Sony joins EA and Ubisoft in considering limitations on used games

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm still not sure I understand the distinction. If I buy sports equipment, that allows me the privilege of enjoying the experience of that particular sport.

That experience is created by you. Sports equipment is the tool to enable you to create for yourself, but the hours invested in creating that experience comes from your hours. If every hour of you playing tennis required someone else to put in an hour of making tennis racquets, you'd pay them by the hour, just as you'd pay a trainer by-the-hour to train you.

For this last point, I say if you are going to invest heavily into a product with an established market, you should probably make sure you can turn a profit in that market. If you take a huge risk, be prepared for failure...
In all of this argument, do you think that the price of games from Sony or EA or Ubisoft will drop because of their diminished resale value...

And this is way the argument just spins around, because alternative ways of thinking just can't be considered. Nothing in my example had anything to do with amount of profit. Every example followed the principle that a spectator is expected to pay for the experience no matter how that experience is packaged. You haven't addressed that principle at all, only falling back on economic principles based on the current open market that we have. At the end of the day a person's siding in this argument has nothing to do with right or wrong, but matters of wealth and greed. If an artist is stupidly rich, people won't care about distributing their work for free. If an artist is incredibly poor, they'll be most upset by those who redistribute their work and enjoy it without them getting anything. Spectators will side for and against these parties not by principle but by whatever sense of fairness or unfairness they feel is in effect.

At the end of the day, any resort to economic arguments ends all such debate anyhow because it's self-regulating. There are no complaints to be made about how these companies try to make the most money they can, as the free market is free to support it or not as they choose. Companies will try to squeeze as much money as possible from everyone; consumers will try to get as much for free as they can without reimbursing those who make it; and everyone's caught up in the middle lamenting a lack of support one minute and denying suport for someone else the next.

 

[-tkf-]

Direct to video movies... should they charge twice the amount because they never ran in the cinemas?

It´s very easy, let them try to charge extra for multiplayer/online stuff and they will loose money. And if we let them do this, next step is a monthly fee.

 

[eastmen]

But game developers don't write code every time we want to play a game do they?

Games are just like movies or music, you have every right to sell CD's or DVD's that you don't want, and I don't recall the movie and music industries complaining about used DVD/CD sales.

However, if you go see a play or a concert, you pay for admittance, since you're paying for that night's performance. Unfortunately there is no equivalent of a Play or a Concert, nor a Theatrical release in the gaming world (although arcades could have been considered the equivalent of Movie Theaters in the late 80s, early 90s), so software developers don't have such avenues of revenue generation. On the other hand, games provide many hours of entertainment compared to movies or music and cost more.

Games arn't like movies or music. You don' have the right to record a movie in thearters to watch at home.you don't have the right to go to a concert and record it fo home use.

Movies haev multiple revune streams. You have the thearter , you have dvd/bluray , you then have on demand /dd , rentals and then premium cable sales (hbo pays o show the movies , tbs will pay fr anexclusive ) Music has cd sales , concert sales and liscencing the music for movies and comercials.

I don't think its vaild to compare games to these mediums. By the time a movie hits dvd the movie has already brought in multiple revenue streams in which to recoup profits.

WHen you think of this $10 charge to play online with a used game , think of it as the 8
months between when a movie finishes its thearter run and comes out on bluray. They did that so they can make money on pay per view and other forms of revenue before you can buy it and no longer care about seeing it when you can. Its the same concept.

If your going to complain about this then you should complain about the bluray verison of the movie and the tv verison of the movie not releasing the same day as it comes out in thearters.

 

[Scott_Arm]

That experience is created by you. Sports equipment is the tool to enable you to create for yourself, but the hours invested in creating that experience comes from your hours. If every hour of you playing tennis required someone else to put in an hour of making tennis racquets, you'd pay them by the hour, just as you'd pay a trainer by-the-hour to train you.

