Actually, my claim is that buying a used game and downloading a pirated game have the exact same result: You play the game, the developer doesn't see a penny. This is irrefutable.
You can argue that people selling used games use that money to buy new games or whatever, but that's really besides the point (and has no statistical evidence to support), as I've demonstrated repeatedly throughout this debate.
And again, you failed to address my point: If you buy a used copy of Game A, Developer A sees no money from that sale. If you sell that copy, Developer A sees no money from that sale. If you use the money from that sale to buy a new copy of Game B, Developer A still sees no money.
You can keep ranting on about upstream cash flow but you really have no statistical evidence whatsoever to support that claim. And you keep referring to developers in the plural, as if they are all the same. No. Buying a new game from Developer B doesn't help Developer A. If you buy or sell a used game from Developer A, you are screwing Developer A. It doesn't matter if you buy a new game from Developer B. Different developers, different games. Is this really that difficult to understand?
I'm sure you'll jump on that example and point out how ridiculous it is but it effectively summarizes your entire argument. Just replace "pirates" with "buys used copy of".
Uh, that doesn't work very well for your argument then. If most people don't use profits from selling used games to buy new games, your whole argument goes down the toilet.
But which developers? If you buy Game A used, Developer A sees no money. If you you sell Game A and buy Game B new, Developer A still doesn't see any money. That's the glaring hole in your logic. I don't care about the industry as a whole. I care about the developers that make the games I like. If somebody buys a used copy of Psychonauts and then sells it so he can buy a new copy of Madden, Double Fine still gets screwed.
I'm not sure why you keep calling this a strawman.
Your logic is flawed. You assume that most people use the money they get from selling used games in order to purchase new games.
Buying a used game is no different from buying or downloading a pirated game. The developer sees no money in either case. In both cases, the developer sees money from the original sale of the new game but nothing from the subsequent transactions.
1) You assume that person A is going to buy a new game instead of a used one.
2) Developers don't make any money from the game that Person B bought from Person A. If Person B bought a new copy, they would.
What are you blathering about? if you want to play a pirated game online, you have to play on a cracked server which you or another pirate hosts. If you pirate a game and then complain about it on a forum, you are retarded and should be shot. Developers make patches anyway and pirate groups crack them. Pirates using patches has no effect on developers whatsoever.
This is true. However, two facts support my position and not yours:
1) Publishers and developers have publically stated that used sales are a problem.
2) Publishers are starting to use 0-day DLC (exclusive to new copies of games) more frequently.
Unfortunately, your attempt to point out that point failed horribly.
I probably pay for 1 in 5 games I download
All are irrelevant to developers and publishers. The only thing that matters to them is how much you pay them.
It doesn't help the industry when people buy used games because the industry doesn't see any money from it. By your logic, it helps the industry when some guy in China sells 5000 pirated copies of a game on a street corner. If you only buy used games, you are not helping the industry at all.
Because the fact that people sell games to get new games does not prove that if they did not have that option they would not still buy new games.
I think it's pretty obvious and your dismissal is just to suit your own ends. When one cares about developers and the industry one does not go around them and procure games in a way that does not give anything to the creators. Both pirates and used game buyers do this to equal measure.
I get that you think used sales fund future new sales or DLC sales that this makes it better, and in some small way I am sure it does, but the point that neither buyer gives a shit about supporting the people who made the game is a fact.
They're already violating the social contract by refusing to allow me to return a product that doesn't work as advertised. So I don't really see a problem with violating the contract myself to ensure that the product is actually what they claim it is.
As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, "Business isn't fair, it never has been and never will be."
I'm going to pay a price I can live with, regardless of how long I have to wait. If there's no pirated version available, I just wait however many weeks or months it takes for one to show up.
That thought assumes that the inability to sell games you purchased would hinder you from more buying more games, which I am not willing to stipulate.
I am sure it would effect new game sales to some degree, but enough to compare to the money lost in Gamestop through their massive used sales initiative? I doubt it.
These people do not care, just like pirates do not care. It is the same mentality.
1) Buying a used copy of game provides developers and publishers with exactly $0.
