dilemma regarding used goods, because of the money going to a reseller instead of the original seller and/or creator of the product. I don't think the state that the product is in when being resold really factors into that question.

If someone is concerned about their money going to the people who made the product, there's no difference between buying a one year old car as opposed to a ten year old one. Either way, the money is not going to the car manufacturer.

I buy wherever I can for the cheapest I can find. New releases if I know I'll get my money's worth but, more often than not, I'll buy a few months down the line simply because time dictates it.

It's your money, just don't pretend you're doing anything but serving your own wallet. You aren't growing the market, you aren't paying the people who made it, and you aren't "voting" with your wallet so if no more of those games come about, you contributed to that.

I always buy games new. I don't need the money going to some random person who bought the game, I want to pay the publishers and developers that release games I play regardless of how big or small the publisher/developer is. I'm paying for the game experience, not a disk, so I don't buy the arguments people make based on physical media, and I see games as being consumable in the sense that even though it's still good for someone else, you're using it up eventually from your own perspective. Unlike other things that degrade over time however, you can still sell it used after getting it's full value out of it.

I think people who buy used when it's $5 less are pretty ridiculous though. At that point I feel safe in saying the right thing to do is to just buy it new and support the title.

Cars require parts, maintenance, etc. They degrade and most sold cars have some invested capital in them from the owner, through repairs or modifications. It's also a purely physical property. All the cost goes into a physical thing that you can buy. As long as they don't sell it under it's value, they make their money as soon as the vehicle leaves the lot.

With a game on the other hand, the money goes into developing the code and assets. The game is what you are buying, not the disk. If everyone were to play the same copy, that copy would be worthless and lose money. With a car, as long as they sell what they have they make money. If they were to make cars on demand without extra costs associated with doing it that way, they would make money far earlier than a game would, where the majority of the capital goes into marketing and developing the product, not manufacturing.

The state of what you are selling absolutely matters. A car may need new parts (supporting manufacturers), repairs (supporting repair shops), or may get upgrades along the way. A game is a game as long as it's functional, otherwise it's useless material. That's the difference here. Even a car that doesn't run has value. Which is why they make money when they sell each car rather than recouping costs on each unit with games.

I'm simplifying this, because I don't know that cars are sold above margin. Especially these days, nothing seems to be anymore, they rely on secondary revenue to make profits. But it's got to be much closer than games are, which have almost no value as physical copy other than that it gives access to the actual product: the game experience.

Ultimately, I like to let the market decide. If it's good for the market it'll keep happening. DLC allows the devs and publishers to get revenue from even used copies, and may convert future purchases based on an experience had with a very cheap used title of a game. Consumers are always looking for ways to recoup their costs, which in the case of a game always seems odd to me. You're not really losing anything when you sell a game. Yeah, you can't play it but you probably weren't going to anyway if you're selling it. You've sucked it dry and now you're selling it for convenience. It's like you're just leasing it and then pawning it off on someone else, pocketing the money for yourself. It's smart. If the market lets you get your money, get your money. Unless of course there are things you'd rather put your efforts towards, such as supporting developers and encouraging the kinds of products you enjoy to come to market.

@sammo21 said:

I don't really see the problem. We buy used cars, houses, boats, books, movies, etc, but when it comes to used games this discussion always comes up and I have no earthly idea why. Maybe there are personal issues you have, for whatever reason, but in reality this market has been around since there were video games to buy. If someone tries to make a "moral" or "ethical" argument that developers aren't getting paid for x, y, z you should realize they aren't getting paid when you buy the new copy either. They don't work on commission and they don't work on quota. Trying to convince someone to not buy used because of any of the things previously mentioned is tantamount to fear mongering.

Is there really a difference in buying a game used around the few weeks it was released and waiting until a game is new at $20-30?

Well, hold on just one moment here, you're not entirely correct about how people are paid in the industry. Royalties are often a source of revenue beyond salaries, and if a title fails even if you make good wages working on it, you're likely out of a job immediately after. Sales success means increased revenue for a lot of devs, it means higher job security, and can even increase wages for future projects.

