Support NeoGAF

[faceless007]

Shouldn't the people in here be equally up in arms about digital distribution? I don't hear anyone complaining about Steam or iTunes.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Many of us are very wary of the move to those services and don't want to become entirely dependent on them.

Though there is a fundamental difference in that DRM on PC services can be easily cracked in a way that console services can't.

 

[GavinGT]

I was trying to think of another entity that could potentially technologically come up with a way to prevent you from selling a product you own, and that's what I came up with. It's probably not apples to apples perfectly.

I think the larger question is, do we own the games we purchase, or are we purchasing a revocable license to the experience of playing the game?

I think legally it unequivocally falls on the side of it being a license. The question then becomes whether that's fair.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Many of us are very wary of the move to those services and don't want to become entirely dependent on them.

Though there is a fundamental difference in that DRM on PC services can be easily cracked in a way that console services can't.

You're right that I wasn't considering the interconnection of the two issues (impending DD future vs entitlement to resell physical copies).

And to your second point, I guess I was assuming that we were all following the rules.

 

[Walter Matthau]

Comments like these assume that people who currently buy used are willing to pay the price for a brand new game and that people who currently buy their games brand new would continue to do so knowing they can no longer sell them afterward.

 

[MrCunningham]

Somehow Hollywood has managed to survive the used goods market.

As has every other media form.

And physical goods industry.

Used game sales weren't even a hot bed for discussion before this generation. I guess with AAAA game development costs rising, each sale needs to count more than ever just to recoup from dem diminishing returns.

 

[Oersted]

Shouldn't the people in here be equally up in arms about digital distribution? I don't hear anyone complaining about Steam or iTunes.

I do. And even if not, what would that prove? That gamers/ consumers are not really consistent in defending their rights?

 

[Schnozberry]

I think legally it unequivocally falls on the side of it being a license. The question then becomes whether that's fair.

I don't think a lot of people will view it as fair, unless they are offered more types of licenses. If it costs $60 dollars to play a game whenever I want for an unlimited period of time, can I pay $10 to play it for a month? Or $5 to rent it for a weekend?

For a revocable license, the barriers to entry are too high.

 

[linkboy]

See here's the thing Bethesda, you really don't have a leg to stand on with this issue because the only reason anyone was able to get any type of escape from the unplayable disaster that was Skyrim PS3 at release was due to them being able to trade it in.

So no, I'm sorry, you don't deserve a single cent from the used game market (and this goes for any publisher).

Here's a tip, if you want to make a profit on a game, keep your damn budgets in check.

 

[jabuseika]

Making broken games seemed to kill the resale market.

 

[GavinGT]

I don't think a lot of people will view it as fair, unless they are offered more types of licenses. If it costs $60 dollars to play a game whenever I want for an unlimited period of time, can I pay $10 to play it for a month? Or $5 to rent it for a weekend?

For a revocable license, the barriers to entry are too high.

I think payment options like that will become more feasible as DD takes over. But I doubt the pricing will be that generous.

I do. And even if not, what would that prove? That gamers/ consumers are not really consistent in defending their rights?

I was trying to point out that it seems to be more an issue of maintaining the status quo than defending consumer rights. But, as I later acknowledged, I wasn't considering the interconnected nature of impending DD future vs defending used games at retail. This paints it in a somewhat different light for me.

BTW, I'd like to thank you guys for not going directly for my throat, as I know I'm coming off as a bit of a corporate apologist. I just think it's more constructive to discuss things in a point/counter-point nature than to just scream bloody murder.

 

[Oersted]

See here's the thing Bethesda, you really don't have a leg to stand on with this issue because the only reason anyone was able to get any type of escape from the unplayable disaster that was Skyrim PS3 at release was due to them being able to trade it in.

So no, I'm sorry, you don't deserve a single cent from the used game market (and this goes for any publisher).

Here's a tip, if you want to make a profit on a game, keep your damn budgets in check.

You are expecting this from companies. Companies man, be fair. Be concerned about their future, support them whatever it costs. Pay with your rights if they demand it.