And this is way the argument just spins around, because alternative ways of thinking just can't be considered. Nothing in my example had anything to do with amount of profit. Every example followed the principle that a spectator is expected to pay for the experience no matter how that experience is packaged. You haven't addressed that principle at all, only falling back on economic principles based on the current open market that we have. At the end of the day a person's siding in this argument has nothing to do with right or wrong, but matters of wealth and greed. If an artist is stupidly rich, people won't care about distributing their work for free. If an artist is incredibly poor, they'll be most upset by those who redistribute their work and enjoy it without them getting anything. Spectators will side for and against these parties not by principle but by whatever sense of fairness or unfairness they feel is in effect.

At the end of the day, any resort to economic arguments ends all such debate anyhow because it's self-regulating. There are no complaints to be made about how these companies try to make the most money they can, as the free market is free to support it or not as they choose. Companies will try to squeeze as much money as possible from everyone; consumers will try to get as much for free as they can without reimbursing those who make it; and everyone's caught up in the middle lamenting a lack of support one minute and denying suport for someone else the next.

Well, trying to come up with a way to sell and monetize games while completely ignoring the economy of the industry seems kind of silly. I'm not making any argument based on how rich or poor the devs are. If I can sell a game for $10 less than before because it is lacking features as I transfer it, then that game is worth $10 less to me.

In principle I don't have anything against trying to make a living by monetizing work. That's what EA, Sony, THQ and Ubisoft are trying to do, and I understand that. But I also don't have any objections, in principle, to selling a game to someone else. What I have a problem with is the characterizations that people who buy games are somehow equivalent to software pirates who are returning nothing to the industry. Does that make me a "bad" gamer for selling my games to other people? Am I supporting an industry ruining practice? I don't think so. The industry has always existed alongside a used market. Why are used games suddenly a problem? Will I be happy about buying a product that has resale restrictions that do not exist with other products? Not really.

The movie industry and the music industry are both trying to limit consumer use of their products in an attempt to increase revenues. The problem is, their huge losses are mostly a result of their terrible business practices. The golden age of music sales existed alongside used sales. I didn't hear anyone complaining back then. Video game publishers dump huge amounts of money into high risk games. If they don't want to lose money, then maybe they should evaluate how they spend their money rather than devaluing the product they sell to their consumers.

There is absolutely no difference between buying a game and buying a golf club. There really isn't. I buy a golf club to play golf, not to own a golf club. I buy a game to play the game, not to own the physical disc. I can sell a golf club to whomever I choose with no restrictions. Why are games different?

 

[corduroygt]

I don't think its vaild to compare games to these mediums. By the time a movie hits dvd the movie has already brought in multiple revenue streams in which to recoup profits.

Games also have extra revenue streams from DLC, not to mention they cost a whole lot more than blu-rays to begin with!

WHen you think of this $10 charge to play online with a used game , think of it as the 8
months between when a movie finishes its thearter run and comes out on bluray.

If they give me the game for $50 and then add a $10 charge for online, I'm fine with that. There are very few games that are fun to play online, so I'd save money. The Theater-to-Bluray window is nowhere near 8 months though, it's more like 3-4 months these days.

If your going to complain about this then you should complain about the bluray verison of the movie and the tv verison of the movie not releasing the same day as it comes out in thearters.

What about direct to video movies?

 

[AntShaw]

Mike Masnick over at TechDirt chimes in on how silly of an argument this all is:

On the law, Ledesma and others should familiarize themselves with the First Sale doctrine before making silly statements. On economics, repeated studies have shown that a healthy secondary market for products actually significantly helps the primary market. If you take more than a second and a half to think about it, it's easy to understand why. If there's a healthy secondary market for products, it reduces the risk for the buyers in the primary market. That is, if they buy the product and don't like it, they know they'll be able to resell it and recoup some of their losses. That makes it effectively cheaper for them to buy the primary product, increasing the number of sales. On top of that, the secondary market also helps in markets like video games in acting as a good way to segment the market, and get new buyers into a game or series of games. I'm sure many of the folks who are now buyers in the primary market, at one time purchased an earlier game in a series used. How is it that so many video gaming execs have so much trouble recognizing these basic concepts?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/11142810761.shtml

To think these markets are hurting developers is a pretty long stretch.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Heh I think we've had this discussion multiple times over the years and I bet that nobody has changed their minds no matter how much we talk about this

I'm not a huge fan of used games business, because it creates a situation where everybody else besides the creators can benefit hugely. Gamestop can sell one copy for ten different times, and the revenue stream is messed up there. I'm fine with publishers doing just about anything, that quarantees them to be the biggest money receiver per item sold.

