Support NeoGAF

[fastford58]

I always thought that the buy used, but activate online for 10$ if used was a good idea.

Of course, most used games at GS sell for only 10 under new, so it wouldn't work well.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Imagine if a piece of shit like Resident Evil 6 launched at 60 dollars (while game journalists give it high scores in exchange for duffel bags stuffed with cash) and no one was able to sell it back after learning how much of a piece of shit it is. How does this help gamers, exactly?

While we're at it, all games should launch at $50, at most.

 

[imjust1n]

Used games keep the market in fucking check

If your game fucking sucks, it will be known equally review and monetarily wise

If people are returning a garbage game at a rapid pace or a shell of a game, the retailers have warning flags going off of this shit ain't selling, no need to order another batch until new/used stock sells out

Used market is what consumer makes the price of the game really should be
I get the underhanded Gamestop practices, but it's not the only way people buy used
Yes it has a huge portion, but it's not the only definitive pathway to used games
ebay, Gamefly, craigslist, goozex, hell GAF Buy/Sell/Trade, etc.

Some buy $60 games, only play SP, never touch MP, and give away their online passes here or other places or even sell for a few bucks

Used games makes publishers/developers fucking humble about their products
I still want to know this perception where this fantasy/dream comes from if used market gets abolished games will become cheaper...
Are you fucking kidding me?
This gen alone shows you how greedy publishers can be if they have more power over the consumer
Publishers are out to make the most profit possible out of a consumer, a consumer (a smart one) will either wait for a deal to have a leverage over the publisher, or if they deem the content worthy enough buy it right on the spot

Are you mad? Because reality will set in when they announce no more used games. It will happen. Even if a game sucks Don't you think in the beginning a game developers or even publisher deserve the 60 price point till it drops? Let's say a game comes out and the company that worked on it for like 2 years. It comes out and is at price point 60 but it sucks. The game then drops in price instead of some one buying a new game they will buy the used one because it simply used makes the price even cheaper. But the people who wasted 2 years of their life get no profit because you just want the cheapest. So that same game is 30 new and like 20 used and 18 with power ups . Great you saved 12 bucks. But if you wait maybe online during a special its like 15 bucks. Maybe what they'll do is price the retail game 30 then the online is 25 bucks Sony already does this.That's the great thing about steam they drop prices Sony and Microsoft will compete with steam prices look at last Christmas online they both had online sales. Yea I don't see used games happening

 

[TheBaldEmperor]

I always see this brought up and it may be true... for you. However, game publishers aren't interested in what you would do. They are interested in what a majority of people will do and it sounds like they are willing to wager that you are an outlier and not the average consumer. $1.8B in used sales annually isn't chump change. If you look at the average trade in deal that GameStop puts out there (3 used for 1 new), each new sale that used games generate causes the industry to lose 3 potential sales.

They should be interested. You act is if I'm the only one but you yourself just said you see this always brought up. If no one did it they wouldn't offer the deals.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

I think that all of the hysteria over "no more used games" may be blowing things way out of proportion. I don't think pubs/console makers are stupid enough not to see the value in the used game market driving new sales and my prediction is that the publishers have simply asked for the "online pass" system to be streamlined.

My prediction is that it will be a system where instead of having to purchase an online pass for a specific game you will instead be purchasing an online pass that can be used one time on any game. It creates an environment where GameStop can sell these online passes and only needs to maintain a single sku and would prevent the consumer from being sold a code to the wrong game.

Once the code is used, the console manufacturer would see which game it was used on and and pay out each publisher at the end of the month based on how many used game activations their games generated.

Lets say that these passes cost $10. The net effect of this would mean that instead of GameStop selling a used new release at $55 they would now instead sell it at $45 and on top of that sell you a $10 online pass (or more than likely still sell it at $55 and just provide you with an online pass making the second "online pass" sku an invisible part of the transaction to the customer, but pubs see money on the backend)

This would have a small effect on the consumer of having to enter an online code, and would drop the profit margins of GameStop on used titles.

Are we really getting up in arm over having to enter an extra code when we purchase games? Or am I misreading the situation entirely?

Desperate men are not rational men.

 

[Cru Jones]

In the US it is established copyright law that physical media used for video game consoles is exempt from the type of license agreements that legally prohibit the reselling of PC software. Physical media made for video game consoles is considered the same as CDs, DVDs, etc... and are governed by the First Sale Doctrine. An important aspect of the First Sale Doctrine is that the original copyright holder cannot interfere with a legal users resale or disposal rights after the initial sale. I would argue that an activation fee does exactly that. The legality of the system you describe is murky at best.

Online passes pass legal muster because it is a specific service you are paying for and dependent on something other than what is on the physical media (the servers, etc...).