 

[Ponn]

You are expecting this from companies. Companies man, be fair. Be concerned about their future, support them whatever it costs. Pay with your rights if they demand it.

Fuck that noise.

 

[Alchemy]

All businesses do this if the market supports used sales. Book publishers account for 3-4 owners in physical book prices. Video games are simply so expensive to produce you can't charge 3x or 4x for the product and still expect critical mass market reception, so the prices are squeezed down which puts pressure on smaller games to remain cheap based on value comparisons.

 

[linkboy]

You are expecting this from companies. Companies man, be fair. Be concerned about their future, support them whatever it costs. Pay with your rights if they demand it.

I know, I was out of line and I offended our corporate masters. I'll try to do better next time (or I might just not buy their game, whoops, did I say that out loud).

 

[Petrae]

Used game sales weren't even a hot bed for discussion before this generation. I guess with AAAA game development costs rising, each sale needs to count more than ever just to recoup from dem diminishing returns.

That's what's been fascinating to me as this War on Used Games has ratcheted up over the last few years. The industry grew despite the existence and rose of the used games market. I never read this kind of frustration from industry execs during FuncoLand's reign. Perhaps it's because gaming press wasn't asking the right questions, but used and new got along just fine.

Now consumers who buy used are criminals. Pirates. Don't care about developers or publishers in any way and steal food from their tables. Never mind that these consumers just want to buy games more cheaply. How dare they trade in games or buy from places for a few dollars less? It's scandalous!

Perhaps the rise of Internet connectivity and the ability for publishers to control content and licenses better has empowered them to be more vocal. They have the technology to enforce licenses better than ever before, effectively altering the deal as customers understood that, when you buy a game-- you own it. That was never true, of course, but now publishers can enforce this and have more control over their content.

So, when I reflect on another thread discussing whether gaming was better 10 years ago or not, I fall back on this War on Used Games as a reason why modern console gaming is worse off now. Used games are now evil for the first time in decades. I don't, I can't subscribe to that theory.

 

[slightconfuse]

Should be Bethesda: PS3 is a problem

 

[GavinGT]

You are expecting this from companies. Companies man, be fair. Be concerned about their future, support them whatever it costs. Pay with your rights if they demand it.

Obviously it's the job of consumers to stand up for their rights as staunchly as possible, as you imply. But I do wonder if there's a point at which we will need to met them halfway in order to ensure that they can continue making the type of big-budget games we enjoy. When a company like Square-Enix blames used game sales, it's easy to point to poor management and say that they're using used game sales as a scapegoat. But if Bethesda can properly manage their budgets and yet they still say used game sales are a real problem, I have to wonder if it's more than just greediness at play.

 

[Mithos]

Releasing games that should not have passed beta testing is a concern.
-Consumers.

 

[harSon]

Is this the only industry that obsesses about the used market? No one ever complains about used books.

These are always the examples thrown out in these types of discussions and they're so off-based. First of all, the cost of development for a book is nowhere near the cost of development for a full scaled video game, and the price of admission for a book is cheap enough to be an impulse purchase and there aren't really any retail juggernauts that deal with used books. There's some mom and pop stores, and online vendors like Amazon, but nothing wide spread like Game Stop who exist and are an industry force because of used sales. And it's laughable to suggest that the book industry doesn't obsess over the used markets. There's a reason Amazon and Barnes and Noble constructed E-Readers, and there's a reason publishers were more than willing to sign on. The extent to which publishers care about the used market also escalates depending on the cost of the product. They definitely care about the used market regarding text books considering frequent edition changes and online registration/cd-key components are becoming more and more common.

Cars are pretty self explanatory.

 

[Schnozberry]

I think payment options like that will become more feasible as DD takes over. But I doubt the pricing will be that generous.

Maybe not, but publishers need a new business model to attract people away from used games. Whether that's digital rentals or a subscription platform or whatever else they want to experiment with doesn't matter. They need to sell it to consumers instead of forcing it on them. Doing it technologically will just create acrimony that will hurt the games industry overall.

