Board 8 > "We do NOT approve of or promote piracy or boycott."

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.facebook.com/GLFront/info

We promote NEW retail purchases of localized products and do NOT approve of or promote piracy or boycott.

How did they manage to group "buying used games" and "boycotting" in with piracy as one of the great evils destroying our video game culture?

--
Ace Detective in Sir Chris' Police
http://i49.tinypic.com/opi5h.gif

This is something large numbers of gamers actually believe.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Does that mean if I were to join their movement, I would have to buy every game that ever comes out?

I mean there is an invisible line between boycotting and not purchasing.

--
Ace Detective in Sir Chris' Police
http://i55.tinypic.com/34or19k.jpg

buy a new game: dev gets money
buy a used game: dev does not get money
pirate a game: dev does not get money
boycott a game: dev does not get money

and thus microtransactions are born. though in those, scenarios 2 and 3 can get the dev money.

--
"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

being against boycotting is dumb anyway. that's one of the things meant to help improve an industry, by purposefully not giving your money to it. see: DRM.

--
"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

From: Wanglicious | #004

buy a new game: dev gets money
buy a used game: dev does not get money
pirate a game: dev does not get money
boycott a game: dev does not get money

Not being a video game fan: dev does not get money.
Winning a free copy of a game in a promotion held by the publisher: dev does not get money

There are a lot of ways the dev does not get money, basically. That doesn't logically link them to piracy.

--
Ace Detective in Sir Chris' Police
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/3984/tumblrle5rxjm27j1qcrr8a.gif

well yeah, i'm just pointing out where the logic falls for that kind of thinking. the used game vs. pirated game argument at least is one with some merits to it (e.g., if you buy used you won't be buying new and they won't get your money, but if you pirate it, you might buy it too and then they would) and i can understand that one. boycott, not so much.

--
"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

I think people tend to get confused as to what a "boycott" actually is. Boycotting is to not purchase something you otherwise would have purchased due to some sort of moral or philosophical objection. In other words, if you hate sports games, it is literally impossible for you to "boycott" the next Madden game because you hate EA or you hate microtransactions or you hate whatever. You aren't boycotting, you simply aren't buying a product because it does not offer you fair value.

To boycott would be to refuse to purchase a game you love because of some stand against DRM or microtransactions or whatever. And judging by the sales figures for Diablo 3, boycotting is not a statistically relevant thing that is actually happening at this moment in time.

Edit: Remember the bus boycotts for civil rights in the south? The reason that was effective is because the participants were mainly poor black people who previously rode the bus very frequently. Therefore, their sudden refusal to use the buses represented a huge loss to the bus companies (or city governments, whatever.) If the only people who boycotted the buses would have been rich white people who owned nice cars and never rode the bus anyway, it would have had a net effect of about zero.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

D3 isn't the best example i'd use there. D3 actually offers real, tangible ways to make money. some DRM boycotts have been pretty notable - especially with EA's games - but you'll often see them tied to piracy directly (see: Spore).

--
"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

From: SmartMuffin | #007

I think people tend to get confused as to what a "boycott" actually is. Boycotting is to not purchase something you otherwise would have purchased due to some sort of moral or philosophical objection. In other words, if you hate sports games, it is literally impossible for you to "boycott" the next Madden game because you hate EA or you hate microtransactions or you hate whatever. You aren't boycotting, you simply aren't buying a product because it does not offer you fair value.

I didn't say they're identical. I said there is an invisible line. Because the line is literally invisible. The only way I know if you're boycotting Madden instead of just not wanting it is if you say "I want to buy it, but f*** EA." And even then, I have to take your word for it.

--
Ace Detective in Sir Chris' Police
http://i55.tinypic.com/30sga2r.gif

From: Rad Link 5 | #009

From: SmartMuffin | #007

I think people tend to get confused as to what a "boycott" actually is. Boycotting is to not purchase something you otherwise would have purchased due to some sort of moral or philosophical objection. In other words, if you hate sports games, it is literally impossible for you to "boycott" the next Madden game because you hate EA or you hate microtransactions or you hate whatever. You aren't boycotting, you simply aren't buying a product because it does not offer you fair value.