And the money absolutely goes to the Publisher and Developer. Even beyond bonuses, royalties, etc, that capital is used to fund future game development. Which means more paid jobs, higher wages, increased job security.

If the game doesn't sell, none of that happens and the companies and therefore the employees lose quite a lot of money. Not everyone in the industry is getting 1/16th of a penny every time you buy a new copy of their game, but they are absolutely impacted directly by sales numbers because most of the cost of developing is just that, developing. It isn't manufacturing. They have to make up for a deficit essentially without having something with tangible value. A car is a car is a car. Unless we outlaw them and remove flat even ground from our world, a car maintains value over time. A car also mostly costs the manufacturer in terms of manufacturing and material costs, which are intrinsic to the product. That means it has concrete value in the world based on the materials used and the function is performs. Games are not like that. For one, the material value is next to nothing. For another, it's just a key to an experience essentially. It'd be like reselling a movie theatre ticket after watching said movie. People don't see it that way because they have to put the disk in the drive, but that's really what we are talking about. That disk has no value other than the content it allows you to access. That isn't tangible, it can disappear or be greatly reduced if it is no longer functional (damaged or lack of supported hardware for example). Games require nothing to manufacture in the grand scheme of things, because that's not what you are paying for. It's not truly a physical good the way a car is, the way a chunk of gold is. Simply existing, a disk does not have much value on it's own.

You're being ignorant if you think buying used doesn't impact the industry. That simply isn't true. It doesn't mean it's wrong to buy used, it just means you should be aware of what it means when you do. If all you care about is your wallet, good for you. That is your right. Just like Trump should be able to take advantage of any Tax benefits he is eligible for, you should be able to take advantage of whatever the market provides you. If you want to support the industry and especially particular elements of it, you should buy new when you can however. Digitally if you can to avoid the continued buildup of plastic crap in our world.

@opusofthemagnum: Yes I fully agree that the state of the product matters when deciding what to spend your money on. However, my point was that the original question was about who the money goes to. You're right though to say that the car manufacturer might get some extra money from parts being sold further down the line. I'll concede there's a difference there, even though those parts too could be bought used. But as you say, with games people might buy DLC down the line for a game they've bought used.

I'm not saying there's no difference at all between buying physical goods and digital ones, far from it, but when it comes to the question of, as the original post put it, an "ethical quandary" about buying used goods, I think the comparison is perfectly valid. No matter what the product is, media or otherwise, if you're not buying it firsthand the maker will get at best less, and at worst no money from it.

Anyway, seems to me that in the end we both agree that if one's concern is about supporting an industry, it's probably best to buy things firsthand, while at the same time neither of us thinks there's some moral objection per se to buying secondhand.

@opusofthemagnum: You are objectively wrong. You may say that you're not moralising on the subject but to compare using copyright as it was intended to using loopholes in Tax law to avoid paying your fair share and your language around not supporting the industry is completely wrong-headed. There is no wishy-washy "screw everyone as long as it's technically legal" justification required here. First sale doctrine is part of the intended system of copyright which generates the value of that first sale. Without it you're devaluing the product being sold and that does materially harm creators as what we make it worth less if it is not a protected copyrighted work with all the conditions attached to that.

See my post for why exactly your ill-informed rhetoric is actually a damaging attack on the very legal framework which provides all works with copyright protection. By damaging the understanding of copyright, you're harming all of us who rely on it to both make our rent and create the broader culture which copyright is meant to support.

Creative works stand on the ability to delight those who consume them. We need people who are open to discovery and protected by consumer rights, otherwise stagnation is assured (as people only pay for safe bets). We need sane copyright terms to protect the ability to remix previous generations of works without limit or legal guidance. Eroding understanding of copyright, removing consumer rights, or blindly seeking ever longer terms on copyright is all work that weakens the system and so all of us who rely on it. Anti-consumer practices (such as these ones relating to copyright) harm all industries built on copyright to the short-term profit of those who forward them. They harm everyone who creates, including those of us who do it to pay rent.