I didn't ignore it, I just don't understand it. Please explain to me how pirating a game and then buying it for $30 is different from not pirating it and buying it for $30. The end result is exactly the same.
You need to realize that arguing ethics isn't going to sway me at all. You need to argue logic.
Given publishers' public denouncement of used sales and their concerted efforts to quell them, I'd say that no, the upstream cash flows from the used market don't overcome cannibalization of new game sales.
I think they would much rather be making money on $50 games, rather than having consumers wait until they are on sale for $5.
If you can get away with it, the law really doesn't apply to you. Again, laws are nothing without enforcement.
In your case, the developers lost a potential sale because you were unwilling to take a risk and instead presumed to know the exact worth of a game you've never played. In my case, I tried a game I wasn't sure about, liked it and then rewarded the developers appropriately.
I don't think you want to permit yourself to accept the logical conclusion that a pirate paying $30 for game is exactly the same as a non-pirate paying $30 for a game.
Nope. Ethics are completely subjective and laws are completely arbitrary. The act of piracy itself has no inherent moral value to me. What matters to me are the end results. If piracy helps me make better purchases and in turn reward better developers, that's all I care about.
In the end, your argument is basically this: You don't like the idea that people can use a product before paying for it. That's it. It doesn't matter how much you pay or whether developers see a penny of it. All that matters is whether or not you play a game before buying it. Waiting for a game to go on sale for $5 is perfectly ethical, even if the enjoyment you derive from that game is worth $50. It's perfectly okay, though, because it's legal and if it's legal, it must be right.
He is correct in the fact that a used sale and a pirated game are the same thing. If your focus is on supporting the PC as a gaming platform, as is mine, then you avoid both.
But what about everybody in-between?
If you buy used games, there is no profit.
If you only buy games once they're really cheap, there's usually no profit.
They are inherently arbitrary.
Wouldn't it be more ethical to buy the game at the original asked price?
We decide on how much we value the product and then we pay that much to the creator.
I don't see any difference.
I decide by playing the game myself.
Your approach has a high margin of error.
There is no margin of error in my approach. I know exactly how I feel about any game before I buy it. It is the very definition of informed purchase.
If they had true large fixed overhead costs, you wouldn't see some games with a 1-3 million dollar budget and others with a 40 million dollar budget.
That makes it even worse. If you're buying a game in the bargain bin, you might as well pirate it because the developers likely won't see a dime anyway.
You haven't really provided a good argument as to why it's wrong though. Buying a game for $30 is buying a game for $30. It doesn't really matter if you pirate it beforehand. You're still buying it for $30. I could argue that only buying games on sale is wrong. After all, many games are worth well more than $10-30 dollars. However, you can't really form a cogent argument based on subjective notions of right and wrong.
That's just a little contradictory. Sure, you may not pirate games but if you only buy them once they've hit the bargain bin, you can't exactly criticize pirates for being cheap. In the end, you are both depriving developers of the full value of their product (assuming that the pirates either don't buy the games or wait until they are cheap).
Piracy is simply the best way to do this.
There is no more reliable or accurate way to judge a game than to play the full version yourself.
There is also nothing stopping you from buying games you've pirated. Hell, you can buy multiple copies if you want just to reward the developers for making games you really like. You can even set arbitrary rules for yourself, like how long you allow yourself to play the game before deciding whether to buy it.
If you honestly believe that piracy is inherently evil and can never, ever be justified under any circumstances, that's fine.
But please don't try to argue your point based on logic or reason because morality has little to do with either. To me, piracy is simply a means to an end. I buy only the games I know I like and only the developers that deserve my money get it. The better their games, the more money they get from me. It works out well for everyone involved.
How do you know if you don't like a game until you play it..? You can't rent PC games and most games these days don't have demos. Sure, you can read reviews or listen to word of mouth but that doesn't really tell you if you like it.
The risk is solely on the consumer, period, and consumers will fight back any way they can! Plus, you can't beat free or try before you buy huh? Remember in the good old days when companies stood behind their products? Now a days companies simply try to fuck you over, no wonder consumers are so defensive these days!