I didn't say they're identical. I said there is an invisible line. Because the line is literally invisible. The only way I know if you're boycotting Madden instead of just not wanting it is if you say "I want to buy it, but f*** EA." And even then, I have to take your word for it.

Well, there are ways it could become visible. If say, the next version of Madden did not alter the gameplay in any significant way (ha ha, I know right?) but included some new, massively-hated DRM, we could easily tell from the sales figures whether people ended up boycotting it or not.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Even then, how can we be sure it was a boycott and just not fans not wanting a game they are getting tired of?

I mean my thing I was talking about was the line being invisible on an individual basis, but that seems like a flawed example.

--
Ace Detective in Sir Chris' Police
http://i56.tinypic.com/j952zk.gif

From: Rad Link 5 | #012

Even then, how can we be sure it was a boycott and just not fans not wanting a game they are getting tired of?

I mean my thing I was talking about was the line being invisible on an individual basis, but that seems like a flawed example.

Well, we can't really PROVE it. We can just infer it. If people were going to stop buying Madden in massive numbers because they're "getting tired of it" that would have happened already. I think it's safe to say that people aren't getting tired of it at this point.

I mean, you're basically saying "Well how can we be sure the black woman who rode the bus to work every day and then suddenly stopped because of a widely promoted boycott didn't just get tired of riding the bus?"

Some of it requires a bit of a common sense approach and a judgment call, you know?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

That one we can tell because she was quantifiably making her life more difficult while saying she was doing so in boycott. You can pretty much infer she would not be making her life more difficult for any other purpose but to protest the injustice without her even saying so.

If I had gone on a forum and said "I'm not buying Street Fighter X Tekken," I doubt people would have assumed I was boycotting. It's not like I'm suffering from having not bought the game, so most people would assume I just didn't want it.

--
Ace Detective in Sir Chris' Police
http://i55.tinypic.com/21ozujs.gif

That one we can tell because she was quantifiably making her life more difficult while saying she was doing so in boycott. You can pretty much infer she would not be making her life more difficult for any other purpose but to protest the injustice without her even saying so.

Maybe. Maybe she just happened to save up enough money that week and bought a car or something.

If I had gone on a forum and said "I'm not buying Street Fighter X Tekken," I doubt people would have assumed I was boycotting. It's not like I'm suffering from having not bought the game, so most people would assume I just didn't want it.

What if you were well known on that particular forum to be a fighting game enthusiast, had expressed excitement about the game in its early stages, and then only revealed your lack of desire to purchase after an announcement of DRM or microtransactions or whatever. People could probably figure it out.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

I'm pretty sure, even in the scenario you described above, people would not assume I was boycotting unless I actually said "I'm boycotting."

--
Ace Detective in Sir Chris' Police
http://img.imgcake.com/radflanjpgeq.jpg

It definitely is strange that piracy, used, and boycott are all grouped together

buy new: dev gets money, game gets exposure (+2)
pirate game: dev gets no money, game gets exposure, potential for actual purchase (+1.5)
boycott game: dev gets no money, no exposure, potential for actual purchase (+1)
buy used: dev gets no money, exposure, NO potential for actual purchase (+0.5)

+1 is the default for most people, since the vast majority of people generally don't want to buy a particular game. It is better to pirate a game than to boycott it, and it is worse to buy used than to boycott it (hard to wrap your head around, I know). But I guess it's fine to group piracy, buying used, and boycotting all together in the sense that they are all some degree worse than buying new.

--
foolmo
at work

From: Wanglicious | #004

and thus microtransactions are born. though in those, scenarios 2 and 3 can get the dev money.