 

[Nevasleep]

Haven't there always been used game sales.
The problem is too many companies trying to make AAA games, then moaning when not everybody buys the game.

 

[linkboy]

Obviously it's the job of consumers to stand up for their rights as staunchly as possible, as you imply. But I do wonder if there's a point at which we will need to met them halfway in order to ensure that they can continue making the type of big-budget games enjoy. When a company like Square-Enix blames used game sales, it's easy to point to poor management and say that they're using used game sales as a scapegoat. But if Bethesda can properly manage their budgets and yet they still say used game sales are a real problem, I have to wonder if it's more than just greediness at play.

Here's the thing though, they don't want to meet us half-way, they (being all the major publishers) want total control over this industry.

They don't want us to be able to trade any game in, hell, they don't even think we own the physical copy (remember, it's a license).

Bethestda would be perfectly happy to sell you a game like Skyrim PS3 and let you be stuck with it without a way to return it or even get something out of it. Remember, up until the issue first popped up, we were told that the PS3 version was just as good as the 360 and PC version.

That's not meeting us halfway, that's having our cake and wanting to eat it too.

 

[Colby]

The biggest way to combat used game sales is to make their digital offerings worth more than the possible used game sale. They need to aggressively price their products; for example, if the game in store is $60, make the digital version $40 (or something similar; I'm not privy to their specific profit margins). The Vita does this somewhat. I think digital Vita games are $5 off, but that isn't enough of a discount, IMO. Have sales frequently and create bundles to show consumers value. Next-generation hardware will come with very large hard drives, so space shouldn't be an issue.

Enticing people to purchase games digitally is the biggest thing publishers can do.

 

[harSon]

Haven't there always been used game sales.
The problem is too many companies trying to make AAA games, then moaning when not everybody buys the game.

On top of the rising costs of AAA development, I'd argue that used game sales are more prominent now than they've ever been. Places like Gamestop, Amazon and Ebay are a hell of a lot bigger than they were 10+ years ago. Hell, even stores like Best Buy sell used games, and now there's the addition of places like Game Fly.

 

[linkboy]

On top of the rising costs of AAA development, I'd argue that used game sales are more prominent now than they've ever been. Places like Gamestop, Amazon and Ebay are a hell of a lot bigger than they were 10+ years ago. Hell, even stores like Best Buy sell used games, and now there's the addition of places like Game Fly.

They're more prominent now because of the rising cost of AAA development. The market is essentially telling publishers what it's willing to pay for a game and the majority of publishers are just doing this

in response to it.

They're trying to dictate what the market wants and that will never work in a capitalistic market.

If they do manage to kill off the used game market, they're going to make even less of a profit and then they'll have to move onto the next thing to scapegoat. What happens when they run out of things to scapegoat?

 

[number47]

The biggest way to combat used game sales is to make their digital offerings worth more than the possible used game sale. They need to aggressively price their products; for example, if the game in store is $60, make the digital version $40 (or something similar; I'm not privy to their specific profit margins). The Vita does this somewhat. I think digital Vita games are $5 off, but that isn't enough of a discount, IMO. Have sales frequently and create bundles to show consumers value. Next-generation hardware will come with very large hard drives, so space shouldn't be an issue.

Enticing people to purchase games digitally is the biggest thing publishers can do.

Comments like yours bring a tear to my eye.

 

[phisheep]

"There's no doubt that being a videogamer is expensive. Games are not cheap to buy because they're expensive to make, and people are looking for ways to keep it affordable," Hines said. "I'm not sure anyone has figured out a solution that works for everyone, and there simply may not be one until someone figures out how to include developers and publishers in the loop on used games sales instead of keeping it all for themselves."

There is a solution that works for everyone, and it is for developers and publishers to get their heads around the economics and practicalities of producing for a market that has an established used game sales market. (Any solution that kills the used game market isn't a solution "for everyone", it is a solution that penalises poor gamers and all resellers).