I do however think that in the end, it might not really increase their bottom line. I think someone said something about people not bying new games with the money they get from selling used games, but I think most of that money does go to gaming related purchases, and if you take that money away, it should automatically mean less sales volume for new games, atleast if the pricing doesn't correlate with the value loss when losing the ability to resell. It's not logical to assume that people would buy as much with less money.

Still it's evident where the future will take us. Publishers will increasingly take action to make used games less appealing and will make it so that they get their cut from every player, there's no question about it whether we like it or not.

 

[eastmen]

Games also have extra revenue streams from DLC, not to mention they cost a whole lot more than blu-rays to begin with!

Except DLC is new to this generation and does not generate the revenue that movies or bluray/dvd sales do.

Think of it. You go to a movie its now $18 by me to see a 3d movie an $11 . It may not be as much as a game but then again the amount of movie watchers is far greater than gamers and the amoun of time invested in a game is far greater than a movie and thus more people can experiance multiple movies in a week or a month time frame.

If they give me the game for $50 and then add a $10 charge for online, I'm fine with that. There are very few games that are fun to play online, so I'd save money. The Theater-to-Bluray window is nowhere near 8 months though, it's more like 3-4 months these days.

They give you the game and don't charge anything for online. So i don't see the problem. Once you buy used its no longer thier responsibility to set the prices. So if you buy it used for $55 and then they charge $10 for an online code to play it online then the egg is on your face because you should have bought it new.

If $10 for onlne after the single use code devalues the game to the point where its no longer getting you $40 back a month later , then you adjust the price to where it can sell again. If not then adjust your buying practices.

What about direct to video movies?

What about it ? It has a lower budget and isn't expected to sell as well.

Its akin to lower budget games or xbox arcade.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well, trying to come up with a way to sell and monetize games while completely ignoring the economy of the industry seems kind of silly.

I hope you appreciate I wasn't really arguing in favour of that or any economic aspects to this debate. There are all sorts of arguments that can be made for or against trying to control secondary sales and how that impacts profits, none of which I'm involved in! My position in this debate is only in a (forlorn!) attempt to identify what constitutes 'fair', that this would not be unfair practice any more than selling anything with a huge markup is. That is, there's nothing fair about free-market economics and it's all about competing forces trying to get the best for themselves.

There is absolutely no difference between buying a game and buying a golf club. There really isn't. I buy a golf club to play golf, not to own a golf club. I buy a game to play the game, not to own the physical disc. I can sell a golf club to whomever I choose with no restrictions. Why are games different?

Well I don't think I can explain it in any more ways that will make a difference. I understand what you're saying, but IMO there's more than just possessions here. From an economic POV, buying a golf club is no different to buying a theatre ticket, in that it is a portion of your money spent for entertainment purposes. From the creation aspect, the creators of the club build a thing which you'll use time and again to supply yourself with entertainment, while the theatrical players provide you with no things, only an experience. If you see game developers as manufacturers of things like golf-club makers instead of as creators of experiences like theatrical performers, then yes, buying a disc with a game on it will seem the same in principle as buying a metal stick or TV.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I hope you appreciate I wasn't really arguing in favour of that or any economic aspects to this debate. There are all sorts of arguments that can be made for or against trying to control secondary sales and how that impacts profits, none of which I'm involved in! My position in this debate is only in a (forlorn!) attempt to identify what constitutes 'fair', that this would not be unfair practice any more than selling anything with a huge markup is. That is, there's nothing fair about free-market economics and it's all about competing forces trying to get the best for themselves.