And F2P is born, where it's very hard to stay in scenario 4

--
foolmo
at work

Pointless topic, that page does not equate buying used games with piracy, it merely points out two things (three, actually) it does not support that may have similar impacts. You are literally complaining about nothing ITT.

--
The batman villians all seem to be one big joke that batman refuses to laugh at - SantaRPG

From: CoolCly | #019

Pointless topic, that page does not equate buying used games with piracy, it merely points out two things (three, actually) it does not support that may have similar impacts. You are literally complaining about nothing ITT.

Then you're literally complaining about me literally complaining about nothing.

Talk about wasting your time.

--
Ace Detective in Sir Chris' Police
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1292/5l10w.jpg

It should also be noted that you introduced the word "equate" into this. Not me.

I said "grouped."

--
Ace Detective in Sir Chris' Police
You're a good user too. - JeffZero

Literally complaining about me literally complaining about you literally complaining about nothing.

--
The batman villians all seem to be one big joke that batman refuses to laugh at - SantaRPG

I have a ridiculous amount of time to waste right now. I can afford to complain about trivial things!

--
Ace Detective in Sir Chris' Police
I assure you, my dear, all Ace Detectives are perfect gentlemen!

I don't think you guys are using 'literally' correctly

--
_foolmo_
mobile computer

let us literally argue literally

--
"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

Can we seriously stop with the "developers get no money from used games" nonsense. It's one of those things that is technically true but totally missing the point. Although developers do not gain from the actual transfer of ownership from one party to another, "resale value" is a fundamental property of nearly all physical property that is sold.

As such, it is something that consumers consider when making a purchase, and as such, it is something that the developers DO in fact benefit from. The mere existence of such a large market for used games proves that many purchasers of games do so fully intending to resell at a later date. Therefore, if resale were not an option, game sales might potentially decline, or prices would have to be adjusted.

For example: If someone buys a $60 game with the intention of selling it for $20 a couple months later, that person is really only spending $40 worth of funds (ignoring the time value of money for such a small period and given the average gamer doesn't necessarily have a well constructed stock portfolio). Theoretically, if that developer were to offer the same game, only WITHOUT the ability to transfer ownership, that customer would only be willing to pay $40 for the game.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: SmartMuffin | #026

Can we seriously stop with the "developers get no money from used games" nonsense. It's one of those things that is technically true but totally missing the point. Although developers do not gain from the actual transfer of ownership from one party to another, "resale value" is a fundamental property of nearly all physical property that is sold.

As such, it is something that consumers consider when making a purchase, and as such, it is something that the developers DO in fact benefit from. The mere existence of such a large market for used games proves that many purchasers of games do so fully intending to resell at a later date. Therefore, if resale were not an option, game sales might potentially decline, or prices would have to be adjusted.

For example: If someone buys a $60 game with the intention of selling it for $20 a couple months later, that person is really only spending $40 worth of funds (ignoring the time value of money for such a small period and given the average gamer doesn't necessarily have a well constructed stock portfolio). Theoretically, if that developer were to offer the same game, only WITHOUT the ability to transfer ownership, that customer would only be willing to pay $40 for the game.

What if games couldn't be re-sold but cost $40? 2 people still buy the game, but the Dev gets $80 instead of just $60

--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/bokbokbokpngur.png
Mr Caffeine? He was awesome. - Ayuyu

KingButz posted...

From: SmartMuffin | #026

Can we seriously stop with the "developers get no money from used games" nonsense. It's one of those things that is technically true but totally missing the point. Although developers do not gain from the actual transfer of ownership from one party to another, "resale value" is a fundamental property of nearly all physical property that is sold.

As such, it is something that consumers consider when making a purchase, and as such, it is something that the developers DO in fact benefit from. The mere existence of such a large market for used games proves that many purchasers of games do so fully intending to resell at a later date. Therefore, if resale were not an option, game sales might potentially decline, or prices would have to be adjusted.