I bought Darksiders 2 used on a whim this week for PS4 and I absolutely love it; I will be buying the remaster (cough warmaster) version of the first game when that comes out brand new next month. I may have eventually bought these games brand new at some point anyway, but I saw the cover for 2 and all they had was used copies but I still went for it; loving this game so much.

With the caveat that I am not a developer and probably have a skewed understanding of how the financials work out, a dev would probably rather you play their game used, versus not playing it at all. At least then your word of mouth may push someone else towards giving the game a shot, potentially netting a sale from them, and your enjoyment alone is also a form of payment (just not, y'know, "payment" payment).

Again, I'm no indie dev operating on a "I need this to eat" budget, but that's how I look at it.

@opusofthemagnum: I'm sorry but without actual data to back up your statement I can only assume this is similar to how people say, "Buying homes new is good for the economy" when it actually is not. I'm not saying you're wrong...I'm just saying I would need data to change my mind on what I stated previously. I also think most people don't care to buy a game used when they save only $5'ish dollars opposed to $20-30...that's when the game's already been out a while normally. We've (we as in consumers who buy games) been doing this used thing for quite a while now and in 2016/2017 we're in the best time to be playing video games, ever. If buying video games were the taxing burden you alluded that it could be we wouldn't be where we are now.

It really isn't the consumer's fault if an industry is set up in such a way that it can't support the long-held tradition of selling used goods. Seriously. There isn't an ethical issue.

@colony024: Ignoring how a product is created or funded is a flaw. That changes the economics at a very basic level. If you develop a product and then that product is only every purchased used, you will get little or nothing. However if you manufacture something with tangible value as long as it's sold at least once, you're getting something from it.

Also remember that games are technically more akin to services than physical goods, especially these days, with how licensing works. That's one of the major reasons I just don't believe in the argument of comparing it to a physical product.

@sammo21: I'm not talking about the economy, I'm talking about the industry and even specific entities within it. Comparing the two isn't fair because the economy encloses all trade. As long as their is good trade occurring, the economy grows, even if it is at the expense of a certain industry. What I'm talking about is at that industry level where there are companies that either will trend up or down based on their performance. I don't need data, or shouldn't, to convince you that performance is how businesses grow, not random luck or ethical quandaries. Performance in this case boiled down to producing revenue and eventually profit.

I also never said that the industry would or will collapse so long as people buy used. I'm just saying that the influence that money has will be different depending on who buys new and who buys used.

If you need examples of royalties and bonuses, look at every bit of drama with a "Lead" on a team being removed, quitting loudly, etc. Infinity Ward drama, Marty O'Donnell, etc all had complaints about royalties and bonuses based on performance. Most in the industry don't get that stuff but they do benefit from "trickle down" capital. When a company acquires more money than it currently has, it will generally invest that money in ways to make even more money. Companies aim to GROW so they will have higher operating costs AND profits. As a business grows, many things can happen. Workers can gain additional benefits as the company is able to bear larger burdens, more employees are usually hired to drive the growth, and wages can increase or more lucrative positions may become available for existing employees. It even increases the value of that position if it's ever on a resume.

Same thing happens in the used market. That money goes towards something, it doesn't just disappear or go into one guy's pocket. Even when it literally goes into some guy's pocket because he just sold his buddy his old copy of a game. I don't think that one is better or worse, I just prefer to put my own money towards one over the other. Used games certainly seem to be healthy overall for the industry, but you cannot deny that you can have more influence when you use that money directly.

I never buy used games but I've used gamefly for years. I don't think it's our problem if the developers get compensated or not. Some people live on a budget or just don't want to shell out $60+ for a game. There are lots of games that I want to play but don't think are worth $60 and I don't want to wait for a price drop.

Who are you to be responsible for the development team and what they get and don't get? How is that your issue, a regular average citizen trying to get by?

Do you not buy used brooms? Well, what about the broom manufacturer you're screwing out of some cash?

Used cars? You're choosing not to send the money to the car development team that way (by your logic).