I would like to see a link. Everything I have read says that software that uses an EULA that specifically prohibits the reselling of the license is enough to prevent the reselling of that license. From my understanding all it would take is a simple EULA to get around what you are describing in the US.

 

[Manmademan]

Imagine if a piece of shit like Resident Evil 6 launched at 60 dollars (while game journalists give it high scores in exchange for duffel bags stuffed with cash) and no one was able to sell it back after learning how much of a piece of shit it is. How does this help gamers, exactly?

While we're at it, all games should launch at $50, at most.

why should games be immune to inflation? They were $50 new 13 years ago. Should stamps still cost a quarter? Is a movie ticket 5 dollars?

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

believe

Oh god it's magnificent. If this existed and had all the creative team, talent and chemistry that supported Dreamcast, I'd buy it day one in a heartbeat.

 

[Cru Jones]

They should be interested. You act is if I'm the only one but you yourself just said you see this always brought up. If no one did it they wouldn't offer the deals.

I didn't say you we're the only one, just that you and those like you are outliers (IMO of course). The only way to find out who is right is for this to be implemented. I think it will be and it will be interesting to see what the numbers bear out.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Yes. How else would I get around if public transport wasn't a viable option for me?

Your present car.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Are you mad? Because reality will set in when they announce no more used games. It will happen. Even if a game sucks Don't you think in the beginning a game developers or even publisher deserve the 60 price point till it drops? Let's say a game comes out and the company that worked on it for like 2 years. It comes out and is at price point 60 but it sucks. The game then drops in price instead of some one buying a new game they will buy the used one because it simply used makes the price even cheaper. But the people who wasted 2 years of their life get no profit because you just want the cheapest. So that same game is 30 new and like 20 used and 18 with power ups . Great you saved 12 bucks. But if you wait maybe online during a special its like 15 bucks. Maybe what they'll do is price the retail game 30 then the online is 25 bucks Sony already does this.That's the great thing about steam they drop prices Sony and Microsoft will compete with steam prices look at last Christmas online they both had online sales. Yea I don't see used games happening

I'm not a heartless bastard but I'm not going to buy a bad game new, MSRP day 1 just because the developers have to eat.

why should games be immune to inflation? They were $50 new 13 years ago.

Every other medium has gotten cheaper as time progresses. When VHS tapes were introduced, some went for $100 but steadily came down. Same with CDs, DVDs etc. Why are games the exception?

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I would like to see a link. Everything I have read says that software that uses an EULA that specifically prohibits the reselling of the license is enough to prevent the reselling of that license. From my understanding all it would take is a simple EULA to get around what you are describing in the US.

Makes you wonder why they haven't simply applied a EULA to console games...

 

[Manmademan]

I'm not a heartless bastard but I'm not going to buy a bad game new, MSRP day 1 just because the developers have to eat.


Every other medium gets cheaper as time progresses. When VHS tapes were introduced, some went for $100 but steadily came down. Why are games the exception?

not true at all.

VHS isn't an accurate comparison, because those $100 tapes were priced for the rental market, not the sale market. The studios did not want to sell you vhs tapes mostly out of concern for piracy. (disney is the exception, but even they only kept their movies in print for a limited time, then took them off the market. they still do this, AFAIK). It's stupid, yes- but that was the reasoning. CD's were expensive on their introduction because the medium was not mature- and the studios were found guilty of price fixing to keep it that way.

A better analogy is the movie theatre market- as that industry is mature and prices were stable. when your parents were children, a movie ticket was ten cents. when I was a kid, it was about 4 dollars. now, it's about 10. We can also look at comic books. 25 cents in the 60s, a dollar in the 1980s, about 3 or 4 dollars today.

technology has changed a bit, but not very much. the reasoning is that the dollar is worth less for the same goods over time. This is true for any product where the market is mature. gasoline, eggs, milk, houses, cars, stamps, and yes, games. expecting the price of games to never move as your money is worth LESS is unreasonable.

 

[Cru Jones]

Your present car.

I only buy new cars when I need them (ie. my current one is causing too many problems/breaks down)

 

[jimi_dini]

If I sell a game on eBay for $50 I might use that money to go to the movies.

Oh noes. Let's ban all used sales. Because I could sell those 2 blurays and buy a game, then sell the game to get an icecream. Poor movie studios, get less money just because it's possible to sell BluRays.

You understand that this doesn't matter? One may sell a game for 50$ and then go to the movies (30$) and buy a new game (50$) as well. So where did the 50$ from the used sale went? To the movies or on a new game? publisher logic (and probably your logic) is: he obviously just used 30$ of the 50$ for movies and saved 20$. And he also spent an additional 50$ on a new game. Heh, so if we block him selling the game, someone else would have definitely bought another game for 50$.

It doesn't work that way.

this is even more damaging to pubs and console makers as the "fueling new game sales" argument is even less relevant.