Plenty of ways of doing that as evidenced from other industries. Brand loyalty - make a game so good that people who play it want to play your next game as soon as it comes out, and suddenly the used games market is your friend because it lets loads more people play your game (think television market); plot-driven sequels - make a game with a long-term plot that's only partially revealed so that (a) people want to read the next six and (b) people who start at number 5 want to buy the previous 4 (think Harry Potter); familiarity - make (and patent) a UI so compelling that people want to stick with it rather than learn something new (think typewriters); interchangeable components like selling the world separate from the gameplay (think Canon v Nikon); secondary market in consumables (think any fucking printer manufacturer); first-mover advantage - make innovative games like nobody else makes and set the trend (think fashion market); make the damn games cheaper (think Henry Ford); probably plenty of others too.

Guy has his head stuck in the clouds if he thinks that a solution that favours developers/publishers is a solution at all.

 

[harSon]

They're more prominent now because of the rising cost of AAA development. The market is essentially telling publishers what it's willing to pay for a game and the majority of publishers are just doing this

in response to it.

They're trying to dictate what the market wants and that will never work in a capitalistic market

They're more prominent now because it's the natural progression of the industry. Places like Funcoland and Game's Botique existed in large quantities since the 90s, but Game Stop made aggressive moves to buy out and consolidate the market. Ebay and Amazon have always existed, but they continued to grow as the internet became more integrated into society. Game rentals used to exist with retail video stores, but as the internet became more prominent, it moved to the online space in the form of stuff like Netflix and Gamefly.

It has little to do with the market speaking, and more to do with the current form of gaming being a natural progression. Gaming has always been an expensive hobby, and these used game outlets have always existed in large quantities.

 

[a.wd]

The idea that people will willingly hand over their cash to massive corporates without making them jump through a million hoops for it is baffling. You are the consumer, they need you, not the other way around.

If I buy something, a video a dvd and I want to sell it on, I can.

It is art, and the producers have families but I still have my rights as a consumer. So I can sell the things I own. Why are people so keen to give that up?

 

[Oersted]

Obviously it's the job of consumers to stand up for their rights as staunchly as possible, as you imply. But I do wonder if there's a point at which we will need to met them halfway in order to ensure that they can continue making the type of big-budget games we enjoy. When a company like Square-Enix blames used game sales, it's easy to point to poor management and say that they're using used game sales as a scapegoat. But if Bethesda can properly manage their budgets and yet they still say used game sales are a real problem, I have to wonder if it's more than just greediness at play.

May I quote?

...the principle of exhaustion of the distribution right applies not only where the copyright holder markets copies of his software on a material medium (CD-ROM or DVD) but also where he distributes them by means of downloads from his website.Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy– tangible or intangible– and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy.
Therefore,even if the licence agreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy.

 

[linkboy]

The idea that people will willingly hand over their cash to massive corporates without making them jump through a million hoops for it is baffling. You are the consumer, they need you, not the other way around.

If I buy something, a video a dvd and I want to sell it on, I can.

It is art, and the producers have families but I still have my rights as a consumer. So I can sell the things I own. Why are people so keen to give that up?

Because publishers have managed to convince a ton of people that they need their product, and they need to listen to them.

Maybe it's just something with the internet age and the fact that gamers and developers are in touch with each other more.

It's something that boggles my mind too. I really don't get why people are so willing to bend over backwards for these companies when these companies have shown time and time again that they don't give two shits about any of us (if they did, EA, for example, wouldn't have won a certain on-line poll for two years in a row).

 

[GavinGT]

Here's the thing though, they don't want to meet us half-way, they (being all the major publishers) want total control over this industry.

They don't want us to be able to trade any game in, hell, they don't even think we own the physical copy (remember, it's a license).

Bethestda would be perfectly happy to sell you a game like Skyrim PS3 and let you be stuck with it without a way to return it or even get something out of it. Remember, up until the issue first popped up, we were told that the PS3 version was just as good as the 360 and PC version.

That's not meeting us halfway, that's having our cake and wanting to eat it too.

