What's worse for game publishers?

A

With second hand game sales at least there's a chance someone might decide to buy a new game. But with piracy, buying a game at all, used or new, is out of the question.

A pirate probably never intends to ever pay for a video game. A used buyer is willing to pay for the game as long as they can guarantee that the creators see no money from the sale. Both result in $0 but the used mindstate seems odder to me.

Then again, I like supporting artists who make things that I like. I've never understood the idea of being willing to pay money but have no money go to anyone responsible for the product rather than just pirating and still having the same access to the product without having to spend any money period.

This is my personal opinion.

But I'd say, Piracy? Because through second hand sales, publishers can put stuff like online codes, etc... Not sure though which one hurts the bottom line more, not in the know for that info.

I would say piracy since second-hand game sales they might be an online code they have to buy, or maybe they want some DLC or something of that nature.

@JJOR64 said:

Piracy. People can buy used games, but still can purchase DLC.

So can people who pirate console games. Actually, in the case for consoles, to the publisher, there is no difference from a kid who flashed his DVD drive to play backups and a person who bought a second-hand game.

Both are bad for a publisher, people who buy games after pirating them are in the minority and people who buy second-hand will probably never buy a new copy of that game. Technically, a second-hand purchase could in some cases be equated to a lost sale, the person was clearly willing to throw down money for the game, just not the price that the game retailed for. Second-hand purchases are probably worse, because at least with piracy there's a chance for a new sale.

But really, a demo, post release, using retail code would be nice for people who want to see how a game runs.

@sickVisionz: Wait...you really think people buy used games because to be vindictive?

@DeF said:

[...] little potential for "pirate" to turn into legit customer soon.

Please present the proper findings you researched for this claim. Recently dated sources and statistics are preferable.

@Napalm: B-b-but a games industry person said it on twitter once?!?!

There are two games at 60 dollars each: Game A and Game B. I will die if I don't play both of them, but only have 60 dollars. Blame the terrorists.

Scenario 1: I buy Game A and pirate Game B. Company A get's 60 dollars, Company B gets nothing.

Scenario 2: I buy both games used for 30 dollars each. All of my money goes to assholes.

Do I make myself clear?

@Keen314 said:

@allworkandlowpay said:

The film industry already gets money from second hand movie sales, this isn't something unprecedented.

Sorry, I don't understand this. The film industry gets nothing when I sell one of the DVDs/blu-rays I own.

Right, because you aren't a business. Companies like FYE, MovieStop, Blockbuster, Best Buy etc, anybody who, as a retailer, sell used/previously viewed titles basically have to provide a cut of the used sales back to the publisher. When I was an Asst. Manager at an Hollywood Video (when that was a thing) the deal worked a little differently. Instead the movie studios required a cut of the rentals and a set amount of weeks before they were allowed to be put out for sale as used. Other companies and studios run it differently.

Point is, any publisher can easily force their hand and force Gamestop to give a cut, they are just too chicken shit.

I never thought about second hand sales leading into people buying DLC.

Of course though, publishers are the biggest threat to themselves. Always shooting themselves in the foot. *cough* EA

@allworkandlowpay said:

Companies like FYE, MovieStop, Blockbuster, Best Buy etc, anybody who, as a retailer, sell used/previously viewed titles basically have to provide a cut of the used sales back to the publisher.

Do you have a citation for non-rental places doing this? I've never heard of this before.

When I was an Asst. Manager at an Hollywood Video (when that was a thing) the deal worked a little differently. Instead the movie studios required a cut of the rentals and a set amount of weeks before they were allowed to be put out for sale as used. Other companies and studios run it differently.

Video rental places are different due to they ridiculous control movie studios have over the distribution channels. Rental places need to make deals with movie studios for rentals and some of their business practices (selling the rentals as used, as you mention) in order to get movies in a timely and affordable manner. But there's no legal obligation for them to do this.

I don't think either hurt the publishers as much as they like to sometimes pretend they do, but I wouldn't feel comfortable coming down on either side of the argument. Without hard figures, which for some of these things there never can be any, this all seems very speculative. I wouldn't feel like I was making much more than a guess.

Piracy, obviously. A second-hand game doesn't magically appear on GameStop's doorstep. It is the result of someone surrendering ownership of the game in exchange for compensation. For many, trading in games they no longer play is a vital way to get money towards new games. The secondhand market also allows people to unload games they actively dislike, without which people would naturally become far, far more conservative in their $60 purchasing decisions. Piracy involves nothing but torrenting and (in the case of consoles) a modding service, which can be readily Googled. It is simply a way to get something for nothing, and contributes nothing to the overall ecosystem of gaming.

I don't think either hurt the publishers as much as they like to sometimes pretend they do, but I wouldn't feel comfortable coming down on either side of the argument. Without hard figures, which for some of these things there never can be any, this all seems very speculative. I wouldn't feel like I was making much more than a guess.

Here we go again...

Meh, I repeat again that Piracy and Used Sales are both a reflection of the inefficiency of the current market. The current tech systems and disk based system are too inflexible, too expensive, and don't last long enough. Pondering which one is worse is like pondering if stomach flu or diarrhea is worse when the real issue is that the person is sick.

Piracy usually involves seeding, which involves making it easier for other downloaders to download infinite copies of the game. Used game sales simply keep a copy of the game off the market, and it's also one that's already been removed from the market once and been placed back into the market.

So piracy, definitely.

This is actually a really good question

The game industry doesn't revolve around publishers alone so I don't really care what is worse for them. At least if I buy a game used I am still contributing to the game industry. Giving money to retailers allows them to buy more games from the publishers. By pirating I contribute nothing upfront with the chance that I will buy it if I like it. Yeah right.

If the publishers really want to stick it to Gamestop and cut into used game sales they should price their games competitively with them. Even if it comes out a loss it's better than getting nothing right?

Probably both equally bad from a publisher standpoint. Piracy is a potential sale lost, the pirate may or may not have ever bought it if piracy was impossible.

However, 2nd hand game sales is a guaranteed sale that the Publisher/Developer gets no cut of. Albeit it may have been a sale that happened after a price drop, it's still $0 vs X dollars, which in the publisher's eyes may as well be infinite dollars.

@xaLieNxGrEyx said:

This is actually a really good question

It is. And I'm really happy how the debate has been unfolding so far. I came to this topic expecting a much... baser discussion.

On topic, I guess piracy is worse, because it can become a commodity: it is very serviceable. You don't have to deal with DRM, activation, CD keys, online passes, DLC, etc. You just download and play. And that's very hard to compete against. I know people who only pirate games: they never, ever buy a single original copy, ever. I have never known anyone who only bought used copies.

i would say piracy as developers and publishers don't get a share of money.

used games they got money from the first person that bought the game. the used game will get the person to buy the DLC if any comes out. the pirate will just pirate that also.

they are both pretty crappy for them.

• Piracy = an unlimited supply of copies flooding and undermining the market, from which they never (directly) make money.
• Second-hand sales = a limited supply of copies, all of which they sold at one point and had a chance to make money on.

No brainer, imo.  People that say the two practices are equally bad usually aren't looking beyond a single sale instance.
 
Of course, if you have a situation where there is very little piracy actually happening but lots of used sales compared to new sales then you could make a case for the used sales being worse overall.

@Napalm said:

@DeF said:

[...] little potential for "pirate" to turn into legit customer soon.

Please present the proper findings you researched for this claim. Recently dated sources and statistics are preferable.

I don't think I'm allowed to post pictures of my ass out of which I pulled the above statement ;)

No but(t) seriously, I went with worst-case-scenario, in which a pirate uses illegal means to procure games almost exclusively. In that scenario, my fictional pirate is happy with getting games for free and hates DRM anyway so they keep pirating, making no one any money. I specifically avoided saying "turning into legit customer EVER" and chose "soon" instead because from my experience, game piracy is more of an issue with the teenage/early twenties crowd who has limited funds and prefers to spend them on booze and whatnot. Getting a job, having more money to spend on stuff, appreciating more convenience, that person might turn into a "aw hell, I'll just buy it and be done with it"-customer eventually.

Ultimately, I see the potential for pirates to redeem themselves as customers to arrive far later in comparison to people who buy used games.

That's the best I can do without posting said picture of my bare backside :P

@JoeyRavn said:

@xaLieNxGrEyx said:

This is actually a really good question

It is. And I'm really happy how the debate has been unfolding so far. I came to this topic expecting a much... baser discussion.

On topic, I guess piracy is worse, because it can become a commodity: it is very serviceable. You don't have to deal with DRM, activation, CD keys, online passes, DLC, etc. You just download and play. And that's very hard to compete against. I know people who only pirate games: they never, ever buy a single original copy, ever. I have never known anyone who only bought used copies.

Right? I was expecting a much more hostile debate going on but things are seeming quite good.

I don't know if anyone else remembers this and i can't really find a source but i remembering reading something that Team Meat and Notch have publicly said that piracy is actually a good thing at times, they constantly get emails about people admitting that they pirated their games but then decided to buy them

So if two developers are coming out and saying piracy isn't the evil monster it seems to be and that people actually do buy afterwards. Then this topic isn't so one sided any more is it?

(though, both of these guys sell their games digitally, so second hand sales can't really affect them. But this probably also means they're able to say more than other developers which have publishers fists down their throats.)

Wouldn't it be awesome if Patrick wrote a story about this from some developers? I want to hear their story rather than our guesses.