Like I said - block used games, decrease the value of games and people will buy less new (or even nothing at all anymore - like me).

why should games be immune to inflation? They were $50 new 13 years ago.

I paid way more for VHS cassettes than today for BluRays. I even paid way more on DVDs than on BluRays nowadays.
And I don't even need to download updates every few weeks because their quality control sucks.

 

[Sky Chief]

I would like to see a link. Everything I have read says that software that uses an EULA that specifically prohibits the reselling of the license is enough to prevent the reselling of that license. From my understanding all it would take is a simple EULA to get around what you are describing in the US.

People have tried to affix EULA's to audio CDs and they have been deemed not legally binding due to the physical nature of the media. PC software EULA's only hold up because typically the software is completely installed onto the computer and can then be run without the need of the original physical media and the installation files can be copied making copying and piracy easy. When the copyright laws that affirmed PC EULA's were confirmed, blocking rentals of PC software, physical video game media was specifically excluded:

The Copyright Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990 amended §109(b) further to prohibit rentals of computer software for direct or indirect commercial advantage. The exception does not apply to lending of a copy by a nonprofit library for nonprofit purposes, provided the library affixes an appropriate warning. The amendment also specifically excluded:

A computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product; or

A computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

EULA's are also held up for digitally downloaded files because they always remain in "perfect" condition and there is no physical difference between a brand new mp3 or game from Steam and a used version. Furthermore, by their downloadable nature such files are easy to perfectly copy and distribute so allowing them to be resold would allow easy piracy and infringe on the copyright holder's rights. However, physical media degrades over time and has always been required to physically be in a video game console while playing the game even if the data is installed onto an internal hard drive and is therefore a very different beast.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

not true at all.

VHS isn't an accurate comparison, because those $100 tapes were priced for the rental market, not the sale market. The studios did not want to sell you vhs tapes mostly out of concern for piracy. (disney is the exception, but even they only kept their movies in print for a limited time, then took them off the market. they still do this, AFAIK). It's stupid, yes- but that was the reasoning.

A better analogy is the movie theatre market- as that industry is mature and prices were stable. when your parents were children, a movie ticket was ten cents. when I was a kid, it was about 4 dollars. now, it's about 10.

technology has changed a bit, but not very much. the reasoning is that the dollar is worth less for the same goods over time. This is true for any product where the market is mature. gasoline, eggs, milk, houses, cars, stamps, and yes, games. expecting the price of games to never move as your money is worth LESS is unreasonable.

VHS isn't an accurate comparison because it doesn't fit into your view. When VHS tapes went on sale to the public, they were more expensive at the start and got cheaper with time. DVD's followed this same pattern as will Blu-Rays.


Your analogy is inaccurate because it is comparing a product to a service.

 

[Cru Jones]

Oh noes. Let's ban all used sales. Because I could sell those 2 blurays and buy a game, then sell the game to get an icecream. Poor movie studios, get less money just because it's possible to sell BluRays.

You understand that this doesn't matter? One may sell a game for 50$ and then go to the movies (30$) and buy a new game (50$) as well. So where did the 50$ from the used sale went? To the movies or on a new game? publisher logic (and probably your logic) is: he obviously just used 30$ of the 50$ for movies and saved 20$. And he also spent an additional 50$ on a new game. Heh, so if we block him selling the game, someone else would have definitely bought another game for 50$.

It doesn't work that way.



Like I said - block used games, decrease the value of games and people will buy less new (or even nothing at all anymore - like me).

You realize that this thread is all about a scenario where used games won't get banned, but all will require an activation fee be paid right?

 

[imjust1n]

I'm not a heartless bastard but I'm not going to buy a bad game new, MSRP day 1 just because the developers have to eat.

Well If it's a bad game then that's when prices drop because no on bought it. Doesn't mean they can't eat just saying if someone buys the game the people who made the game should get a lot of credit bad game or not
Saying when you buy a used game they get nothing and you feed gamestop not the people you didn't like or liked the game.

 

[Shambles]

I think that all of the hysteria over "no more used games" may be blowing things way out of proportion. I don't think pubs/console makers are stupid enough not to see the value in the used game market driving new sales and my prediction is that the publishers have simply asked for the "online pass" system to be streamlined.

My prediction is that it will be a system where instead of having to purchase an online pass for a specific game you will instead be purchasing an online pass that can be used one time on any game. It creates an environment where GameStop can sell these online passes and only needs to maintain a single sku and would prevent the consumer from being sold a code to the wrong game.

Once the code is used, the console manufacturer would see which game it was used on and and pay out each publisher at the end of the month based on how many used game activations their games generated.