Well I don't think I can explain it in any more ways that will make a difference. I understand what you're saying, but IMO there's more than just possessions here. From an economic POV, buying a golf club is no different to buying a theatre ticket, in that it is a portion of your money spent for entertainment purposes. From the creation aspect, the creators of the club build a thing which you'll use time and again to supply yourself with entertainment, while the theatrical players provide you with no things, only an experience. If you see game developers as manufacturers of things like golf-club makers instead of as creators of experiences like theatrical performers, then yes, buying a disc with a game on it will seem the same in principle as buying a metal stick or TV.

I think buying a game is like buying a golf club, or a toy and not similar to paying to see a live performance. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree since we see the product as fundamentally different things.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think buying a game is like buying a golf club, or a toy and not similar to paying to see a live performance.

Yes, buying a game is like buying a toy, but do you consider game developers like manufacturers of toys or like stage players? If you can see the latter, than you can see there is a case for securing revenue from second-hand sales for the creators, even if that's a case you end up disagreeing with.

 

[BRiT]

Not only that but in the case of Gamestop they will give you $400 for the bike a month old or less then turn around and sell it for $800.

Can you put that into a car analogy for us?

Spoiler

It's exactly what auto shops do with taking trade-ins and selling used cars.

 

[-tkf-]

Yes, buying a game is like buying a toy, but do you consider game developers like manufacturers of toys or like stage players? If you can see the latter, than you can see there is a case for securing revenue from second-hand sales for the creators, even if that's a case you end up disagreeing with.

Then i would ask how come we never ever considered them stage players before? Because they aren´t.

The product is sold as a "one off" and as time goes by it loses value and ends up being worthless. Even more so now where the main value is often in online play, and when the servers die, the game dies. If it really was comparable to theater, movies or music then the games, like good music, movies and theater plays, it would live forever.

Very few games does this, it´s a short lived product that the creators want to maximize profit for. If that means they want to charge for the online part, then cool. Just call it by it´s name, an online fee. And then they have to understand the consequences will be many, and more money isn´t one of them.

 

[corduroygt]

Except DLC is new to this generation and does not generate the revenue that movies or bluray/dvd sales do.

Movies also generally cost more than games to make as well.

If $10 for onlne after the single use code devalues the game to the point where its no longer getting you $40 back a month later , then you adjust the price to where it can sell again. If not then adjust your buying practices.

Precisely, if I know a game does that (and if I care about its online capability), I'll just wait until it's $10 less, probably a month after release and buy it. I never go to gamestop, I don't like getting ripped off.

 

[eastmen]

Movies also generally cost more than games to make as well.

films have less middle men. It normaly goes studio - thearter and the thearter makes very little profit . I believe for the first two weeks its 90% studio / 10% thearter. They sell popcon ands snacks at crazy high prices to profit. Meanwhile gamestop takes a bigger cut nd there is packaging and shipping to think about on the gae side. By the time a game get to that point it aleady made money at the thearter , the pay per view/on demand/whatever you want to call it. Then it goes to retail on blury/dvd however its already had two chances to pofit that games do not. Then after disc based sales the movies get money from premium channels ike hbo and then networks like fox five and others. And lets not forget hat each time a new home medium comes out they can spend very little and re-relese the title , there really isn't anything like that for games although they are tryng.

Games have also aproached movie costs. Movies generaly range from 20-100m with few cases costing less or more than that Game seem to be resting in the 10-40m range with some costng less and more thn that. Games of course have fewer revenue streams.

Precisely, if I know a game does that (and if I care about its online capability), I'll just wait until it's $10 less, probably a month after release and buy it. I never go to gamestop, I don't like getting ripped off.

So whats the problem?

I've hear so many arguments against , but all industrys are moving this way.The book industry is diing and movingto ebooks to try and cu t costs and stop the used market. The music industry is movin to DD in which you can't resell your songs and even the used car market has figured out ways around this as they now have cerfitifed preowned services .