You're totally right that they want to go full-bore toward maximizing their profits. But surely there reaches a point at which consumers refuse to accept it any more and these companies are forced to ease back, simply in an effort to ensure future profits. Maybe they're just slow to react to this consumer pushback. For example, maybe in retrospect Bethesda now privately acknowledges that shafting its PS3 customers will ultimately be bad for future business. And hopefully they'll see it as sufficiently damaging that they won't let it happen again. On the other hand, maybe they will find themselves in the same situation again and some internal number cruncher will just determine that releasing a broken game to a portion of the audience is preferable to delaying it and likely suffering reduced sales in the short-medium term. But I would hope that the invisible hand of economics would eventually force them to shy away from such practices.

May I quote?

That's the EU's recent ruling? Is this likely to force companies to reshape DD policies on a worldwide basis? Will this force Steam to allow a free exchange of licenses between users (and even non-users)? Note that I'm simply asking questions and implying nothing.

 

[neojubei]

In an ideal world, those who buy the game new would get all the content (DLC, Multi-player, etc.) at no extra cost.

Those who buy used would have to pay for all that. So the developer sees some profit too.

There should be some way car manufacturers to get some money back on used car sales. Cars are expensive.

The idea that people will willingly hand over their cash to massive corporates without making them jump through a million hoops for it is baffling. You are the consumer, they need you, not the other way around.

If I buy something, a video a dvd and I want to sell it on, I can.

It is art, and the producers have families but I still have my rights as a consumer. So I can sell the things I own. Why are people so keen to give that up?

I have to agree with you.

 

[MoosiferX]

*sigh*

New games are the real concern! As a small business video game store owner I pay 50-55 dollars plus shipping for new games to resell at $59.99. I make almost zero profit and then the games insta-drop in price. xD

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Forest for the trees.

 

[phisheep]

There should be some way car manufacturers to get some money back on used car sales. Cars are expensive.

Thinking about it, they do. They get rather a lot out of selling spare parts for clapped out cars, spare panels for dinged cars, and franchises to people who maintain used cars.

 

[Mavromatis]

Understandable, but its their game, they made it, they designed it, and it costs alot of money to make it. Just because something sells better than it was going to, doesnt mean they dont "deserve" sales anymore...

There isnt a cut off that says "you X amount of dollars, so now we need to think about the gamers and give it to them for a lower cost." That doesn't make sense. You cant rent the full game of minecraft, or get it used, but noone is complaining that Notch made enough money off it to be satisfied.

I already think he made too much money.

Anyway, there is an economical point that your sales will be cut off, that is when you fill all the demand. If nobody demands the first hand game you just don't produce it. You might want to embellish it, repackage it, add some features or extras like DLCs, create a marketing campaign but in the end the demand is fulfilled. And this doesn't have to happen at the same time with the start of second hand sales. First hand sales decreases and second hand increases over time.
And if the game costed 60$ at first hand that is including all the costs and expected profit, otherwise you want losses. When the game hits second hand at 20$, the producer is already paid for its work, and they already paid the devs. I don't know all the procedure they follow but I assume the developers are either on a new project or out of work looking for another project, and they wouldn't be seeing any more money even if the producer intervened on second hand market and inflated it to get a cut.

 

[number47]

So no one else sees this as a battle between gamestop/piracy vs publishers.

I agree with dlcs and online passes. Rather buy new than $55 for a used game at gamestop.

 

[harSon]

The games industry is the only industry where there are major brick and mortar retail stores that dedicate major store space to used products whose brand new counterparts are only days or weeks old.

 

[Rhindle]

There is a solution that works for everyone, and it is for developers and publishers to get their heads around the economics and practicalities of producing for a market that has an established used game sales market. (Any solution that kills the used game market isn't a solution "for everyone", it is a solution that penalises poor gamers and all resellers).