Lets say that these passes cost $10. The net effect of this would mean that instead of GameStop selling a used new release at $55 they would now instead sell it at $45 and on top of that sell you a $10 online pass (or more than likely still sell it at $55 and just provide you with an online pass making the second "online pass" sku an invisible part of the transaction to the customer, but pubs see money on the backend)

This would have a small effect on the consumer of having to enter an online code, and would drop the profit margins of GameStop on used titles.

Are we really getting up in arm over having to enter an extra code when we purchase games? Or am I misreading the situation entirely?

You really think it's Gamestops bottom line that we're all worried about?

Oh dear...

 

[Manmademan]

VHS isn't an accurate comparison because it doesn't fit into your view. When VHS tapes went on sale to the public, they were more expensive at the start and got cheaper with time. DVD's followed this same pattern as will Blu-Rays.


Your analogy is inaccurate because it is comparing a product to a service.

read my analogy again. you can't compare an immature market (VHS at it's inception, DVD at it's inception) to a mature market (videogames now, comic books now, theatre prices now). Price pressures are entirely different. It also may be worth noting that videogames were much more expensive in the early 1980s in real dollars. as the medium matured and hit mass acceptance those prices stabilized.

DVD and VHS are ALSO not good examples to use, as the box office is subsidizing the vast majority of the cost of making a movie. This isn't the case with games- 100% of the profit must be made on the sale of that game.

and you're ignoring the point- if your dollar is worth less over time- typically 2% a year: why would it be reasonable to expect the price of a game not to reflect this?

 

[Cru Jones]

People have tried to affix EULA's to audio CDs and they have been deemed not legally binding due to the physical nature of the media. PC software EULA's only hold up because typically the software is completely installed onto the computer and the installation files can be copied making copying and piracy easy. When the copyright laws that affirmed PC EULA's were confirmed blocking rentals of PC software, physical video game media was specifically excluded:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

EULA's are also held up for digitally downloaded files because they always remain in "perfect" condition and there is no physical difference between a brand new mp3 or game from Steam and a used version. Furthermore, by their downloadable nature such files are easy to perfectly copy and distribute so allowing them to be resold would allow easy piracy and infringe on the copyright holder's rights. However, physical media degrades over time and is therefore a very different beast.

You are quoting the part about rentals, not reselling.

 

[Mxrz]

If used games are gone, I figure we can kiss months later $20-$30 prices gone too. Without used games competing for shelf space, there isn't much need to clear stock. $60+ games pretty much nukes impulse purchases. I'd be left buying on a couple big titles a year.

So yeah, I'm going to uproar a lot, even if I rarely buy used.

 

[Sky Chief]

You are quoting the part about rentals, not reselling.

It doesn't really matter, almost all physical goods with very few exceptions are subject to the First Sale Doctrine. The specific laws enacted to make those exceptions specifically excluded physical media for video game consoles. Therefore video game console media under current US law is governed by the First Sale Doctrine and for the copyright owner to block resale of such media or mandate passes to be purchased to use such media would be illegal.

 

[jimi_dini]

You realize that this thread is all about a scenario where used games won't get banned, but all will require an activation fee be paid right?

Activation fee. Sounds like activation servers somewhere. That may or not get shut down.

Now you will probably say "but it's Microsoft, it's a big company, they would never shut down such servers". Oh wait, they already did some scheme like that before. And they even shut down the servers a few years later as well. They even called it "PlaysForSure". I'm not kidding.

And we also noticed the previous behaviour of Microsoft when they shut down all multiplayer games of Xbox (1). You really think they will keep them up for 30-40 years or even longer? When they are not really profitable or profitable enough? My bet is that they would shut down activation servers a few years after the previous generation ended.

Right this year, I bought Quest For Glory Anthology. I can't buy that one new, because the current right holder doesn't give a shit - and even if I did, the original developers wouldn't get a dime, why should I pay a new rights holder? And if there would have been activation servers, the games would be completely worthless now.

Like I already said - games will have less value by doing that. Say that activation code is 40$ and a new game is 60$. This means that I immediately lose 40$ right aftering putting the code in. So the game is immediately only worth 20$ at most. And additionally I'm dependant on some activation server and on my Internet connection. No thank you very much. If I wanted always on-line DRM, I would actually buy a PC.

It also may be worth noting that videogames were much more expensive in the early 1980s in real dollars. as the medium matured and hit mass acceptance those prices stabilized.

They were really expensive, because there were no CD/DVD/BluRays. There were cartridges with electronics. And that was the expensive part. CD/DVD/BluRays are really cheap to massproduce.

 

[taizuke]

I wonder do used sales numbers count? Cause i'd like to know if all these developers who cry out "used games hurt them" include the sales of used games for the all the titles they've sold.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I wonder do used sales numbers count? Cause i'd like to know if all these developers who cry out "used games hurt them" include the sales of used games for the all the titles they've sold.

Can't imagine they would. Selling a game used doesn't add another unit in circulation.