How are games any different? Nothing about game developers is any different, they make good money, some people buy the game full price some people buy it used, just like every other product.

It isn't the consumers job to watch out for the company whose goods they are buying. I'm sure the publishers are taking used sales into account when they are financing a project. If it's perfectly legal to buy a used product, then the consumer has every right to buy it used. When these products are selling on the order of hundreds of thousands (at the low end), your choice to buy new or used is definitely accounted for already. If buying new brings you comfort, that is fine, but I can't imagine it makes any significant change in the profits the company was anticipating.

EDIT: Put another way, if a publisher thinks the game should exist as a disc, they have confidence that the benefit of having a physical disc available (Larger consumer base) will outweigh the negative (manufacturing, existence of used market).

@opusofthemagnum:Bear with me here, this may get a little long-winded.

I never disagreed with you that there's no difference at all between reselling physical goods and reselling media, or digital goods. Whether it's how they are funded and created, or that certain products deteriorate with use while others don't, or that certain products maintain basic material value while others don't, I never questioned any of that. Nor did I deny the different effects on the market from buying new vs. used.

All I ever intended to do was to underline that the original question in this thread is about whether or not a single individual consumer should have moral/ethical qualms about buying a game secondhand, because of where the money is going. In short: "If I enjoy a product, should I feel bad for handing my money to someone else than the creator (and potentially a publisher) of that product?".

My first reply to this was to say I don't think anyone should feel bad about that (which seems to be the consensus in this thread), and I asked why games should be any different in this regard than buying anything else used. The concern of that consumer about where their money is going doesn't necessarily depend on what it is he or she is buying. If you're buying a book secondhand, the author doesn't see a dime. If you buy a secondhand table or chair, the carpenter doesn't either. And if you're buying a game secondhand, the developer and publisher are similarly not getting anything for it. And just because a car requires maintenance over time, it still doesn't change the fact that when you're buying a used one, the money spent on that purchase is not going to the manufacturer. So the question of "should I feel bad for handing my cash to someone else than the maker?" hasn't changed one bit, regardless of the nature of the product. And whatever you bought, any extra money spent on it in the future, whether it be car maintenance, DLC for games, or refurbishing the seat of your couch, still doesn't change anything about that initial question.

I am not debating: "Are there any differences at all between selling different types of products secondhand?". Ofcourse there are. Nor am I denying that buying secondhand instead of new has any consequences for the industries and the market, that would just be silly. Instead, I posited that there aren't any ethical differences from a consumer's point of view when it comes to buying media secondhand compared to buying physical products secondhand. Or when phrased as a question; When a person's morals lead them to wonder whether to buy something new or used, because on the one hand they want to support the maker, but on the other they want the best value for their money, then does the nature of that dilemma change depending on whether they're looking to buy a physical item or a digital one? I don't think it does. The nature of the product may vary, but the dilemma remains "do I buy used or not?".

The only reason I kept posting beyond my initial reply to the OP was because it was mentioned earlier (not by yourself, mind) that comparing media to physical goods is "so far past relevant it's hilarious". I felt this remark was rather simplistic and dismissive. While there are certainly discussions where that comparison would be irrelevant, I think that when you're looking specifically at the "ethicical quandary" (quote OP) of buying used goods, the comparison holds up just fine. Again, if one is concerned about their money not going to the creator of something, does that concern change depending on whether that something is a car, a book, a table, a game, or anything else? In my opinion, without denying the inherent differences between products themselves, or the effects on the market, the personal concern of that consumer about where their money is going remains the same; "am I ok with who ended up with my cash?".

And as I've said earlier, unless I've misunderstood everything you've said, it seems to me that on a personal level we actually fully agree. In your last post you say: "I'm just saying that the influence that money has will be different depending on who buys new and who buys used", and then you go on to say: "I don't think that one is better or worse, I just prefer to put my own money towards one over the other". That's pretty much exactly how I feel about it too. While I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with secondhand sales, when asked I'd urge people to purchase firsthand whenever they can, if they care about supporting an industry. Yet at the same time neither of us thinks that anyone else should feel bad for choosing not to do that, that's their choice (provided ofcourse they still aquire the product legally).