For example: If someone buys a $60 game with the intention of selling it for $20 a couple months later, that person is really only spending $40 worth of funds (ignoring the time value of money for such a small period and given the average gamer doesn't necessarily have a well constructed stock portfolio). Theoretically, if that developer were to offer the same game, only WITHOUT the ability to transfer ownership, that customer would only be willing to pay $40 for the game.

What if games couldn't be re-sold but cost $40? 2 people still buy the game, but the Dev gets $80 instead of just $60

Devs are certainly TRYING to do this WITHOUT lowering the price.

--
~Edwardsdv~ Captain America
http://www.sethskim.com/Captain%20America%20is%20Back2.jpg

Devs are certainly TRYING to do this WITHOUT lowering the price.

Indeed. It's succeeding to a certain extent (Steam), I would argue for largely psychological reasons. Not ALL used game sales are premeditated as I described. Some people buy games with the intent of keeping them forever, and then end up changing their mind and selling. Some people might not actively consider the difference between physical and digital copies (in terms of transferability) when making their initial purchase.

What if games couldn't be re-sold but cost $40? 2 people still buy the game, but the Dev gets $80 instead of just $60

Also technically true but beside the point. Also, the person who buys the used game for $20 wouldn't necessarily be willing to buy it new for $40.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: SmartMuffin | #026

"resale value" is a fundamental property of nearly all physical property that is sold.

Which is why it is completely irrelevant in a discussion about digital software licenses

--
foolmo
at work

it's a fair argument, however digital downloads have been so successful - even without being wildly cheaper - that the theory has a hole in it. resale value does exist, that's true, and some people can game the system to make profit even. yet a lot of the *resale* market ALSO works with new games and is not to be confused with the used one. also judging by the amount that money that trade ins will usually go for, it's actually not the money one can get on the flip value which is examined necessarily, but something that gets offered in conjunction to other offers at random. people want to get rid of their games somehow to clear up space and not have a large collection most likely, but they don't want to throw it out. that though also doesn't care about the resale value so much as that's just an ends to a means, not the reason they bought it at the amount they bought it at.

so yeah, there's a number of holes in it.

--
"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.

Well, you also have to consider that there are ALSO net positives to Steam. Digital download is more convenient than having to go to a store and buy a game, or buy one online and have it shipped to you. It may be that the number of people who see digital downloads as a net benefit and the number who see it as a net negative are basically the same and basically cancel each other out, meaning the price is roughly the same.

Theoretically, if Steam allowed you to easily transfer individual game licenses between users in exchange for money, Steam games might end up actually costing MORE than physical copy counterparts.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

SmartMuffin posted...

Can we seriously stop with the "developers get no money from used games" nonsense. It's one of those things that is technically true but totally missing the point. Although developers do not gain from the actual transfer of ownership from one party to another, "resale value" is a fundamental property of nearly all physical property that is sold.

As such, it is something that consumers consider when making a purchase, and as such, it is something that the developers DO in fact benefit from. The mere existence of such a large market for used games proves that many purchasers of games do so fully intending to resell at a later date. Therefore, if resale were not an option, game sales might potentially decline, or prices would have to be adjusted.

For example: If someone buys a $60 game with the intention of selling it for $20 a couple months later, that person is really only spending $40 worth of funds (ignoring the time value of money for such a small period and given the average gamer doesn't necessarily have a well constructed stock portfolio). Theoretically, if that developer were to offer the same game, only WITHOUT the ability to transfer ownership, that customer would only be willing to pay $40 for the game.

Wow, it's rare that there's a Muffin post that I 100% agree with, but these things happen.

I hate the argument that used games are "worse" than piracy. Resale value is totally a component of the value of anything you buy and games are included. The sales of used games don't give developers money, but the existence of such a market does benefit them, even if they are way too short-sighted to realize it.

I would say the same thing is often true about piracy as well, although pirating brand new games instead of buying them is overall a harmful practice. However, so is draconian DRM measures to counteract it.