 

[Eusis]

Right this year, I bought Quest For Glory Anthology. I can't buy that one new, because the current right holder doesn't give a shit - and even if I did, the original developers wouldn't get a dime, why should I pay a new rights holder? And if there would have been activation servers, the games would be completely worthless now.

Is it the same as this? Not that it really matters, because even if that becomes available again there's games like Earthbound that seem to be trapped behind fear of legal reprisal, and if that's an imagined threat then System Shock, where some insurance company or whatever holds the copyright (or maybe just the System Shock trademark, I forget) and wants an absurd amount for it that isn't practical for just reselling old games.

It's somewhat fascinating how most people seem to be purely thinking of the short term or just the profits: "it's fine on PC because I can get an amazing discount" rather than "It's acceptable on PC because the platform is too open to potential piracy and Steam is compromising between freedom and protection", or how buying used it to just save a few bucks (I wonder how many REALLY do this) versus buying older out of print games or to sell off the games you've gotten through in order to buy new ones, thus feeding into the new market more. It's that latter reason I absolutely don't want it blocked by the way: you have to go and do a recall to get it out of retail channels, and unless it's court ordered you'd probably still have used copies lingering. To me eliminating used games is only acceptable if there's a strong guarantee of every game staying accessible for as long as is reasonable, and while I trust Steam there I'm not sure I trust Microsoft or Sony there, and Nintendo's complicated on that front.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Is it the same as this? Not that it really matters, because even if that becomes available again there's games like Earthbound that seem to be trapped behind fear of legal reprisal, and if that's an imagined threat then System Shock, where some insurance company or whatever holds the copyright (or maybe just the System Shock trademark, I forget) and wants an absurd amount for it that isn't practical for just reselling old games.

It's somewhat fascinating how most people seem to be purely thinking of the short term or just the profits: "it's fine on PC because I can get an amazing discount" rather than "It's acceptable on PC because the platform is too open to potential piracy and Steam is compromising between freedom and protection", or how buying used it to just save a few bucks (I wonder how many REALLY do this) versus buying older out of print games or to sell off the games you've gotten through in order to buy new ones, thus feeding into the new market more. It's that latter reason I absolutely don't want it blocked by the way: you have to go and do a recall to get it out of retail channels, and unless it's court ordered you'd probably still have used copies lingering. To me eliminating used games is only acceptable if there's a strong guarantee of every game staying accessible for as long as is reasonable, and while I trust Steam there I'm not sure I trust Microsoft or Sony there, and Nintendo's complicated on that front.

I think the success of Steam factored strongly into the decision making process here. If used games can be killed on the PC, then certainly it will be even easier on a closed platform like a console.

This generation we have taught the game industry that we will put up with anything and that is the wrong kind of message to send to greedy corporations.

My point is this, people need to stop saying "it's not wrong when Steam does it".

 

[Alligatorjandro]

No used games would suck.

 

[kirby_fox]

Was waiting to see if I would go PC or PS4/720 this gen.

With no used console games, I have my doubts on price cuts for games initially and the monetary requirements for entry to be high. With all of this, and a likelihood my PC can play everything for years once I upgrade the graphics card, along with games launching on Steam that I want to play.

They don't have the same kind of sales Steam has, and I doubt they'll start now when digital games are sometimes priced at the same or only a few dollars short of a disc.

 

[SpeedySwaf]

Wouldn't this hurt the rental market as well? Would Gamefly and the like be unable to rent out these kind of games?

 

[Plinko]

Wouldn't this hurt the rental market as well? Would Gamefly and the like be unable to rent out these kind of games?

Yes. Gamefly would be screwed if everyone went to this.

 

[Nizz]

Or:

"Hey, that was pretty good! I enjoyed it, but I never want play it again. I guess I'll just trade it in for somet....oh, wait."

My biggest concern. There have been some games that I was happy to have been able to trade in for credit towards another game. I always buy games new anyway, I may wait for price drops but regardless I buy new.

But not being able to trade games would suck...

 

[jimi_dini]

Is it the same as this?

I know, they even asked me some questions concerning QfG 4 bugs/patches before release.
But my Anthology was bought a few months before that and the GOG QfG wouldn't have helped me anyway, they only sell the English versions. I wanted to get the translated versions of QfG 3 and 4 as well for testing. I also never buy digital stuff even if it's without DRM, because to me it has no value. I also can't sell such games at all (how would that even be possible?). Anthology on the other hand - $$$. I also got myself Roberta Williams collection for a really great price.

It's somewhat fascinating how most people seem to be purely thinking of the short term or just the profits: "it's fine on PC because I can get an amazing discount" rather than "It's acceptable on PC because the platform is too open to potential piracy and Steam is compromising between freedom and protection"

I totally agree.