Plenty of ways of doing that as evidenced from other industries. Brand loyalty - make a game so good that people who play it want to play your next game as soon as it comes out, and suddenly the used games market is your friend because it lets loads more people play your game (think television market); plot-driven sequels - make a game with a long-term plot that's only partially revealed so that (a) people want to read the next six and (b) people who start at number 5 want to buy the previous 4 (think Harry Potter); familiarity - make (and patent) a UI so compelling that people want to stick with it rather than learn something new (think typewriters); interchangeable components like selling the world separate from the gameplay (think Canon v Nikon); secondary market in consumables (think any fucking printer manufacturer); first-mover advantage - make innovative games like nobody else makes and set the trend (think fashion market); make the damn games cheaper (think Henry Ford); probably plenty of others too.

Guy has his head stuck in the clouds if he thinks that a solution that favours developers/publishers is a solution at all.

There are obviously plenty of possible solutions/outcomes. But you can't just assume that an outcome that involves unrestricted used game sales with zero revenues to publishers/developers is the optimal one. It certainly is not the optimal outcome for all consumers. It may be optimal for you, but it isn't form me, or for a lot of otehr folks.

I don't sell my used games, so the used games marked has zero value for me (or for other people who don't sell used games, which is probably the majority of the games buying market). My interest is in maximizing the number of good games that are produced. If you accept that the used games market reduces overall revenues to publishers/developers (which is the widely held belief in the industry), then by definition used games sales reduce the number of good games that are produced. So there is no benefit to me in that outcome, and there is a significant downside. So it may be the optimal "solution" for you (or for "poor gamers and all resellers" in general), but it is not a good "solution" for me or for lots of other people out there.

 

[Open Source]

I'm still confused by this sense of entitlement that game publishers/developers seem to have regarding the proceeds of sales of their products. If I buy a Corolla and sell it, Toyota doesn't seem to expect a cut of the profits. Same for cd's, books, etc, etc. In fact I'm struggling to think of a single industry where this is true.

And how are CD and physical book sales doing these days?

Cars are different because they're a tool, not entertainment, and they wear out. Software doesn't wear out.

 

[GavinGT]

There are obviously plenty of possible solutions/outcomes. But you can't just assume that an outcome that involves unrestricted used game sales with zero revenues to publishers/developers is the optimal one. It certainly is not the optimal outcome for all consumers. It may be optimal for you, but it isn't form me, or for a lot of otehr folks.

I don't sell my used games, so the used games marked has zero value for me (or for other people who don't sell used games, which is probably the majority of the games buying market). My interest is in maximizing the number of good games that are produced. If you accept that the used games market reduces overall revenues to publishers/developers (which is the widely held belief in the industry), then by definition used games sales reduce the number of good games that are produced. So there is no benefit to me in that outcome, and there is a significant downside. So it may be the optimal "solution" for you (or for "poor gamers and all resellers" in general), but it is not a good "solution" for me or for lots of other people out there.

I think many here see it as having the opposite effect. That's why, in a purely scientific way, I'm sort of looking forward to seeing what effect a policy of blocking used game sales has upon publisher incomes. The arguments thus far are largely theoretical, and it's basically a question of who do we trust - publishers or Gamestop?

 

[publicpwnerer]

Bethesda should create a "Patch Pass".


You get a serial key with every new copy that allows you to patch the games to the least build. Those that buy second hand.....you know the rest.

 

[phisheep]

There are obviously plenty of possible solutions/outcomes. But you can't just assume that an outcome that involves unrestricted used game sales with zero revenues to publishers/developers is the optimal one. It certainly is not the optimal outcome for all consumers. It may be optimal for you, but it isn't form me, or for a lot of otehr folks.

I don't sell my used games, so the used games marked has zero value for me (or for other people who don't sell used games, which is probably the majority of the games buying market). My interest is in maximizing the number of good games that are produced. If you accept that the used games market reduces overall revenues to publishers/developers (which is the widely held belief in the industry), then by definition used games sales reduce the number of good games that are produced. So there is no benefit to me in that outcome, and there is a significant downside. So it may be the optimal "solution" for you (or for "poor gamers and all resellers" in general), but it is not a good "solution" for me or for lots of other people out there.