I think we've simply been debating slightly different subjects. And moreover, you've been talking from an industry perspective, while I've been talking from a consumer perspective. Because while all of the statements you've made, and all of the differences you've pointed out seem valid and reasonable to me, I don't think any of those are things the average consumer should necessarily concern themselves with. For some they might factor in, for others they don't. But from the consumer's standpoint, all that ultimately matters is "do I feel good about how and where I've spent my money?". For some this may include knowing that their money ended up "in the right hands", or knowing that their purchase supported an industry they care about. For some it may include knowing that the product they bought was made in an eco-friendly way, or that it didn't come out of a sweatshop. And for others it may only come down to "how much did something cost me?". The possible reasons for someone feeling happy about how they've spent their money are endless. I just think that the specifics of what exactly it is one spends money on, physical or media/digital, do not change the nature of the question "do I feel good about spending that money?". But now I am starting to repeat myself, so I'll leave it here.

However, even though this post is long enough as it is, I'd like to go on one slight tangent just for a little bit. Note that I keep referring to products. You mention that we should treat games more like services. And while you didn't say we should treat them exactly like services, this is still a notion I am hesitant to accept. When it comes to modern games, maintaining the infrastructure and servers for online play, that's a service. Providing updates and patches, that's a service. Providing easy downloads and installs from an online source, that's a service. But the game itself is not; it's a product which has services around it to keep it relevant and attractive to consumers. And granted, without those services an online multiplayer game may very well end up becoming a defunct product.

But a single-player game running locally on my system is not a service, no more than music playing from a CD on my stereo is (whereas streaming music from an online source would be. Or more specifically, providing the means to stream it is a service, the music itself is not). As such, I think that simply accepting any and all games on the same level as services is simplifying things far too much.

I am not sure I should've even mentioned this here though, because ultimately it's a whole different discussion. It's a discussion I'd be happy to have, but perhaps not one we should have in this thread. I only brought it up because whether one views something as a service or a product obviously influences one's opinion on reselling said something.

With AAA publishers using microtransactions, paid DLC, season passes, exclusive pre-order bonuses and special editions to help pay for their overpriced and over-budgeted game, I don't feel too bad for them. Plus, they have digital sales as well, so I think it all evens out. So don't feel guilty.

Indie games and the like (I mean independently developed and published) are another topic, but Gears 4 is something I don't feel too bad for.

Ethics do not come into buying used games. There is no moral quandry here. Its the person who bought it's right to sell it or do whatever they want with it and it's your right to choose whether or not to buy it from them if they want to sell it to you.

The only reason you would question this is because publishers these days make you think it is not your right to sell what you own, or for that matter that you don't even own your games. Well, they can say that, but they're wrong. Anything you buy you own. Data is a bit tricky, sure, as you don't have the right to mess with it, copy it, and then sell it in mass quantities or anything crazy like that. But the physical sole product that you paid for is certainly yours to do with as you want. There is absolutely nothing wrong with buying and selling things you paid for and therefore own.

Until there is a law or something that prohibits the sale of used media I wouldn't feel too bad about it. All game companies big and small will account for the used sales market so a percentage chuck of people buying used won't cause them to go under usually.

You also have to consider that video games are a very transit form of media, basically after a few months of being released you usually can't find games unless they either have a GOTY/Remastered edition or are ridiculously popular such as CoD, FIFA or GTA. In that case you either go used or you go without and if you are buying say Burnout Paradise for the PS3, EA will have more than made their money on that particular project since it's such an old game.

I used to manage a local "mom and pops" style video game store back in the 1990's and early 2000's.

We rented games for PS1, PS2, PS3, Saturn, 3DO, Jaguar, Gameboy (all versions that were out), PSP, Xbox, 360, etc.

During slow times we would find stuff to do or read and I used to check the EULA in the game instruction manuals and ALL of those specifically stated that renting those discs/what ever media, was against the EULA without express written consent from the publisher and fees.