To me eliminating used games is only acceptable if there's a strong guarantee of every game staying accessible for as long as is reasonable

Reasonable for you is probably till you die. Reasonable for a publisher is probably till almost noone buys it anymore. That's why this isn't acceptable to me. And then there is the other problem: publishers/developers going broke. Digital games will get removed from store. People who bought it may still be able to download them, but that's it.

and while I trust Steam there I'm not sure I trust Microsoft or Sony there, and Nintendo's complicated on that front.

I wonder what Nintendo will do with digital games after the current generation (Wii U). Will they drop the "Wii" digital games completely and only get the "updated" Wii U digital games to next generation? Will it be possible to download those games on Wii even in 10 years? It's already really bad that it's on a specific hardware and without the help of Nintendo, you won't get them onto another Wii unless you buy them again. That's why I almost completely stay away from digital games. And the few that I bought were just a few bucks at most. That way I can't lose much. If I have to decide between download or physical release, I will always go physical.

 

[Barkley's Justice]

Has anyone talked about positive possibilities of no used games?

Such as the likelihood once you buy a game, it could be linked to your account in perpetuity? Imagine all the games from your past that you sold, or lost, or broke. Now you'll always have it and it's just a download away.

PS - I believe Sony & MS are in collusion on this.

 

[Mazzo]

For some people, being able to buy and sell used games is a really useful liberty. I can understand that, even if it doesn't concern me that much. What I can't really understand is consumers siding with the companies on this matter.

 

[TheBaldEmperor]

I didn't say you we're the only one, just that you and those like you are outliers (IMO of course). The only way to find out who is right is for this to be implemented. I think it will be and it will be interesting to see what the numbers bear out.

You have no idea if I'm an outlier or not by your own admission. You can't base an argument on your opinion with no evidence for it.

 

[Aaron Strife]

PS - I believe Sony & MS are in collusion on this.

This is what worries me. I can't imagine MS or Sony would go in alone on this unless there was some kickback from publishers (imagine MS getting COD exclusivity or something). The negative publicity alone would kill any hype for their console if the direct competitor didn't also have it.

 

[Yasae]

I am so sick of hearing about how GameStop is "exploiting" the industry. If they are then so are used car dealerships and every other form of resale ever.

They all are. It's a question of: to what extent? If you're basing an entire, high-yield business on it which is opening up stores left and right, that would tend to be more exploitative than a car dealership - unless we want to talk about a repo lot, which is intended to screw every customer who walks in.

There are also considerably more factors with buying cars than compared to buying games. A disc is a disc is a disc. A car? Will it run? AC/Heat? Need new belts? Transmission? Etc etc etc and all sorts of expensive repairs potentially. There's really none - zero - of that incentive to buying a game new besides supporting the dev and publisher.

The solution isn't to cut out all used game sales, it's some other kind of mitigating factor which basically ends up in Gamestop making a bit less money than it typically has. That's the fix. Nobody's going to go along with it.

 

[Eusis]

My point is this, people need to stop saying "it's not wrong when Steam does it".

Except that completely ignores my damn point about the nature of PC gaming. This a platform where you can download the games, or use a disc copier to copy a disc, and just straight up install and run the game if it has no protective measures against that, or a crack usually if it does. This openness also allows modding and the like (which is why people get angry when that actively gets blocked), but it's why it's different on PC: used games simply can not exist in the same fashion in today's market, as much as I'd like to be able to just get every game and use it without any DRM getting in the way. And it's not as if Steam came up with the idea of no used games: we were getting CD keys for years, questions that required the manual or other including materials since the 80s, and around the time Steam started to take off publishers were using Securom with limited activations and even the capability to keep dialing home to prove it was authentic. Steam's just a compromise with those shitty alternatives that at least on a light level were necessary to prevent stupidly easy piracy.

Consoles don't get this excuse, all but the oldest disc systems (PC Engine/Turbo Grafx CD and Mega/Sega CD) will refuse a CD-R/DVD-R/bluray-R (is that what they're called?) unless an exploit is found or the system modded, and the same goes for downloading anything more than a demo online. It's a closed garden, they can find better ways to protect against piracy than blocking used copies entirely and especially always online bullshit.

Reasonable for you is probably till you die. Reasonable for a publisher is probably till almost noone buys it anymore. That's why this isn't acceptable to me. And then there is the other problem: publishers/developers going broke. Digital games will get removed from store. People who bought it may still be able to download them, but that's it.

Yeah, it's why my ideal probably wouldn't actually be done by the platform holders, something gives and they just drop support as being inconvenient. Steam looks to be the best, but for all we know a worst case scenario could unfold and Microsoft fucks everything up (though that would hit almost all of PC gaming, not just Steam), and either way there's still the problem of publishers folding or right problems cropping up, or worst of all publishers acting on a whim (Sonic 2006 is hated, we're pulling it from DD period.)

