next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

yes, that's one set of ethics. but even by that definition, selling cigarettes guns etc. is unethical, since you said 'buy and sell things that don't hurt anyone else' -- those things definitely do hurt other people. again, i'm not saying it's unethical to sell them, just pointing out an incompatibility with two things you've said.

[JoeHonkie]

yes, that's one set of ethics. but even by that definition, selling cigarettes guns etc. is unethical, since you said 'buy and sell things that don't hurt anyone else' -- those things definitely do hurt other people. again, i'm not saying it's unethical to sell them, just pointing out an incompatibility with two things you've said.

You know, this is really probably not what people made this thread for.  If you want to have a huge ethics discussion, we should probably make another thread.  I just don't think anyone wants to see my response, not that it isn't an interesting discussion.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

actually i disagree -- i think whenever you ask if something is ethical (as the topic did), it's important to deal with these issues. ethics isn't simple

[JoeHonkie]

actually i disagree -- i think whenever you ask if something is ethical (as the topic did), it's important to deal with these issues. ethics isn't simple

Ok, then to clarify my point, obviously nothing can ever be totally harmless, and we also want people to have the right to decide to do things for themselves that we may deem harmful (drinking, smoking) that they enjoy.  But in general I don't see anything coming up like that with video games, unless you mean selling Hentai games to minors or something.  So I can't see a "used games transaction" other than violating age ratings or something that would really be unethical.

I mean, I don't even find gamestop unethical, they charge and buy for what they can get.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

yes, but again, there are things people consider unethical that are neither harmful nor involuntary. as an example, prostitution, masturbation, and so on. so i don't think 'it doesn't harm anybody, and it's voluntary, therefore it's ethical' is a workable formula, because you'd first have to show that morality means anything that's both voluntary and harmless (the libertarian morality). even though that's a morality i happen to share, i think it's important to justify it somehow. here's one attempt: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux8.html

[JoeHonkie]

yes, but again, there are things people consider unethical that are neither harmful nor involuntary. as an example, prostitution, masturbation, and so on. so i don't think 'it doesn't harm anybody, and it's voluntary, therefore it's ethical' is a workable formula, because you'd first have to show that morality means anything that's both voluntary and harmless (the libertarian morality). even though that's a morality i happen to share, i think it's important to justify it somehow. here's one attempt: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux8.html

Oh fair enough, but I think if I had to justify my personal morality to everyone I speak with, I'd be a very busy person.  But yeah, I'm more on the Libertarian side for personal freedoms.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

one consideration i'm curious about here though is positive and negative morality -- i.e. it's possible for something to not be immoral, but for it to not be especially moral either. for instance, if being harmful and using force is immoral, you'd expect that the opposite of that (preventing the use of force and being helpful) would be moral.

but, the libertarian morality doesn't seem to make much of a distinction between being actively helpful and simply not being harmful: i.e. it'd call someone lazy and someone productive equally moral, because neither is doing anyone any harm. do you agree that someone who is productive is equally moral with someone who is lazy, or do you think that the productive guy is slightly more moral?

[JoeHonkie]

but, the libertarian morality doesn't seem to make much of a distinction between being actively helpful and simply not being harmful: i.e. it'd call someone lazy and someone productive equally moral, because neither is doing anyone any harm. do you agree that someone who is productive is equally moral with someone who is lazy, or do you think that the productive guy is slightly more moral?

I'd say economic libertarianism would consider the lazy person immoral because they need to produce in order to make money, in order to buy things.  And in pure economic libertarianism the problem solves itself (person starves, etc.)

I don't agree with that at all.  I'm only for people doing whatever they want to their own person in their own homes.  I do place value on helping people who aren't doing so well, because it's not always a result of laziness.  I've been on the wrong side of successful before.

But everyone needs leisure time, and playing a video game is probably no worse than watching a sitcom!

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

well, you don't really have to work in order to make money -- there's also inheritance, stock trading, affiliate marketing, and all kinds of stuff. so let's assume the lazy guy has as much income as the productive guy. and let's say the productive guy doesn't *have* to be productive in order to stay financially solvent, he too is just being productive in order to create stuff that people will find valuable.

but anyway, given that you place value on helping people that aren't doing so well, let's say a game company isn't getting very many sales, and they may go bankrupt, and they make games that you especially enjoy. wouldn't it then be more moral to buy its game new rather than used, or to not sell your used game to a store in order to hopefully get someone to buy it new rather than used?

[Super Joe]

i went into a game shop (there was a guy wearing a neo jacket and i laughed at him and also a acne scarred nerd polishing a 6 foot tall sonic statue that i also laughed at) but i didnt buy anything. are there any games worth buying atm.

