You haven't refuted a damn thing. This is your whole argument: Used sales help people buy new games.
That's it. There's nothing else to it. You have no statistical evidence to support that claim. Nada.
Yup. And as I said, I'm qualifying the differences between piracy and used games, not quantifying them. Your cry for statistics is a red herring.
Your position relies on the idea that most of the people who sell games use that profit to buy new games.
No it doesn't. Once again, you are setting up a strawman for a beating.
Again (my point for the millionth time) is that some money from the used market helps fund the new market. That's it.
If most people use that profit to buy used games, your position is lost because the market ultimately loses money.
This is only the case if used games sales are directly cannibilizing new sales. Like I said, there are no numbers available for this and I don't think such a study exists.
But that's entirely seperate argument from qualifying the difference between piracy and used games sales. Something which you still don't seem to understand.
How convenient and completely missing the point. I don't give a damn about the "markets."
Apparently you don't give a damn about many things (including the law, ethics, cash flows, markets, staying on topic, difference between qualification and quantification... have I missed anything?)
Oh, the irony. Never once in this argument have I stated that used game markets and piracy are the same. My position has consistently been that buying a used game is the same as a downloading a pirated one because the developer of said game sees no money from either.
Now this is just silly. Looking at things in extreme isolation like that ignores the fact that situations vary. What really matters is the collective difference, which is what I've been talking about the whole time.
Your claim: Used sales help finance the market as a whole.
My claim: Publishers and developers don't see a penny from used sales of their games, just like they don't see a penny from pirated copies.
Which is not true. Financing can be indirect (and in the majority of sales in either market this is going to be the case). Unless one buys everything directly
from the developer, cash is flowing through intermediaries. The source of that cash is what you seem to be confused about.
My claim requires only logic. As such, it cannot be refuted. You keep presenting your claim as if it somehow refutes mine but it doesn't. It's a different argument, one that you have failed to support with the necessary facts.
Dude, your argument is god-awful. I don't even think you understand what you are even trying to argue for anymore.
1) You already admitted that some people buy new games by trading in used games. So this point is already accepted. Which was basically my entire point to begin with. So you've just been backpeddling like crazy since and getting nowhere.
2) I agree with this, but this is besides the point. I'm not making an argument over whether the used market is beneficial or detrimental, just that used game sales are not the same as piracy.
3) This assumption is not part of my argument. It's both a strawman and red herring all rolled into one!
4) I'm not sure what this has to do with anything other than calling yourself cheap. Which is all I was really looking for to begin with.
At the end of the day, I think the real gap here is you just don't understand the concept of financing a transaction via funds from a prior transaction. You're not thinking cash flows, you're thinking isolated transactions.
I think this argument is dead. I've proved my point, you already (previously) accepted it, and the rest of this is just a bunch of handwaving and general noise.
So good day to you, sir. Good day.This comment was edited on Dec 17, 2009, 02:41.