I wonder what Nintendo will do with digital games after the current generation (Wii U). Will they drop the "Wii" digital games completely and only get the "updated" Wii U digital games to next generation? Will it be possible to download those games on Wii even in 10 years? It's already really bad that it's on a specific hardware and without the help of Nintendo, you won't get them onto another Wii unless you buy them again. That's why I almost completely stay away from digital games. And the few that I bought were just a few bucks at most. That way I can't lose much. If I have to decide between download or physical release, I will always go physical.

Well, the fact the Wii Shop is accessible on the Wii U and DSi games are on the eShop helps a lot, but there is that problem of being tied to the hardware, nevermind that the Wii Shop isn't naturally integrated with the Wii U. It's why I said it's complicated, Nintendo's actually really good in some areas, but awful in others, and they seem to not care about BC past a certain point in a generation (I'm hoping this isn't the case for Wii U given all the accessories work and are expected to an extent and there doesn't seem to be much needed hardware-wise, but I guess they could kill the SD Card and drop support entirely anyway.)

 

[Cru Jones]

You have no idea if I'm an outlier or not by your own admission. You can't base an argument on your opinion with no evidence for it.

Exactly, which is why we are having a discussion about it. I am postulating one theory and you are postulating one to the contrary. You can certainly base an argument on a hypothesis (you and I are BOTH doing this in this thread). We can't possibly know what the outcome will be until we have some data that bears this out. We'll have to wait and see once this gets implemented. With that being said, I have a feeling that MS and Sony wouldn't implement this without doing a cost-benefit analysis. If they do implement it, one could reasonably assume that they believe that the revenue from implementing a system such as the one that i described in the OP would greatly outweigh the loss from people such as yourself who would stop buying as many games.

What it boils down to is this:

1) if they implement this system, it would be safe to assume that they have the same conclusion as myself, that you and those like you are outliers.

2) If they don't implement this system, it would be safe to assume that you are correct in that you are in the majority and it would adversely affect them.

However, them implementing it would only confirm that they agree with me. It doesn't mean that the theory we're putting forth is true. We would have to wait and see how much the industry grows/shrinks without it.

 

[Yasae]

Is it the same as this? Not that it really matters, because even if that becomes available again there's games like Earthbound that seem to be trapped behind fear of legal reprisal, and if that's an imagined threat then System Shock, where some insurance company or whatever holds the copyright (or maybe just the System Shock trademark, I forget) and wants an absurd amount for it that isn't practical for just reselling old games.

It's somewhat fascinating how most people seem to be purely thinking of the short term or just the profits: "it's fine on PC because I can get an amazing discount" rather than "It's acceptable on PC because the platform is too open to potential piracy and Steam is compromising between freedom and protection", or how buying used it to just save a few bucks (I wonder how many REALLY do this) versus buying older out of print games or to sell off the games you've gotten through in order to buy new ones, thus feeding into the new market more. It's that latter reason I absolutely don't want it blocked by the way: you have to go and do a recall to get it out of retail channels, and unless it's court ordered you'd probably still have used copies lingering. To me eliminating used games is only acceptable if there's a strong guarantee of every game staying accessible for as long as is reasonable, and while I trust Steam there I'm not sure I trust Microsoft or Sony there, and Nintendo's complicated on that front.

Those cheap games have probably contributed to less piracy (to whatever measurable degree). I mean at five bucks, what's the point anymore?

It's more of a "good enough" compromise to me than "it's perfectly acceptable here's my money Gabe" sort of proposition. PC users aren't excusing it, but they are being realistic, and so are the Steam devs, and - shockingly - those two things seem to result in sales and rapport all around.

The only good arguments I can find against Steam anymore are:

- It's still DRM. When Steam is unavailable or your net is down, you actually can't play any game activated with it even when you choose offline mode (you have to choose offline mode, restart Steam, then it gives you 30 days or so to play like that - you have to anticipate your offline status, which makes absolutely no sense)

- Games have no resale value. Yep. But do any of my used PC copies have much resale value let alone relevance now? This is the market we're in and the advantages generally outweigh the costs.

I think the success of Steam factored strongly into the decision making process here. If used games can be killed on the PC, then certainly it will be even easier on a closed platform like a console.

This generation we have taught the game industry that we will put up with anything and that is the wrong kind of message to send to greedy corporations.

My point is this, people need to stop saying "it's not wrong when Steam does it".

Killing used games on the PC was like stomping on a ladybug, though. We all knew the internet DD future would happen sometime. Now we're in it and the consoles are just catching up. Unless MS or Sony can pull a rabbit out of their collective hats, we won't have the same experience on these next consoles.

 

[Sanctuary]

Its basically people upset they can't sell their games back, or buy cheap used games. It IS a big cry session for nothing, though

Not it isn't. Just because you are willing to pay full price for every single game that you have any interest in doesn't mean the rest of us have that kind of disposable income at all times. I don't care so much about reselling as I do buying a game that I was on the fence on maybe years later when it still hasn't gone down in price buying it new.

Rentals are also a pretty big deal, especially if you like action games, but don't feel that $60 is worth the price of a game you know you'll only play once and most likely never again. This also kills off ANY ability for you to loan games to friends who might actually end up buying into the series while they might not have otherwise.

 

[orznge]

And guess what, consoles are sold at a loss and those losses are made up from licensing fees for each new game sold. You and those like you, from a publisher and console manufacturers point of view, are leeches who purchase a console and bring the pubs/console manufacturers nothing but losses. You are a perfect example of why they want to implement this system in the first place and I can't blame them. The idea that publishers will go out of business without this type of customer couldn't be further from the truth. They will be more profitable if they either weed you out or are able to monetize your kind through online passes and the like.

lol

 

[Cru Jones]

It doesn't really matter, almost all physical goods with very few exceptions are subject to the First Sale Doctrine. The specific laws enacted to make those exceptions specifically excluded physical media for video game consoles. Therefore video game console media under current US law is governed by the First Sale Doctrine and for the copyright owner to block resale of such media or mandate passes to be purchased to use such media would be illegal.

Read the wikipedia entry again. It completely matters. The three items that have been shown in the US to dictate whether or not a license protects the copyright owner from the First Sales Doctrine are as follows:

1) whether copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license;
2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software to others; and
3) whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions on the software.

The reason that things like CDs aren't protected even if there is a EULA is because they don't comply with point number two. However, a system that we are talking about would explicitly bring console games into compliance with the three items above needed to avoid the first sales doctrine.

Admittedly, the EU is different and maybe they won't be able to implement this there, but I am sure they'll use it in whatever territories they are able to.

 

[Sky Chief]

Except that completely ignores my damn point about the nature of PC gaming. This a platform where you can download the games, or use a disc copier to copy a disc, and just straight up install and run the game if it has no protective measures against that, or a crack usually if it does. This openness also allows modding and the like (which is why people get angry when that actively gets blocked), but it's why it's different on PC: used games simply can not exist in the same fashion in today's market, as much as I'd like to be able to just get every game and use it without any DRM getting in the way. And it's not as if Steam came up with the idea of no used games: we were getting CD keys for years, questions that required the manual or other including materials since the 80s, and around the time Steam started to take off publishers were using Securom with limited activations and even the capability to keep dialing home to prove it was authentic. Steam's just a compromise with those shitty alternatives that at least on a light level were necessary to prevent stupidly easy piracy.

Consoles don't get this excuse, all but the oldest disc systems (PC Engine/Turbo Grafx CD and Mega/Sega CD) will refuse a CD-R/DVD-R/bluray-R (is that what they're called?) unless an exploit is found or the system modded, and the same goes for downloading anything more than a demo online. It's a closed garden, they can find better ways to protect against piracy than blocking used copies entirely and especially always online bullshit.

Thank you, fantastic post! This is also the foundation of the reason why IMO blocking the sale of used physical media for a console would be illegal. First Sale Doctrin laws have allowed for special exceptions for PC software due to the open nature of PCs but has never allowed for the same exception for physical video game console media or any other physical good or media.

 

[orznge]

it's still funny to me that there's a sizable portion of users on this website who are literally completely incapable of viewing anything related to video games through a lens other than Finance or Laws

 

[lordchompy]

For reference, one can look at the PC market, and specifically at Steam and think: it's all gravy now with the streamlined service and added convenience of not having to bother with discs, but what happens when Valve is no longer around? What happens to all your games then? Companies are not eternal.

About a year or two ago, I spent quite a bit and bought a ton of games during a Steam sale, but somewhere along the line I asked myself: sure I have 50 games I can download at any time, but when I'm no longer playing them what do I have to show for it?

It's kind of the same thing that happened when I bought a Kindle and then went right back to buying hard copy books.

Before you know it we'll all be "plugged in" to the system Matrix-style and we'll forget what it's like to actually hold something in your hand. /end hyperbole.

 

[jimi_dini]

- Games have no resale value. Yep. But do any of my used PC copies have much resale value let alone relevance now? This is the market we're in and the advantages generally outweigh the costs.

Depends on the game of course, the print run (normally First Press is worth much more than a reprint, especially for older games where it really mattered) and the condition. Like I previously said - Sierra + LucasArts games for example fetch a pretty good price on eBay most of the time and you need to be really lucky to get a lower price. And low means higher than current games on sale.

Just check out this used game for FM Towns. And don't say that noone would buy it at that price, because actually people do.