We never reached out to any of them to pay them a fee or to get express written consent. I doubt Blockbuster or Hollywood Video did either.

If games were half the price I'd buy twice as many. As it stands I buy used, wait until the are discounted in store or buy full price with loyalty points.

With three kids to provide for I just can't justify paying full price for games any more.

On the flip side, it's better for the environment to purchase used products. It's better for a game to be reused by someone else rather than just being thrown out or collecting dust when a person has no intention of touching it again.

@millionthlayla: The third (?) side to that coin is digital games would be even better for the environment! And it's going pure digital anyway at some point, so might as well enjoy your used games while you can.

I think people have more issues with how certain companies resell used games (Gamestop, Steam-key resellers, etc.) than the actual act of buying used games. Similar to how used car salesmen have a skeevy reputation despite the practice being perfectly legal.

@colony024: My point in saying that a used car is different is because I see a used car to usually be almost "manufactured" in part by the owner. They put work and or money into that car to maintain it and prevent it's value from dropping. In most cases, anyway. That is different from games where the player who might sell one used puts nothing but the original price into the content they are playing. I think it's really weird to consider a physical good in the same realm as content you consume.

Did I say that games should be treated as services? If so I may have spoken somewhat unintentionally. I meant that the way that games are licensed, or that they are at all, is a part of why I don't think a used physical good is the same as content, which is really the value of the game. People tend to cling to the "well it's a physical good!" argument a lot, but they don't care about the disk. If anything, the disk is a bad thing because it's wasteful and bad for the environment. What they care about is the game.

While I think it is ultimately up to the market to manage these things, I also think that it's a little bizarre to think of game content the same way you think about a car.

While I agree with the first part, the second part is a bit trickier for me. I'm not sure what to think, because it is content we're talking about, not "goods." At least that is how I feel about it. I think there is a distinction to be made even if it doesn't impact a person's right to sell the physical part of that package. People have all sorts of rights. You have the right to say you think gay people are terrible for society, for example. Or to say that black people are violent or thuggish by nature. Does that mean it is ethical to do so?

I don't think this is the only question to ask. For me it's a question of what your money is contributing to more than anything. It's not about supporting the poor developers. I agree that any business is responsible for itself on it's own. No need for citizens to feel obligated to support them, no need for the Government to provide them with assistance in sustaining the business. There is still a question of where the money is going and what each individual believes is the best way to treat the value of a game.

I agree with others in this thread that a person who buys a game should have every right to sell it to others and that there's no ethical dilemma with buying used games BUT, I do think it is a bit more complicated than some are making it sound so in the interest of fairness I'll explain the legal counterargument:

When you "buy," a game you technically aren't actually buying the game. Legally speaking, you are actually only buying the right to play the game. This is known as license, and if you read the fine print on steam or psn or even on your hard copy disks-- you'll note that this license confers different rights on the licensor and licensee than would be established in a seller/buyer relationship. For one, the license is revokable by the licensor. That is why if you violate the terms of service for a game, they can shut off your access to it. (This is much easier for them to do for a digital game than it is for a hard copy game but technically the rights are the same regardless.) And for two, transferring a license is more complicated legally than selling an item that you own. Many licenses are inalienable-- which is to say-- not transferable -- without consent of the licensor. Think of renting an apartment. When you rent an apartment, you enter into a lease with the landlord which grants you a license to use the landlord's property for a limited purpose. If you violate the lease, your landlord can evict you from the property. And many leases do not allow you to sublet the property to someone else.

Not unethical at all, do you think the same way about cars, electronics, clothes and books? That you must buy it new to support the creator?

I don't think it's unethical. With a kid I don't have a ton of money like I used to. However, if there is a game I really like and know it's going to be a smaller title, I'll buy it new. Kind of like an indie band, where the franchise or the developer could use more support than your AAA guys. Either way I personally have no issue. It seems like developers today track more of how many people are playing there game. If a lot of people are playing, no matter where or how they purchased it, they'll try to grab more of that audience for the sequel if it makes financial sense to do so.