[team_q]

With Digital distribution increasing in popularity, don't be surprised to see publishers deal less and less with retail markets. Apparently the average consumer doesn't really give a shit where their games come from as long as their cheaper, so if publishers can cut the competition with themselves(through used games)out of the market, then they can get paid. Publishers are smart, they know if they aren't selling at X dollars, a weekend deal will get sales up, even announcing deals will lead to sales. With most digital distribution schemes being in effect, DRM as well, and having what you want guaranteed, with less hassle, people with disposable income will be more likely to buy your games then pirate. The only thing that was stopping digital distribution in the past was infastructutre, but with Steam, XBLA/XBLIG, Playstation thing and App store, content delivery is easy without effort.

I went on a bit of a tangent, I don't mind trading used games when its person to person, but when you get large companies that rely on squeezing as much money out of the system as possible, I can't really get behind it. I used to work for a Gamestop, I understand how it operates from behind the counter, your performance is judged not on ability of customer service, but on ability to convince people that a used game worth it and you should totally buy an edge card too.

 The hardest part when thinking about it for me, what is the difference in experience between a used game and a new game? if I don't really care about the box, and I only read manuals that come with Blizzard games, why would I give a shit between the two? This 'change of experence' is one of the main things that publishers are trying to add to make it more valuable to buy the retail game, the choice is easy when you walk into a store and you see COD4 for $55 'used' or $60 new, but it gets harder when that $60 new copy comes with free bonus map packs, this works. The problem that this butts against is paying for content, if I give you a download code for the end of a game for free with the retail, but its usually a $10 value, is that ok? Some consumers would be irritated, they think that videogames are like they were 10-15 years ago, where you keep packing stuff in until you are 'forced' to release it. Paying for content that was finished when the game was published, or ON THE DISK(We <3 Katamari) is still considered a bad play.


TL;DR  Trading in games only really sucks if you are a developer or publisher, but since the generate the content, they might try and kill it.

[JoeHonkie]

but anyway, given that you place value on helping people that aren't doing so well, let's say a game company isn't getting very many sales, and they may go bankrupt, and they make games that you especially enjoy. wouldn't it then be more moral to buy its game new rather than used, or to not sell your used game to a store in order to hopefully get someone to buy it new rather than used?

It would be my personal choice to do so, but it wouldn't be moral for me to force that choice on someone else who gave less of a crap about that company.

[JoeHonkie]

i went into a game shop (there was a guy wearing a neo jacket and i laughed at him and also a acne scarred nerd polishing a 6 foot tall sonic statue that i also laughed at) but i didnt buy anything. are there any games worth buying atm.

Are there ever, Joe?

[Stefan Schwartz]

My philosophy on buying used games is this: I don't buy newly released games used, because the developers don't get any money/sales numbers from that. However, older games, like last generation ( or before in the case of game boy color) i don't mind buying used.

As for goozex, I can say that they are probably the best of those trade-in sites. My only problem was that I don't really have games that I want to trade in (though you can just purchase Goozex points w/ a credit card).

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

but anyway, given that you place value on helping people that aren't doing so well, let's say a game company isn't getting very many sales, and they may go bankrupt, and they make games that you especially enjoy. wouldn't it then be more moral to buy its game new rather than used, or to not sell your used game to a store in order to hopefully get someone to buy it new rather than used?

It would be my personal choice to do so, but it wouldn't be moral for me to force that choice on someone else who gave less of a crap about that company.

you don't need to repeat that idea over and over, i think we get it by now, and it's kind of obvious -- it's like when someone says 'this is just my opinion' over and over. well, you're saying it, it's obvious it's your opinion, whose else would it be? similarly, it's your morality i'm asking about, not what morality you'd force onto others.

[JoeHonkie]

you don't need to repeat that idea over and over, i think we get it by now, and it's kind of obvious -- it's like when someone says 'this is just my opinion' over and over. well, you're saying it, it's obvious it's your opinion, whose else would it be? similarly, it's your morality i'm asking about, not what morality you'd force onto others.

I'm not sure why my morality is even up for discussion in a thread about selling and buying used video games, but if I didn't make it clear, I agree that I would go the extra mile for a company I care about.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

as said, it's up for discussion because he asked about the morality of selling games, and we can't exactly solve whether it's moral or not if we don't talk about morality

anyway, i'm still unsure whether it's moral or not, but i'm investigating it

[team_q]

as said, it's up for discussion because he asked about the morality of selling games, and we can't exactly solve whether it's moral or not if we don't talk about morality

anyway, i'm still unsure whether it's moral or not, but i'm investigating it

My main sticking point is, why does Gamestop deserve the money to pay for a game when all they do with it is hang on to it until someone buys it. As apposed to someone who was instrumental in the creation of the product?

[Zest]

I suppose they would argue it's because they are offering a service by exchanging money for a game, no matter what. When you're trading with another person, you may not necessarily be able to get them to give you something in exchange. Gamestop, meanwhile, will always give you some in-store credit- no matter how pithy the amount may be.

[NathanielEdwards]

It's kind of like a bank's function, isn't it? We can't necessarily access any used game just at a friend's house, and we can't afford the overhead to run a company, so they serve a basic function, even though all they're doing is exchanging goods between people, and reaping the benefits. Banks just have the capital to loan money where people don't, so they perform a service, at least until they fail and everyone loses...