Well, I'm kind of in the same category as you then. I have shelves full of games going way back when and I think I've only ever sold one (because I had accidentally bought two of the same!).

But that doesn't mean the used game market is valueless to me - because I use it to experiment (by buying, yeah, on the cheap) publishers/genres that I am unfamiliar with, or games that I've heard of but am not sure I'd like. At full price I'd never have got into any rail shooters, any hack'n'slash, any survival horror. As it stands, roughly, about a quarter of my shelves are secondhand purchases - but about a half of my shelves are new purchases I would not have made had I not weaned myself into something through the used market.

So roughly for every used game I've bought I've bought two new ones as a result that I would not otherwise have bought (plus the one new one I would have bought anyway, which brings it up to 100%). That's got to be good for publishers, eh?

That's a different personal experience than yours, and it points in the opposite direction - but because it's personal experience it is probably not something we need to argue over (unless we have any idea how this translates into the entire market - and I guess I'm probably atypical as usual!).

 

[kswiston]

The games industry is the only industry where there are major brick and mortar retail stores that dedicate major store space to used products whose brand new counterparts are only days or weeks old.

Blockbuster and similar video stores used to do the same thing before they all went bankrupt.

 

[faceless007]

The games industry is the only industry where there are major brick and mortar retail stores that dedicate major store space to used products whose brand new counterparts are only days or weeks old.

That's their problem. Not the consumers'.

 

[phisheep]

The games industry is the only industry where there are major brick and mortar retail stores that dedicate major store space to used products whose brand new counterparts are only days or weeks old.

You mean apart from cars, clothing (yeah, just because it's a charity doesn't mean it isn't a big organisation), furniture and pretty well everything else?

 

[harSon]

You mean apart from cars, clothing (yeah, just because it's a charity doesn't mean it isn't a big organisation), furniture and pretty well everything else?

That's not the same thing? Nobody buys cars, clothes and furniture, uses them for a few days/weeks and then sells it back to a major retailer that gives said used item equal store space as their brand new products.

 

[GavinGT]

You mean apart from cars, clothing (yeah, just because it's a charity doesn't mean it isn't a big organisation), furniture and pretty well everything else?

But the difference is that consumers of these products typically don't have any real incentive to trade in their new products soon after purchase. For example, buying a car new and then trading it in days later is about the worst thing you can do. These are fundamentally different goods in that the incentive is to hold onto them for a while and make steady use of them. With games, on the other hand, a customer can often wring the full value out of the product in a matter of hours and then trade it back in exchange for a large portion of the purchase price.

I agree that publishers should do what they can to incentivize people to hold onto their new games longer. But that's not necessarily feasible for some games.

 

[Blueblur1]

When I spend thousands of dollars on a used car Ford doesn't get a cent of that money. If I buy one of their games Neither should Bethesda. They should just deal with it.

 

[Dipswitch]

And how are CD and physical book sales doing these days?

Unless your argument is that book and CD sales are struggling due to used sales (Which I don't agree with), I fail to see how current sales of those products are relevant to the discussion at hand.

Cars are different because they're a tool, not entertainment, and they wear out. Software doesn't wear out.

Sorry, I find these arguments to be absurd. The category of item has nothing to do with whether used sales are deemed to be fair or not IMO. Nor is your argument that cars aren't subject to the same rules because they "wear out" and have a limited lifespan particularly sound. A car could change hands numerous times over its lifespan (Arguably 10+ years with today's models) - I'm sure car manufacturers would like a piece of that sales action too. Trouble is, no one would ever consider such a thing because the producer of that product simply isn't entitled to a share of those proceeds.

I will admit that private sales are not quite akin to the rapid sales turnover of games at the like of Gamestop however. They would probably do well to give game publishers a taste of each used game sale, because that will probably prolong their existence. That should naturally come out of Gamestop's obscene profit margin, and not be tacked onto the consumer price.

When it comes to private sales however, publishers can fuck right off if they think people are going to stand for them trampling all over their first sale doctrine rights.