I'm not talking about proving anything, I am trying to demonstrate there is a difference between getting zero revenue from a sale, and losing money due to that sale.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DICE: Anti Used System 'can be a win and a loss'.
- Thread starter Saty
- Start date
I'm not talking about proving anything, I am trying to demonstrate there is a difference between getting zero revenue from a sale, and losing money due to that sale.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Say what? How does it negate anything? Video games are software and fall under the law as software. Read most EULAs and they refer to the product as software. Videogames don't compare to software, they are software. If you think they are anything else than you are delusional. The two are not mutually exclusive.
As far as your point about the laws regarding software and EULAs, lookup autodesk v vernor.
Not every person buys DLC bud. If you have some legit numbers to show me on what percentage of customers buy DLC then please carry on, otherwise stop wasting my time.
Ok but I already knew that. I even provided an example on how companies lose money due to a used sale.
Pureauthor
Member
And if videogames fall under the law as software, yet videogames are constantly being resold right now, that means that there is no problem with software being resold, so your entire argument has no point.
And if videogames are classified as software, then why does nobody treat them as such?
I'm not denying that it can be a mixed bag. You seem unable to grasp that I am not trying to prove what happens in every case, just that there is a difference (as you have no agreed) between zero revenue from a sale, and losing money because of a used sale. One does not follow from the other.
Semantics.
Gamers With Jobs posted an article on used games. I found it interesting, might be worth its own thread if we all weren't sick of arguing about used games
Michael Pachter on lost sales vs. trade in revenue used for new games:
http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/111869
Great read, thanks for posting.
Edit:
Real numbers, for those that want them
Semantics.
Aw, I liked your first version better.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Video games are still being sold because no publisher has taken retailers to court. They decided upon alternate methods such as online passes. Also its kind of ironic you say that when the whole premise of this thread is about an anti-used system in the consoles. Obviously there is a problem with software being sold lmao.
Believe me when the final verdict dropped retailers were quaking in there boots.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/court-ruling-could-affect-pre-owned-game-sales-6275683
and this is from gamestops fiscal report
I also don't know wtf you are talking about in regards to people not treating games as software.
Jake Tower
Banned
Are you really this dense?
iamshadowlark
Banned
I just said there was a difference. WTF are you saying?
Great read, thanks for posting.
Edit:
Real numbers, for those that want them
Thats like the third time this article has been quoted at me and I already addressed it lmao.
One more time:
Pureauthor
Member
In that case why haven't the publishers taken this issue to court? Alternate methods seem a lot more roundabout and less straightforward than simply slapping them with legal precedent.
Unless, of course, they realize that this wouldn't actually work.
Everyone, publishers, retailers, and consumers, treat videogames as entertainment goods. Not software.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Dead Man said:
This is all about supply and demand. Used games fulfill a demand, yet essentially remove the original product suppliers (the ones who bear the maximum investment risk) from the supply chain.
In simple terms used-games offer unwelcome, unfair competition and are thus considered hostile.
In the absence of a legal bar on this sort of trading the suppliers of the original product are changing their business terms to protect themselves. This is how they are changing the "broken" model, and unfortunately a lot of people don't like it.
But the cold truth of it is that the ability to resell items isn't a neccessity -the success of the App store and online vendors like Steam prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Which in turn leads to the inescapable conclusion that this is in fact just the "games are too expensive" complaint over-and-over.
You seem to not be grasping the point, which is a simple one. Used game sales are not an unmitigated loss for publishers. Do you get that? Do you understand there are benefits to a used market?
I think you may have missed the point a bit too. The app store etc are not all priced at what many people consider more than the product is worth. Used products are not unfair competition, they are a fact of life in a capitalst system.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Pureauthor said:
Because they are going around the court and locking down there games/systems? Is it really that hard to see? Why take all the trouble of going to court when you can avoid it entirely and implement measures on your own?
Again the two are not mutually exclusive. Do you know what that means?Pureauthor said:
What? On the last page, you were saying the are the very same thing. When I tried to explain the difference you were saying I was arguing semantics.
Methinks he may not have a very strong grasp of what his position actually is.
Pureauthor
Member
Because going to court would be the less troublesome method by far. And there was no hint of attempting any legal action during the period where systems preventing used games was not ever being discussed. So no, your idea simply does not work.
Yes, I do. What I am saying is that they are not treated as software at all. They are treated entirely as entertainment goods.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Dead Man said:
In alot of cases they are as I just pointed out with ND's quotes. Obviously the benefits of the used game market are being outweighed by the negatives. Do you get that?
What other market allows you to buy a product cheaper in the same store the same week it comes out? Nevermind the fact that employees are trained to sell used first.Dead Man said:
snap0212 said:
Look above you genius.
me said:
Won't work Mr. Bach, I'm sorry to tell you that your reasoning is flawed. Not everyone is online so any anti-piracy system which locks games to a profile or gamertag would, in these cases, be essentially locking the game to one console. That's fine for online shooters (the games you make) where internet connectivity is already a given, but all these new single player games and new ip you are talking about will be at an even greater disadvantage than they are now. I'm also not too sure it will be a positive for massive annual games like COD either. In which case the anti-piracy system would have to be optional, thus being totally pointless and largely detrimental to any game that does not already have online. If EA uses it on all their games and Activision don't, who (besides the consumer) is really going to lose out?
Edit: I suppose the profile could actually be linked to a physical component detachable from the consoles, in which case nevermind everything I just said.
Edit: I suppose the profile could actually be linked to a physical component detachable from the consoles, in which case nevermind everything I just said.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Ok Im convinced, you have no idea of wtf you are talking about. I suspected that at first but you just confirmed. Congrats my friend.
You are still missing his point. You have now got to where you are actually arguing for the position you were against a page ago.
I'm out. Have fun playing with yourself.
They take it to court, win as easily as you think they will and save themselves a lot of time and money in the process.
Hell, you wouldn't even have to take GameStop to court, go after a smaller mom and pop store who doesn't have the funds to fully fight it.
They take out the used market in one swift move.
Hell, you wouldn't even have to take GameStop to court, go after a smaller mom and pop store who doesn't have the funds to fully fight it.
They take out the used market in one swift move.
Pureauthor
Member
If you don't actually have a counter-argument you can simply stop posting instead of acting snide and dismissive.
Pretty much all of them?
I bought my washer used from a Sears store with an equivalent new model sitting right next to it.
Does that make me a bad person. Should I call Kenmore up and apologize.
Oh, I must have missed that. Glad the semantics from the last page are now good enough to be part of your argument, though.
iamshadowlark
Banned
What? How?
I argued that this:
was semantics. I never said there wasn't a difference between the two. I think you are the one who is missing the point.
What counter-argument is needed? You just said that it would be easier for a companie to take a retailer to court and wait on a long, drawn out, expensive trial that they could possibly lose when they can can just simply write a few lines of code themselves and eliminate the problem internally.
Really?
Rock and the hard place? Why Is the rock and hard place always about trying to get more money out of the consumer? If you need to sell 2 mil to break even, that's the problem.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Yeah, no. You can't buy a cd the day it comes out used for a cheaper price in the same store. You can't legally buy a copy of a used cheaper copy of movie the day it hits the BO. Please provide me examples if you can?
Thats was the same week that dryer came out right?
iamshadowlark
Banned
Thats a $10000+ car that he is probably financing anyway. And if they get demo models, then the dealership is most likely certified which means honda gets a cut.
Pureauthor
Member
Because the used games issue became an issue before writing of a few lines of a code onto a console to block used sales became a solution. Unless you're referring to online passes, which is a pretty spotty and incomplete solution as opposed to a legal precedent.
And if there's precedent as in the case of Autodesk v. Vernor, then it will be a relatively fast and simple case. Unless of course it doesn't apply to an entertainment good like videogames.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Where?
Pureauthor
Member
Find any store that sells both new CDs and used CDs.
Buy a new CD.
Walk out the store.
Walk back in.
Sell them the 'used' CD.
If you want, buy the CD again.
(Unless for some reason they do used goods differently wherever you are from.)
iamshadowlark
Banned
How do you know it would be a fast case? Do you know how the court system works? There were precedents before the Autodesk v Vernor case and it still dragged on. Not to mention the appeals that would certainly happen.
Online passes are the solution for right now but its obvious that if these rumors are true its obvious something far more adequate is on the way.
iamshadowlark
Banned
Thats the point. Why would you hassle with cases in all these different legal systems when you can stop the problem yourself?
Pureauthor
Member
It would have been faster than waiting several years for this new method, (that isn't guaranteed to be applied on all the consoles anyway) years that the majority of those complaining about used games sales were bleeding massive amounts of money.
What you're saying is that these companies basically went 'Well, let's just continue to make enormous losses for a few years and not choose the obvious method of combating used sales (because that is obviously the main culprit here) in the hopes that a few years down the line we'll have a solution. After losing literally billions of dollars.'
That's not really a sensible position. Unless they think that used games sales aren't really a big enough problem to worry over, in which case, why the constant complaints?
Even though they'll be in court anyways when someone takes then there over something like this.
iamshadowlark
Banned
They aren't "hoping" for a solution, they have been making them all along and next-gen both Sony/MSs consoles are rumored to take it even further. Online passes aren't some new thing, they've been around for a while now.
This sort of thing has been on PCs for ages now, idk why somebody would sue now.
Pureauthor
Member
But obviously it hasn't been working very well, given the constant stream of complaints from the devs about how much money they're still losing to used games sales.
The longer they've been working against used games sales, the less sense it makes to believe that no one brought it to court and had it shut down, unless it was understood that it wouldn't work in the first place.
Edit: Also I think we kinda drifted in terms of what this discussion was about.
I've asked this before but I will ask it again: Why are publishers more concerned about used game sales from the revenue standpoint than they are the fact that people are getting rid of their games within such a short period of time? You know, since that is a part of the whole used games equation that they can, in some sense, control.
Show me where I claimed every person buys DLC. I was simply refuting your argument that publishers see no revenue from a used sale.
It's probably easier to use technology to eliminate used games rather than actually improving their product.
Also, what PC software, outside Autodesk and OEM Windows can you not resell? I have a hard time finding other major software that doesn't allow for license sales and transfers. (excluding Steam or similar services)
Because, as of right now, the console market, even though you don't want to admit it, is different then the pc market.
Games may be software, but they're currently not treated as such (which is why the used market exists in the first place).
Either way, it's going to up to a court to decide this. We only have two courses that are going to have to happen.
A) Game developers take someone to court over used games
B) someone sues a company over blocking used games.
Either way we end up at the same point.
We know enough to prove Leondexter's statement unequivocally true. New game sales will drop if consumers are unable to trade in or resell their old games to help finance their new purchases. You're harping on percentages now, and it's irrelevant to the point I've been making - we can debate the degree to which this will affect new game sales (you seem to believe any effects will be virtually unnoticeable, while I and many others here believe the opposite), and that's worth discussing, but it definitely would happen. I took issue with your insistence that Leondexter couldn't say with certainty that sales of new games would drop in that scenario when all the evidence we have says that they will.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
My local Gamestops doesn't force used games on me ever. Funny how the one thing gamers bitch about most with Gamestop is being pestered to preorder NEW GAMES.
But keep drinking the Kool Aid man! Used game sales have been around since the NES era, and even further back if you consider people selling their old Colecovision/Atari/Intellivision/Odyssey games at yard sales.
Gotta stop those gamers from trying to save money so Cliffy can buy another Ferrari.
iamshadowlark
Banned
No the fuck we don't lol. There is nothing Leondexter posted that proves his statement true. Absolutely nothing. All we have is him and you providing baseless anecdotes that are entirely worthless considering how large the game industry is. The only thing his statement means that the sales that they might get from those customers will disappear. Theres no way you, him or anybody else can say that there wouldn't be new sales to take their place.
sorry
Did I miss a page of this thread or were a lot of posts deleted? Because I don't see how you can say that otherwise.