I don't see the problem. This is a way for devs to get used buyers to invest money back to developers o make more games and content. I can understand if they were charging insane prices for these things like $30-$40 mark ups for the onlne portion. But $10 is not a huge amount of money and gamestop andsmall sellers can and will absorb the cost. Instead of MW 3 selling for $55 a week after release it will sell fo $50.

Would you be mad if The new call of duty comes out at $40 for single player only and then you had to buy the multiplayer for $20 through xbox live or psn so you can play online ? But it requires the disc to play it so your stuck buying both ?

 

[Scott_Arm]

Yes, buying a game is like buying a toy, but do you consider game developers like manufacturers of toys or like stage players? If you can see the latter, than you can see there is a case for securing revenue from second-hand sales for the creators, even if that's a case you end up disagreeing with.

I see the former, not the latter. There is absolutely no connection in my mind between performers and game studios.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Then i would ask how come we never ever considered them stage players before?

Because everything's taken at face value and no-one sits down and really thinks about things, exploring deeper relationships between ideas. Scott's right that buying a game is like buying a toy. After comparing products and what we get with our money and how we use it, that's a logical connection to make that games are similar to toys, and we can stop there. But if we go on further and consider the origins of the work instead of the outcomes, using the same comparison method we can compare the work of a development team with the work of a toy manufacturer and the work of a theatre group. Which are they most similar too? Are there even any differences between the two? What if the answers to such questions contradict the current thinking and there are two valid yet opposed lines of thought that exist concurrently? Then things get complicated, so perhaps it's better to avoid such questions.

The product is sold as a "one off" and as time goes by it loses value and ends up being worthless. Even more so now where the main value is often in online play, and when the servers die, the game dies. If it really was comparable to theater, movies or music then the games, like good music, movies and theater plays, it would live forever.

That's not a valid argument. Theatre doesn't live for ever. A show is over the night it's played, and has to be recreated. Music comes and goes - there are thousands and thousands of songs from the ages that are never played or will never be heard again. Some golden oldies last for ages, being recreated on different mediums. Games can last in that way, with a few fans appreciating a historic title. And retro gaming means we are recreating games of old for new systems; I was playing Golden Axe 3 just the other day in a SEGA collection on PS3, a game bought again on a new medium, giving money to the creators for their creation despite having already given the first time it was released, and yet without complaint from teh buyer. Games are no different to movies or shows or music except in distribution mechanics.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I see the former, not the latter. There is absolutely no connection in my mind between performers and game studios.

Thanks for actually answering the question!

 

[upnorthsox]

Is multiplayer an extended service or is it the core element of the game? To be honest, I think a lot of games have offline modes as a secondary experience.

Is online contained within the box you bought and claim is yours to do whatever you want with or is it an extended service of the game provided by the developer that requires the game in hand to access? How is this any different than a cable box or the ticket that gets you into a movie? What a game might offer is irrelevant to the topic of what you own when you make a purchase and what you can resell, if it's not in hand you don't own it and is not transferable unless the service bearer is willing to recognize that transference..

 

[NathansFortune]

I think this a great idea. GameStop and such are all a bunch of scam artists who buy up barely used copies of games for $30 and sell them next to new copies one week after release for $54.99 while blaming publishers for 'strict pricing rules on new games that force them to sell at $59.99'. GameStop, GAME, and such can go and die in a fire for all I care. The best companies I have come across for used content in the UK are CEX, HMV and (surprisingly) Tesco. They consistently offer better trade in and sale prices. A friend of mine took in 9 360 and PS3 games to GAME and they offered him £39 credit, he went to HMV and they offered of £91 credit.

Another idea I would be open to is a price reduction on the game itself at retail to £35 from £45 and they sell the online component to people who want to play. I honestly don't bother with online for most games (Killzone 2 and Halo 3 excepted) and would love the discount on new games.