So, apparently video game publishers are pissing and moaning about GameStop and other entities who have created a massive secondary market for used games. Makes sense, video games hold our attention for only so long, and eventually our attention gets shifted elsewhere. They complain that GameStop makes an obscene amount of money doing this (true) and that the developers should be entitled to a cut of this money. This is where the publishers and I part company. Video games are art, this is indisputable. Being an artist myself (albeit a Sandwich Artist), I am all for someone being paid for their creation... the first time it sells. What other art form demands that the artist be paid each time his or her creation changes hands? Does Frank Sinatra get a cut every time someone buys a used copy of Songs for Young Lovers? No, and if he did it would be really creepy because he's dead as hell, but then again he was mobbed up, so who's to say? Ol' Blue Eyes probably isn't the best example. Does eBay send George Lucas a few bucks whenever a used copy of Empire is sold? Nope. I've sold plenty of books online, but never once did I send a dime Hunter S. Thompson's way. Does someone scratch off a check to the estate of Vincent Van Gogh whenever one of his paintings that isn't owned by him is sold? Negative. You see, in all of these instances the artist was ALREADY paid when the item originally sold. They are not entitled to shakedown the customer again and again. Yet that is exactly what companies like EA have done, requiring people who buy previously used games to purchase additional online "passes" in order to enjoy all aspects of the game, such as online play. This is utter nonsense. Ford doesn't get money when you sell your car to some dude on Craigslist. The person who originally owned your house (lol, like any of YOU are home owners) doesn't get paid when you decide to sell. There is literally nothing else on Earth that legally requires you payoff the creator when you sell it. You see, when you buy something you become the OWNER OF IT. You may not own the intellectual property, but you most certainly own the psychical item in hand. I like buying video games, both new and used. Buying used games is a great way to go back and play games that might not have been on your radar when they originally came out. The steps that publishers are taking is nothing more than a thinly veiled cash grab. They see how much money places like GameStop are making, and they want a piece of the action. Never mind the fact that they aren't entitled to any of this money. Luckily, Best Buy is jumping into the used game market, providing another choice for frugal gamers while also putting the pressure back on the publishers. The used game market isn't going anywhere, no matter how many times greedy corporate entities try to extort more money out of us.
We're two jocks who are too cool for sports, so we play games instead. Whatever.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Why the Argument Against Used Games is Stupid
So, apparently video game publishers are pissing and moaning about GameStop and other entities who have created a massive secondary market for used games. Makes sense, video games hold our attention for only so long, and eventually our attention gets shifted elsewhere. They complain that GameStop makes an obscene amount of money doing this (true) and that the developers should be entitled to a cut of this money. This is where the publishers and I part company. Video games are art, this is indisputable. Being an artist myself (albeit a Sandwich Artist), I am all for someone being paid for their creation... the first time it sells. What other art form demands that the artist be paid each time his or her creation changes hands? Does Frank Sinatra get a cut every time someone buys a used copy of Songs for Young Lovers? No, and if he did it would be really creepy because he's dead as hell, but then again he was mobbed up, so who's to say? Ol' Blue Eyes probably isn't the best example. Does eBay send George Lucas a few bucks whenever a used copy of Empire is sold? Nope. I've sold plenty of books online, but never once did I send a dime Hunter S. Thompson's way. Does someone scratch off a check to the estate of Vincent Van Gogh whenever one of his paintings that isn't owned by him is sold? Negative. You see, in all of these instances the artist was ALREADY paid when the item originally sold. They are not entitled to shakedown the customer again and again. Yet that is exactly what companies like EA have done, requiring people who buy previously used games to purchase additional online "passes" in order to enjoy all aspects of the game, such as online play. This is utter nonsense. Ford doesn't get money when you sell your car to some dude on Craigslist. The person who originally owned your house (lol, like any of YOU are home owners) doesn't get paid when you decide to sell. There is literally nothing else on Earth that legally requires you payoff the creator when you sell it. You see, when you buy something you become the OWNER OF IT. You may not own the intellectual property, but you most certainly own the psychical item in hand. I like buying video games, both new and used. Buying used games is a great way to go back and play games that might not have been on your radar when they originally came out. The steps that publishers are taking is nothing more than a thinly veiled cash grab. They see how much money places like GameStop are making, and they want a piece of the action. Never mind the fact that they aren't entitled to any of this money. Luckily, Best Buy is jumping into the used game market, providing another choice for frugal gamers while also putting the pressure back on the publishers. The used game market isn't going anywhere, no matter how many times greedy corporate entities try to extort more money out of us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment